Forums

checkers vs chess

Sort:
Hawksteinman

is checkers (draughts) just like chess?

Pat_Zerr

No.

Hawksteinman

explain

Pat_Zerr

What's there to explain?  In chess, you have 16 pieces which move and capture in different ways, you use all 64 squares of the board, and the object of the game is checkmate.  In checkers, you have 12 pieces which all move and capture the same way, you only use 32 of the squares on the board, and the object is to capture all of your opponent's pieces.

If you need further explanation, use google.

Hawksteinman

whats bvetter?

ebillgo

I think checkers lacks the dramatic qualities of chess due to the indistinguishable checkers pieces.

Sortov

I believe that Draughts has been "solved" whereas Chess thank goodness hasn't. Another difference is that a good strategy in Draughts is to develop your pieces slowly (as they cannot move backwards) whereas in Chess.....

Hawksteinman

yeah, but checkers is easier

Smile

Piscivore

Many years ago there was a fellow who would come in, two or three times a year, to our city chess club with a checkers set under his arm, politely looking for opponents.  When the stronger chess players in the room got done laughing at how simple and worthless the game of checkers was, they would sit down and play him and he would crush them easily, one after another.

Checkers/draughts has a lot of theory--openings, endings, tactical themes that can be quite deep and are as pretty as most chess combinations--and to become an expert player there is much to know.  As has been pointed out, it is "simpler" than chess and has been completely explored and played out from the starting position.  But those who think it is a very easy game suitable only for children have a lot to learn.

By the way, how complicated the basic rules are is not necessarily a good predictor of how difficult a game can be.  The game of Go has very simple rules, and yet the tactical and strategic possibilities are quite profound.  (The game also has the advantage that, unlike chess, if it's ever seen to be "played out" the size of the game board can simply be expanded, creating yet more possible complications.)

A century ago, the reigning chess world champion Emanuel Lasker was introduced to Go, and he immediately saw the possibilities for complicated play.  He and some friends met regularly to play and study Go and felt they had understood the reasoning behind the moves given in the published games they saw.  When a visiting Japanese Go adept visited their club, he invited them all to play a game against him, and suggested that he give them a handicap of nine stones.  (This is something like offering queen odds in chess.)  Lasker laughed and said he didn't think anyone could give him nine stones.  The visitor smiled and said they should let him try anyway.  He very shortly got the upper hand and defeated the allies. 

ChessOfPlayer
piscivore wrote:
Many years ago there was a fellow who would come in, two or three times a year, to our city chess club with a checkers set under his arm, politely looking for opponents.  When the stronger chess players in the room got done laughing at how simple and worthless the game of checkers was, they would sit down and play him and he would crush them easily, one after another.

A century ago, the reigning chess world champion Emanuel Lasker was introduced to Go, and he immediately saw the possibilities for complicated play.  He and some friends met regularly to play and study Go and felt they had understood the reasoning behind the moves given in the published games they saw.  When a visiting Japanese Go adept visited their club, he invited them all to play a game against him, and suggested that he give them a handicap of nine stones.  (This is something like offering queen odds in chess.)  Lasker laughed and said he didn't think anyone could give him nine stones.  The visitor smiled and said they should let him try anyway.  He very shortly got the upper hand and defeated the allies. 

Wow!  Nice stories.  

u0110001101101000

2 year old topic.

International draughts hasn't been solved (AFAIK).

And a chess board can't be expanded? Reading replies like these makes me sad.

ChessOfPlayer

I thought checkers was solved? Actually I a pretty damn sure a computer has cracked it's tiny deviation tree. A chessboard can be expanded but for that to make sense, more pieces have to come on. It does not expand in the same way as go.

TheNaz1

Its like whacking it vs .getting the real thing.

u0110001101101000
ChessOfPlayer wrote:

I thought checkers was solved? Actually I a pretty damn sure a computer has cracked it's tiny deviation tree. A chessboard can be expanded but for that to make sense, more pieces have to come on. It does not expand in the same way as go.

I remember 8x8 was solved, international is played on a 10x10 board though.

You can make the board larger without adding pieces, but it's true the expansion wouldn't be the same... it's a really weird thing to compare anyway heh.

macer75
TheNaz1 wrote:

Its like whacking it vs .getting the real thing.

Whacking what?

ChessOfPlayer

10 X 10? First I heard.

ChessOfPlayer

macer75 wrote:

TheNaz1 wrote:

Its like whacking it vs .getting the real thing.

Whacking what?

cheap smack vs the good stuff of cheap of course

fuzzbug

Checkers has been solved for almost ten years now!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/computers-solve-checkers-its-a-draw/

Andy Soltis, in his book Studying Chess made Easy,  advocates playing checkers as a way to improve calculation. Apparently the old Soviet training regimen would end the day with checkers matches, as an easier way to reinforce calculating ability while still competing. Interesting.

 

starrynight14

Draughts (or rather one version of it) is solved by computers, but human players cannot play perfectly at all.  Everybody here would be obliterated by a computer.  You need to see many moves ahead at the top level.

Hawksteinman

The checkers pieces are similar to chess pawns: They attack diagonally. They cannot move backwards until they reach the end (in chess, this is promotion).