• Hucklebee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    It really is an insult for checkers as a game. It is a common misconception that it’s simple. The game has surprising amount of depth, and the saying “x is playing chess while y is playing checkers” should really die.

    X is playing chess while Y is playing tictactoe would be a better analogy.

    • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Chess has roughly 10^44 positions. Checkers has roughly 10^20.

      That means under that metric, chess is roughly 24 orders of magnitude more complex as checkers.

      Tic tac toe has roughly 10^3 positions, or 17 orders of magnitude simpler than checkers.

      In other words, the complexity gap between chess and checkers is larger than the gap between checkers and tic tac toe.

      • Num10ck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Maybe they should compare playing chess with playing Go.

        The number of legal board positions in Go has been calculated to be approximately 2.1×10^170, which is far greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe, which is estimated to be on the order of 10^80.

      • Hucklebee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        My point is that checkers actually still is very mich complex. Tictactoe is not and every board position can reasonably be managed by a human.

        With checkers, that is unfeasable. That’s why I am of the opinion that checkers is unfairly treated as “the simple game” when for humans it is far from simple.