Chess: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
1d4chan>Rodwell (adding an external link) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
[[Image:Chessblackarmy.jpg|thumb|Chess, yes it IS this | [[Image:Chessblackarmy.jpg|thumb|Chess, yes it IS this exciting.]] | ||
According to /tg/ '''chess''' is just a cheap western knockoff of the much superior ancient Chinese game of [[go]]. Despite its rampant popularity, it is obvious it fails in everyway to simulate war, tactics, combat or anything else it has been hyped over for centuries about. Common complaints include the lack of army list and deployment options, the Knight's plain weird movement and the fact that the King is both the most important piece and completely useless. | According to /tg/ '''chess''' is just a cheap western knockoff of the much superior ancient Chinese game of [[go]]. Despite its rampant popularity, it is obvious it fails in everyway to simulate war, tactics, combat or anything else it has been hyped over for centuries about. Common complaints include the lack of army list and deployment options, the Knight's plain weird movement and the fact that the King is both the most important piece and completely useless. | ||
Revision as of 10:07, 20 September 2008
 This article is a stub. You can help 1d4chan by expanding it |
According to /tg/ chess is just a cheap western knockoff of the much superior ancient Chinese game of go. Despite its rampant popularity, it is obvious it fails in everyway to simulate war, tactics, combat or anything else it has been hyped over for centuries about. Common complaints include the lack of army list and deployment options, the Knight's plain weird movement and the fact that the King is both the most important piece and completely useless.
Rules
Chess' incredibly dull rules go here