The Instigator
Swagmasterpoopoo
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Aff
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Chess requires more skill than Draughts/Checkers to master!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Swagmasterpoopoo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,092 times Debate No: 48201
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Swagmasterpoopoo

Pro

Hello!

The motion is:
Chess requires more skill than Draughts/Checkers to master!

Since I am on Pro, I must prove that Chess requires more skill to master than Checkers/Draughts.

Con must prove that Draughts/Checkers requires more skill to master than Chess.

By the way, Draughts is the British name for Checkers. [2]

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments only
Round 3: Refutation only

If Con wants to put arguments in Round 1, then he/she MUST end his/her Round 3 with "swag".

If either I or Con does not follow this format, he/she merits a 7-point loss.


Here are some helpful definitions:

Chess: A board game for two players, each beginning with 16 pieces of six kinds that are moved according to individual rules, with the objective of checkmating the opposing king. [1]

Requires: To have as a requisite; need [1]

Skill: Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience. [1]

Draughts/ Checkers: a game for two players using a draughtboard and 12 draughtsmen each. The object is to jump over and capture the opponent's pieces. US and Canadian name: checkers

[To] Master: [verb] be or become completely proficient or skilled in

Looking forward to an interesting debate!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2]
Aff

Con

Hi!

While I'm quite the expert at chess, checkers is a relatively unknown domain to me so it will be interesting arguing for the other side!

That being said, I want to propose a revision to the framework:

If Pro cannot show that Chess requires more skill than Draughts/Checkers to master, then Con wins regardless. The BoP thus lies on Pro. If there is no reason to prefer pro, then con is the correct vote. There is no tie.

This should be a relatively easy term for the Pro to accept due to the wide range of arguments for difficulty of chess mastery.
Debate Round No. 1
Swagmasterpoopoo

Pro

Alright I accept these changes, as long as Con continues to follow the formatting.

The Number of Possibilities

Chess has more variety in pieces and a larger board, therefore making the game more difficult. Chess is played on 8x8 board with 32 pieces in total, 6 of which are very different. [1][3] In chess, every single playing square can be used. The different pieves are the pawn, the rook, the knight, the bishop, the queen, and finally the king. Each piece moves in a different way and have different rules applied to them. The rules themselves are more complicated than the Checkers rules, but I will go into that later. Checkers on the other hand is played on a 8x8 grid as well, however, only 32 playing squares are used, greatly limiting the number of moves for a piece. [2] [3] Also, Checkers only has 2 different kinds pieces; the uncrowned pieces (men), and the crowned pieces (King). The movements vary depending on the edition of Checkers, but generally, the two pieces can only move diagonally in the dark squares and capture other pieces diagonally. Chess is far more complex. The pawn can only move forward and only capture other pieces diagonally (except en passant). At the starting line, the pawn can move forward one square or two squares. If a pawn reaches the end of the board on the other side, it is promoted into a rook, bishop, knight or queen. The rook moves and takes other pieces horizontally and vertically. Castling is done with the rook. The knight moves and takes pieces in an L shape or 3 squares horizontally or vertically and 1 square to the left or right. The bishop moves and takes pieces diagonally. 1 bishop is always on the light square and the other is always on the dark square. The Queen can move and take pieces like the rook, bishop, and knight combined. The king is the most valuable piece in the game. It can move in any direction, but only one square at a time. As you can tell, the sheer number of possibilities is overwhelming, therefore making Chess harder to master than the simple game of Checkers.

Rules

Chess also has many more complicated rules than checkers. There are several exceptions to the rules for the pieces that must also be recognized by the players. The term en passant refers to another method in which pawns can take other pawns. When a pawn advances two squares from its starting position and there is an opponent's pawn on an adjacent file next to its destination square, then the opponent's pawn can capture it en passant, and move to the square the pawn passed over. However, this can only be done on the very next move, otherwise the right to do so is forfeit. [1]
Castling is also another interesting addition to Chess. Once in every game, a player is allowed to do a very special move that is called castling. [1] Castling consists of moving the king two squares on the first rank towards either rook and then placing the rook next to the square that the king just passed. There are 3 rules for this move:
  • Neither of the pieces involved in castling may have been previously moved during the game.
  • There must be no pieces between the king and the rook.
  • The king may not be in check, nor may the king pass through squares that are under attack by enemy pieces, nor move to a square where it is in check. [1]

In chess there is also a a check. This occurs when a piece threatens to capture the enemy king. When a check occurs, the opponent must do any move to stop that check. If no move is available, the opponent is checkmated and loses the game.


Strategies and Tactics


If my opponent permits it, I would like to make one last point in my last round, then my refutation. I ran out of characters. If so, my opponent would be allowed to make one more point in the last round as well if he needs to.

Thank you!

http://en.wikipedia.org...[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2]
http://www.bobnewell.net...;[3]
Aff

Con

I will begin with a quote, "We play chess but we can't analyse it, we analyse checkers but we can't play it."

Remember the Pro agreed to the conditions of a Con win if he cannot show Chess is harder to master than Checkers. Thus if none of my opponent's points stand by the end of the round, regardless of whether any of my points stand or not, Con wins.

C1: Mastery

While the Con acknowledges that chess has more rules and is harder to learn, by no means is chess harder to master. I am a living example of this; I have played both games prolifically since childhood, but I improved at chess much, much faster than I improved at checkers and I am close to "mastering" chess today (current USCF around 2100, 2200 is the technical requirement for National Master in the US). There is no reason chess is harder to master just because of the diversity of pieces; that just makes the rules more complicated. Imagine adding an additional rule to checkers that one can only promote a piece after the 100th move; that is another rule, but the game does not get harder to master. Likewise, if we take away the rule of forced capture there are more possibilities, but the game becomes slightly easier to master.

Yes there are more rules in chess. Yes there are more possibilities in chess. The bottom line is, checkers is easier to learn and perhaps easier to play, but at least as hard to master as chess.

C2: Rules

Con brings up the additional point of Rules to show that Checkers is harder to master than Chess. While in chess moves are independent of each other and relatively straight forward, in checkers the moves are much more dependent due to the concept of forced capture. This rule adds a whole new dimension of strategy and planning ahead for checkers, since there can be sequences of back and forth capture. Looking ahead many, many moves ahead is critical in checkers, but looking a couple moves ahead in chess is sufficient to become an expert (I rarely look more than a few moves in).

For these reasons I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 2
Swagmasterpoopoo

Pro

Refutation

Mastery

Con is under the impression that the number of possible moves and the variety of complex rules in Chess does not mean it is more difficult to master. However, that is exactly what makes Chess harder. Complexity and Possibilities makes Chess harder. It is impossible to say that something that is simple (i.e. Checkers) is harder than something that is complicated (i.e. Chess). Con has already stated that Checkers is simpler than Chess, thus supporting Pro's side.



" Imagine adding an additional rule to checkers that one can only promote a piece after the 100th move; that is another rule, but the game does not get harder to master."

Actually, it does. New strategies would be developed based on this rule, meaning that that it is another strategy that professional Checker players must know in order to improve their game play. Adding more rules makes things more complicated because there is more things to know. That is as simple as I can put it.



"Likewise, if we take away the rule of forced capture there are more possibilities, but the game becomes slightly easier to master."

I find that Con is contradicting himself. He first states that if a game has more rules, it is not harder to master than a game with less rules. But then he goes on to say that if a game has less rules, the games is easier to master (quotation above). With that logic, a game that has more moves should be harder than a game with less rules. Con makes two different assumptions here:

1. A game with more rules is the same in difficulty with a game with less rules.
2. If you take away rules from a game (e.g. Checkers forced capture rule), the game is easier.
Since a game has less rules if you take them away, then, these two sentences together are not logical together.


"The bottom line is, checkers is easier to learn and perhaps easier to play, but at least as hard to master as chess."

I think I already covered this, but I'll repeat myself just in case. If a game is harder to learn and play, the only logical conclusion we can make about that game is that it is harder than a game that is easier to play and learn. Therefore, the harder game is harder to master than the easier game. Comprend?


"Con brings up the additional point of Rules to show that Checkers is harder to master than Chess"

Sorr, .what? I'm Pro.



"While in chess moves are independent of each other and relatively straight forward, in checkers the moves are much more dependent due to the concept of forced capture."

On the contrary, chess moves are far more in depth and complicated than moves in Checkers. In Chess, many tactical maneuvers are used. Moves such as pins, forks, skewers, discovered attacks, etc. (there is a long list) make Chess far more in depth than Checkers which only has two, maybe three, kinds of moves. [1] [3] Chess also requires much more planning and strategy in order to win the game due to the numerous phases of the game: Opening, Middlegame, and Endgame.


"Looking ahead many, many moves ahead is critical in checkers, but looking a couple moves ahead in chess is sufficient to become an expert "


Chess actually requires players to look more steps ahead than Checkers. Professional players must look ahead for more than Checkers player simply because of the complicated strategies that they deploy against their opponent.



Also, I wanted to cover was the term "expert" or "master" that was thrown around pretty loosely. Under the definition I provided, it said that "to master" is to "be or become completely proficient or skilled in". [2] Someone who is completely skilled in Chess should be near the top of the ranking or at the grandmaster level. Therefore, the personal example is not necessarily valid.


Conclusion
  • Something complicated is harder to master than something simple.
  • Chess is more complicated than Checkers.
  • Therefore, Chess is harder to master than Checkers


Vote Pro!


swag


http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]
Aff

Con

Both sides agree that we are talking about whether chess is "harder to master" or not.

Let's take a look at Pro's flow of logic:

(1) More Possibilities implies More Complicated
(2) More Rules implies More Complicated
(3) More Complicated implies Harder to Master

There are more possibilities. There are more rules. However, that is where the Pro and Con cease agreement. I will refute all of the above, but if I can successfully refute (3), or (1) and (2), then Con automatically wins.

Throughout the round, notice how Pro keeps trying to make a claim about "MORE" of something and then say that it is inherently related to Chess being harder to master. However, "MORE" is not sufficient for a link.

Let's boil down Pro's arguments:

(1) More Possibilities implies More Complicated

In his case he never explains why this is true, only that it is. I argue that this is not necessarily true, which is enough for me to negate this point.

First of all, notice how his More Possibilities point and his More Rules point contradict, because rules are restrictions on moves, so rules limit the number of possibilities. Pro does not explain any sort of trade-off during the round, so his whole case falls right there.

But furthermore, I already negated (1) in my case with the removing forced-capture counterexample. It is not the greatest example, sure, but it functions appropriately. I successfully negate (1) if Pro cannot provide an adequate response to this, which he did not:

"I find that Con is contradicting himself. He first states that if a game has more rules, it is not harder to master than a game with less rules. But then he goes on to say that if a game has less rules, the games is easier to master (quotation above)."

The subsequent sentences are in response to something that Pro misinterpreted, so I omit that in this refutation.

Pro completely missed my point. I brought up the removing forced-capture rule as an example that would not make the game more complicated, so a counterexample to (1). I provided two counterexamples in my case to (1) and (2), so I am not contradicting myself because I am giving counterexamples to two completely separate points.

Because Pro's only response to my removing forced-capture counterexample was not adequate, (1) falls.

(2) More Rules implies More Complicated

In his original case he cites "en passant", "castling", and "checks" as additional rules to chess. Sure, this is "more" than checkers. However, this fact alone does NOT make chess more complicated.

First of all, look to my 100th move example. Like above, if this example still stands, (2) falls. The only way he wins (2) is if he can counter adequately. This is his counter:

"Actually, it does [make chess more complicated]. New strategies would be developed based on this rule, meaning that that it is another strategy that professional Checker players must know in order to improve their game play. Adding more rules makes things more complicated because there is more things to know. That is as simple as I can put it."

There is no logic in this response. Whether new strategies would exist or not is irrelevant; so long as they are simpler my point still stands. The only other logic he provides in this response is "More rules implies more things to know implies complicated." Finally, we see Pro's "link" between More Rules and More Complicated. However, "More things to know" about a game means absolutely nothing. That just makes chess a little bit harder to learn, which has nothing to do with more complicated.

(3) More Complicated implies Harder to Master

I include this as an "even if chess is more complicated, it is NOT harder to master"

There is absolutely no support of this whatsoever in this round, so (3) falls. His only response is:

"If a game is harder to learn and play, the only logical conclusion we can make about that game is that it is harder than a game that is easier to play and learn.

Example: Skiing is easier to learn than snowboarding. Skiing is much harder to master.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Con you did your best but it wasn't sufficient.
Posted by Aff 2 years ago
Aff
Heh

I did the best I could arguing for a clearly unfavorable side without spending ridiculous amounts of time, so I'm happy :P

Although that pesky character limit was a bit annoying... I wanted to address a lot more. Oh well, I guess it's called economy of writing.

Yeah 4 rounds would've been nice haha. I almost felt abusive just rebutting everything you said in your rebuttal. Then again, I don't really have much offense, so I don't feel that abusive. Lol

Good debate! My first one and I hope to have many more.
Posted by Swagmasterpoopoo 2 years ago
Swagmasterpoopoo
I now wish I put another round because there are so many things I want to refute in the last round :P
Personally think Con brought some decent points and refutation, but some points are incoherent, just my opinion tho!
Posted by mv_joppie 2 years ago
mv_joppie
I don't even think this is an argument. just by your first experience playing checkers or chess you will see that chess is much more difficult to master than checkers. with different pieces, each one has certain abilities. Checkers, however is way more simple! I'm not even gonna explain how to play checkers because it is just that simple.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
SwagmasterpoopooAffTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow,What a debate! I appreciate the fact that Con is a "Rated" Chess player. That being said, personally though I'm unrated, I'm quite a player of Chess myself also I'm aware of the rules and regulations of both the games. Pro brought up the key points, How Chess requires more skill to master. The Number of Possibilities, Rules, Strategies and tactics in chess definitely requires higher skills than other games such as Draughts or Checkers. This is quite efficiently presented by Pro. Thus Pro satisfies his "BOP". Con's "refutation" and "arguments", however not sufficient in this case. Thus "Arguments" to Pro.