nebsmith wrote:personally, if I wanted to improve i would play those much better than me. I think I spent 3 years playing my dad at chess before I beat him - it was worth the wait.
chess is not a game of luck as risk is. you know how dice can be! playing freestyle on complicated maps is the way GLG did his "risk management" vs unexperienced players.
So you want me to believe that you played chess during a consequent amount of years losing every single time vs your dad and you never tried to play vs kids your age to use what you learned?
It's just about logic and human nature. why would all these people in his office play only him and not play each other if his story is true?
I think comparing risk to poker is more relevant than comparing it to chess. Do you think it's possible that a pro wins every single time when he plays amateurs heads up (1vs1)? it's a mix of skills and luck. your oponent can just decide to attack you 3vs5 and win the rolls! no matter how bad you play, you have to win sometimes in a sequential game.
this is so obvious come on...
and you didn't answer about my grandma. is it ok if I help her to create a CC account and play 100 games vs her?
I just think they should create non competitive games for training with no points involved. it would cut loose the excuses of some people, that sometimes could be justified.