The Instigator
tvellalott
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Chess is the best board game

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
vardas0antras
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,681 times Debate No: 14206
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

tvellalott

Pro

Hello everyone,

Today's resolution will be "that chess is the best board game".
I will be arguing in support of this resolution.

My opponent, good luck to whoever it is, will select one board game and post it in round one, without any arguments. It will be their burdon of prove that that game is superior to chess and mine to prove that chess is the better game.
I would rather we didn't vote for ourselves, except in the event that the other person flakes out in the last round and the debate doesn't show up on the main page. That would be acceptable.

By accepting this debate, you accept these terms, which I think are reasonable and fair.

The debate will begin in round two.
vardas0antras

Con

I choose "Monopoly, here and now : THE WORLD EDITION".
http://www.iqtoys.com.au...

I wish good luck to my opponent and that will be all.
Cheerio.
Debate Round No. 1
tvellalott

Pro

Thank you to my opponent. I had a feeling whoever it was would chose Monopoly.

First of all, I'm going to use Chess and Monopoly related terms in this debate.
Please familiarise yourself with the games, if you aren't already:
CHESS: http://www.chess.com...
MONOPOLY: http://www.ehow.com...

ARGUMENT ONE: Stimulation
Chess is completely skill based. Monopoly is largely chance based. This means that Chess is constantly stimulating, allowing for game after game to be played in a row (even against the same person) and have different games every single time. Monopoly is stagnant in this way. Whoever gets houses on the most expensive properties almost inevitably wins.

ARGUMENT TWO: Language barrier
One doesn't have to speak the same language as their opponent to play against them in Chess. Essentially anyone can play anyone.

ARGUMENT THREE: Time
Both games have the same basic goal: To put your opponent in a position where they cannot win. In Monopoly, this is done by bankrupting all your opponents; in Chess, by ‘mating' your opponent (either by stalemate or checkmate.)
The difference is how long it takes to do this.
In chess, you can apply time limits, depending on the taste of the players. This allows for a quick game, perhaps taking less than a few minutes. Even played normally, chess only takes 15-45 minutes. The same can't be said of Monopoly, which is a significant investment of time, often taking hours to complete. One could put time constraints on it, but I fail to see how the will reduce the playing time of the game.

SUMMARY
Chess is a skilful game that can be played by anyone without the barrier of language. One never stops improving their chess game, meaning there is infinite replayability. With the use of a timer, the game can be quick or slow, depending of the preference of the players.
Monopoly on the other hand, is a slow game that can only be played by people who can verbally communicate. It is fun, but players can't really improve their game past a certain point, given that it's almost entirely chance. This gives it limited replayability.
vardas0antras

Con

::Introduction to Monopoly::
Monopoly appeals to the competitive nature of every individual in a way no other board game does hence the popularity. That doesn't mean that people who don't win don't have fun. No, everybody has fun because monopoly is a representation of real life ; a different life that only few people in reality live in. This aspect of the game makes it easy and very tempting to get passionate about the game.

Monopoly is an interactive game and humans love that. Ever heard of facebook ? http://www.facebook.com...
Now what does facebook provide ? Interaction with human beings. People love to communicate and monopoly players will do that when the players begin to trade. The more the merrier hence monopoly is best played with around 5 players while chess is limited to two and even then there's not much interaction.

Monopoly is a lighthearted game and it appeals to all ages due to its simplicity. Honestly, a ten year old could learn it and play it in minutes. Wherefore, monopoly can very easily be played for fun ,nevertheless, it can very easily become a serious game due to its competitive nature.

Monopoly welcomes change with open hands. One can change the amount of dice one roles, whatever or not one begins with owning property, the amount of money one has at the start, one can create teams (encouraging communication), one can have a time limit to shorten the game, one can change the meaning of cards and etcetera. In this way monopoly can be considered many games. In any case monopoly has a wide appeal.

::Last words::
Ill address chess in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
tvellalott

Pro

ARGUMENTS:
Extend my previous arguments, since they have not yet been addressed.

REBUTTALS:
"Monopoly appeals to the competitive nature of every individual in a way no other board game does hence the popularity."

---I strongly disagree. The first INTERNATIONAL chess tournament was in 1851, in London [1]. The first Monopoly Championship was held in 1973 [2]. Given that chess was being played before the United States was even founded, I don't see how Monopoly can hold a bar to Chess in this area.
As previously mentioned, due to the large amount of ‘chance' involved in Monopoly and the nature of the game, I don't see how it can really be played competitively. It would be like a Bingo championship. Chess on the other hand, is being considered as an Olympic Sport [3]

"No, everybody has fun because monopoly is a representation of real life ; a different life that only few people in reality live in. This aspect of the game makes it easy and very tempting to get passionate about the game."

---I think Monopoly is as close a representation of Real Estate brokering as Chess is of Medieval Battle. Furthermore, any game can bring out the passion in its players.

"Monopoly is an interactive game and humans love that. Ever heard of facebook ? http://www.facebook.com......
Now what does facebook provide ? Interaction with human beings. People love to communicate and monopoly players will do that when the players begin to trade. The more the merrier hence monopoly is best played with around 5 players while chess is limited to two and even then there's not much interaction."

---This brings me back to my point about the language barrier. You can't have your cake and eat it too. However, there are many, many games like Monopoly (referred to as "Roll the dice, move your mice" [4]) and they all have these factors. What exactly makes Monopoly better than Risk or The Game of Life? (Also, is posting Facebook a source? I think not)

"Monopoly is a lighthearted game and it appeals to all ages due to its simplicity. Honestly, a ten year old could learn it and play it in minutes. Wherefore, monopoly can very easily be played for fun ,nevertheless, it can very easily become a serious game due to its competitive nature."

---The exact same thing could be said about Chess, although it might take a ten year old a bit longer to learn it.

"Monopoly welcomes change with open hands. One can change the amount of dice one roles, whatever or not one begins with owning property, the amount of money one has at the start, one can create teams (encouraging communication), one can have a time limit to shorten the game, one can change the meaning of cards and etcetera. In this way monopoly can be considered many games. In any case monopoly has a wide appeal."

---All of the factors you mentioned don't actually change the game at all. It's still the same game, with the same goal, the same move sequence, the same properties and the same boot. In order to change the game, one must buy a different themed Monopoly and even then, it's still the same game but with a donut instead of a boot.
Chess is a classic game for a reason. Although the basis of the game was invented in the 6th century, the modern version of chess was formed around the 15th. [5] That's 500 years that the game has remained the same. It doesn't need to change. It's the perfect game.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent's arguments seemed to dance around the idea that Monopoly is more fun than Chess, yet he didn't provide any evidence to support this. The history of Chess proves that the game is enjoyable, especially to those that learn to play the game well. Monopoly is fun, but can quickly become frustrating. One can make all the right moves and all the right decisions and still lose the game. In Chess, even if a beginner is playing a grand master, all they have to beat each other with is their brains and those 16 pieces.

Chess is superior to Monopoly. Vote PRO.

SOURCES:

[1] The chess tournament: A collection of the games played at this celebrated tournament, by Howard Staunton, 1852: http://books.google.com...
[2] http://www.suite101.com...
[3] http://reports.chessdom.com...
[4] http://boardgamegeek.com...
[5] http://www.chess.com...
vardas0antras

Con

"Extend my previous arguments, since they have not yet been addressed." I have but now Ill do it in a more direct way.

"ARGUMENT ONE: Stimulation"
My opponents arguments are twofold. The first part brags about how "Chess is completely skill based" which is more of a negative because risk is a great producer of adrenaline. Furthermore monopoly does encourage skill: the skill of knowing when and what to buy and the skill of effective trading (communication)

The second part says that monopoly is stagnant while chess is a "different games every single time". First this comment can apply to monopoly too. In monopoly anyone can be the winner and the rules of the game can dramatically change. " Whoever gets houses on the most expensive properties almost inevitably wins." This is laughably untrue. The person who gets all squares of one particular color is more likely to win but first you have to pay for the hotels and there's a good chance that there will be a second person with the same fortune and skill.

"ARGUMENT TWO: Language barrier"
How can you explain the rules in a unheard language ? Furthermore, it takes effort for one to get used to it ; most young people aren't willing since they've video games.

"ARGUMENT THREE: Time"
"One could put time constraints on it, but I fail to see how the will reduce the playing time of the game."
How can it not ? If you want a quick game then put a time limit. After the time limit is up the person with most money wins (property counted).

::Responding to my opponent::
"As previously mentioned, due to the large amount of ‘chance' involved in Monopoly and the nature of the game, I don't see how it can really be played competitively. "
Monopoly isn't lottery instead it is like poker. Now poker does contain luck but its not entirely luck. Why ? Well, monopoly contains trade which needs communication skills, one has to have a somewhat different strategy every time the rules change and one must adapt to the situation they're in and make the best of it.

"Furthermore, any game can bring out the passion in its players."
However, chess can't be compared. Chess can contain only 2 passionate players while monopoly can have up to 7 people who are striving for the same goal ; the more the merrier. Secondly, chess is abstract while monopoly is easily relatable and even if you're a child you still can imagine that you're a big fat rich greedy guy.

"What exactly makes Monopoly better than Risk or The Game of Life?"
Well what makes chess better than go ? This debate is about chess versus monopoly.

"(Also, is posting Facebook a source? I think not)"
Unless, you want a bloody battle of ad hominems don't make such stupid remarks.

"The exact same thing could be said about Chess, although it might take a ten year old a bit longer to learn it."
And even more for him to get used to it. Chances are the ten year old will get bored and choose a game with more people and a game which produces more adrenalin. The game is monopoly !

"That's 500 years that the game has remained the same. It doesn't need to change. It's the perfect game."
There's not a lot you can change...

"All of the factors you mentioned don't actually change the game at all"
Yes in fact it does change the game, it changes: the speed, strategy, the length, the communication and etcetera.

" Monopoly is fun, but can quickly become frustrating. One can make all the right moves and all the right decisions and still lose the game." Bad memories ? Anyhow, this is a positive. You see even bad players have a chance to win and even good players take chances. Moreover, this is rather uncommon but common enough for my opponent to mention hence my points work.
Debate Round No. 3
tvellalott

Pro



REBUTTALS

“…which is more of a negative because risk is a great producer of adrenaline.”

There is risk involved in Chess. Playing aggressively is filled with danger.

“…Furthermore monopoly does encourage skill: the skill of knowing when and what to buy and the skill of effective trading (communication)…”

Of course there is SOME skill to Monopoly (it’s not chutes and ladders after all), but the large amount of chance is my key point.

Do you disagree that even the best laid plans can be demolished by a bit of bad luck in Monopoly?

“Whoever gets houses on the most expensive properties almost inevitably wins." This is laughably untrue. The person who gets all squares of one particular color is more likely to win but first you have to pay for the hotels and there's a good chance that there will be a second person with the same fortune and skill.”

And how does one put houses on a property? By getting all the squares of one particular colour.

“How can you explain the rules in a unheard language ? Furthermore, it takes effort for one to get used to it ; most young people aren't willing since they've video games.”

I concede that it would be difficult (though not impossible) to teach someone chess if they didn’t speak the same language. However, it would be impossible to teach someone to play Monopoly if they didn’t speak English.

As for the video games point, it equally applies to Monopoly.

“If you want a quick game then put a time limit. After the time limit is up the person with most money wins (property counted).”
How quick a game?

I can’t see the game taking less than half-an-hour. What could you achieve, even playing high-speed, in 10 minutes in Monopoly? A complete game of chess can easily be played in that time.

My opponent compared Monopoly to Poker. This is very inaccurate. The ‘skill’ elements of Poker involve bluff and reading your opponents. How do these elements apply to Monopoly?

“...one must adapt to the situation they're in and make the best of it.”

I think this applies far more to Chess than Monopoly. You can’t adapt yourself to a situation when you’re restricted to the roll of the dice.

“And even more for him to get used to it. Chances are the ten year old will get bored and choose a game with more people and a game which produces more adrenalin. The game is monopoly !”

In our age of online gaming, I can’t see children playing Monopoly for ‘adrenalin’. However, the appeal of chess is strategy. Starcraft 2 wishes it was as perfectly balanced as chess.

“Anyhow, this is a positive. You see even bad players have a chance to win and even good players take chances. Moreover, this is rather uncommon but common enough for my opponent to mention h

vardas0antras

Con

"There is risk involved in Chess. Playing aggressively is filled with danger."
Do you want to tell me that chess has everything ?

"Of course there is SOME skill to Monopoly (it’s not chutes and ladders after all), but the large amount of chance is my key point."
Same

"Do you disagree that even the best laid plans can be demolished by a bit of bad luck in Monopoly?"
Nope, you also need luck.

"And how does one put houses on a property? By getting all the squares of one particular colour."
Most likely you'll have to do trading for this.

"
However, it would be impossible to teach someone to play Monopoly if they didn’t speak English."
No. One only needs to know how to count and roll the dice.

"How quick a game?"
4 minutes if you want.

"What could you achieve, even playing high-speed, in 10 minutes in Monopoly?"
If you begin with random properties, two dices, instead of jail you get game over, some experience. Then you can have a fast and wild monopoly game.

"The ‘skill’ elements of Poker involve bluff and reading your opponents. How do these elements apply to Monopoly?"
You have to know how, when and for how much to trade. While knowing that with some bad luck you may end up with a terrible trade yourself .

"I think this applies far more to Chess than Monopoly. You can’t adapt yourself to a situation when you’re restricted to the roll of the dice."
Yes you can. Lets say you're bankrupt, what property do you sell ? Let say someone wants to have a trade, what do you do ?

"In our age of online gaming, I can’t see children playing Monopoly for ‘adrenalin’."
Video games lack interaction with friends in real life and they also lack realism. Yes the graphics are getting better and better but its ultimately not you who is in the video game. Monopoly is different and better in that way.

"Who wants to be beaten by a player significantly inferior to them?"
Who wants to know how the game will end ?





Debate Round No. 4
tvellalott

Pro

tvellalott forfeited this round.
vardas0antras

Con

I suppose my opponent has conceded the debate.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thisoneguy 6 years ago
thisoneguy
Both games carry a masonic influence, so I would say backgammon would wipe the floor with them.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
My favorite argument from Con, was the one about people interacting, and enjoying the game despite winning or losing. Well done.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Oh sh!t, I completely forgot about this. DAMN IT!!!
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Yes, a poor choice of words for what I was actually trying to convey. I responded to it already.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Walked in, saw this:

"One could put time constraints on it, but I fail to see how the will reduce the playing time of the game."

Wat
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
God, I was hoping that the round looking like that was a dream. It's not. >_<
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Bah, formatting fail.

"Anyhow, this is a positive. You see even bad players have a chance to win and even good players take chances. Moreover, this is rather uncommon but common enough for my opponent to mention hence my points work."
Who wants to be beaten by a player significantly inferior to them? What is the appeal? I do have bad memories about Monopoly; so many times have I lost games simply because I got the "Pay x for each of your houses and y for each of your hotels" card or because I landed on a house with a hotel while my opponent repeatedly missed mine.

CONCLUSION
Monopoly is an obsolete game, created during the era when people sat around the table and played board games and sang songs at the piano. That day, unfortunately, is long gone. Children want to play Halo 3.
Chess is an ancient game of pure strategy. It's is more popular now than ever. The appeal of Chess is different to Monopoly and it doesn't suffer the same pitfalls.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
I mean it's written, but since they've added formatting, when I try to review my argument, it's blank, even if I don't use any formatting.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
I can't post my argument
Posted by Maikuru 6 years ago
Maikuru
Risk > Everything else
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
tvellalottvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
tvellalottvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01