~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link
As a chess player, I'm so goddamn sick of people psychoanalyzing chess. There's no deep lesson here. The king moves one way and the queen moves another way. The queen's strength is being mobile and the king's only relative strength is that he can castle and she cannot. There's no analogy to be made with real life here.
They could have made the king the mobile one and the queen to be protected and then we'd still have a psychoanalytic story about how chess is so red pill. Same goes with if they replaced the light and dark square bishop and could only move diagonally. Chess is iconic so everyone thinks there's some deep analogy to make. There's a lot to learn from the game in terms of planning, working with perfect information, perseverance, decision making etc. but none of chess's actual lessons are goofy psychoanalytic analogies.
[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You have to position all of your pieces(interactions) without revealing your final intent
Not really how chess is played. Chess is generally played that you make only the moves that you'd make if you had to tell you're opponent everything you know and all of your plans and you should assume that your opponent already knows all of your ideas. There's no deception of any kind in chess, at least when it's played at a high level.
[–]EnterPseudonym 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
People just create/write shit, and then let other people put the meaning behind it. Andy Warhol did this to great effect. He let everyone else do the work for him.
[–]sloth_with_a_44 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
Interestingly enough, I don't think being a chess player really helps you grasp how the game's core postulates correlate to the red pill concepts that stem from them. Quite the opposite, in fact. I don't disagree with some of what you said, but I also think you all-around miss the points. Are things the way that you speculate they could potentially be? Or is the game played how it's played and won for a reason? Do you want to win or lose? Questions we all must answer for ourselves, I suppose. Good luck man
[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I don't think being a chess player really helps you grasp how the game's core postulates correlate to the red pill concepts that stem from them.
Here's how: It not only exposes you to but gives you front row seats to every genius who thinks he's come up with something original by psychoanalyzing chess.
[–]sloth_with_a_44 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
There's nothing original here. All we do here at TRP is remind each other of the truths that never change. Like I said, after the fact it occurred to me that some of my TRP friends might benefit from this particular analysis. You deliberately mistake intent, to try to build a soap box? I dare say you don't belong here, but you sound convicted so towards the benefit of all I will choose to say nothing beyond this. Again, good luck.
[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
There's nothing original here. All we do here at TRP is remind each other of the truths that never change.
Of course there is, just not in this post.
[–]sloth_with_a_44 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
.. what exactly did you think I was referring to when I chose the word "here"? I'm not interested in an argument, but this I've gotta hear. Break it down /u/CisWhiteMaelstrom, what on earth are you even talking about? You officially lost me
[–]CoriolanusRevisited2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
In terms of life lessons, no-limit hold 'em mirrors real world competition in far better ways, primarily because so little is certain in poker (just as in life).
Poker requires you to compete against multiple opponents simultaneously, analyze probability, and most importantly there are times when you are crushed through no fault of your own and the only 'good' solution is the one that minimizes your own defeat (ie losing the least chips when you have the 2nd nuts and are beat). Poker mirrors the business world in that way, when you will almost never have perfect information, and every single move is calculated in terms of other peoples' psychological profiles, rather than just an objectively 'best' move.
[–]sloth_with_a_44 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No doubt, man. Thanks for taking the time to imput with quality.
[–]ston3cold0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Poker really is awesome in so many ways. Decision-making under uncertainty is a really valuable skill IRL! Not only to make the best decision, but to understand failures as well!
[–]usul16280 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The thing I hate about no limit hold em is everyone plays it exclusively. Having to invent and adapt strategy on the fly makes playing lots of variants fun and rewarding. Much more chaotic and much more rewarding if you are good at reading or influencing people.
[–]justtookit1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Chess is just the medieval video game.
It helps you think logically, causally, and spatially. But it has no other application other than as a diversion. You can fall down the rabbit hole and spend way too much time on it. The probability space is so large, you will easily be lost in it, and die never having seen 1% of it. Computers will always do better than you. Even if you're the best at it, almost nobody cares. Exactly like a video game.
That's exactly what it's worth. Decide if that's worth your time.
Perfect information vs. incomplete information is very different from your average video game...
But yes, you're right. A while back there even was a study that concluded that chess skills do not translate into real world strategic thinking. It's still a fine game though!
[–]Grainslol 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The game was invented in the middle ages and its purpose was to teach war strategy. Teleology was everything in the pre-enlightenment world. That being said, I love chess. I'm glad there's a discussion about it.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 13 points14 points15 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points | Copy Link
[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]EnterPseudonym 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sloth_with_a_44 -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]sloth_with_a_44 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]sloth_with_a_44 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CoriolanusRevisited2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]sloth_with_a_44 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ston3cold0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]usul16280 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]justtookit1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ston3cold0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Grainslol 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link