How many devices would have to be involved for it to be a problem?
Chess Vs. Billiards
- Thread starter DynoDan
- Start date
How many devices would have to be involved for it to be a problem?
Sorry, haven't read it.
Is it a question of cheating or cheating being a problem? Is that alleged cheating chess kid a problem?
The nature of skidding can only be verified by computers capable of weather forecasting while scanning the environment in real time. Then comparing the actual to the theoretical results, sure cheaters can stay within deviations of reality. player have wondered why it happens that 0.1% of the time.
The question I pose is how to detect cheating. If multiple people are firing air barrels then are the players the police, the fans the police or there are no police at all.
Should the cheaters need a set of rules to follow because players fighting over table conditions is like a nuclear threat, its unclear why people are so stubborn.
The playing field was big enough that each square could accommodate two mounted warriors with room to fight. There was no automatic jumping. The two men contested any square when a piece was moved to an occupied square. Sometimes the battle was to the death, sometimes just until a warrior couldn't go on or submitted.
Obviously just science fiction of the Burroughs kind but you have to admit it would make chess more exciting and in some cases when you executed a move you really executed the move!(grin)
Just a bit of silliness that came to mind.
Hu
Advanced Real Analysis is graduate level as compared to Differential Equations, which are 2nd or 3rd year undergraduate level, so I'll stick with my Advanced Real Analysis comparison.
The current most popular diciplines among pros, 9 or 10 ball are not particularly strategic. Pros are just blasting the balls in. Sure, they have touch as far as cueball control is concerned, but they just play for the best position, without much thought to alternatives. Most shots are simple one or two railers and exotic routes are rarely considered. There is simply no need, when you can land on a dime every time with the simple shots. They may play for a small window which takes a lot more skill than a different route, but they do it because they can. They don't need to do much mental math. Most shots are recurring theme shots, where you have shot it a million times before in a slightly different variation. The same goes for kicks. Usually there are a couple of alternatives which are always chosen, rather than the theoretical infinite number of options. Straight pool has fallen victim to the increased pocketing abilities of the players, and has lost much of it's theoretical aspects. People are just blasting balls in and figure out the end pattern when they get there. That's 99% of modern, top straight pool players. There are a few principles, and they don't really have to be followed, because they'll just shoot out of any trouble the table can give them. Sad to say, there is not much to learn from watching pros anymore. Just never miss. That's all.
One pocket is the one discipline that can be compared to chess. I still think it's not as complex. The thing about pool is that you can always get out of "impossible" positions by just straight shooting. So in that aspect it's not at all like chess.
One pocket is the one discipline that can be compared to chess. I still think it's not as complex. The thing about pool is that you can always get out of "impossible" positions by just straight shooting. So in that aspect it's not at all like chess.
So you need a deal or you're not covered?
Your point was you can move any piece at any time, then you said during your move and a legally moved piece.
In straight pool you can use the cue ball to shoot at any ball.
In chess, try moving your rook on move 1 or either bishop with no pawn moved.
So, I was saying your analogy was flawed. Even if you are hooked in the jaws of the pocket, you can take a shot at any ball.
"In chess you can move any piece at anytime and do good or look like a fool. In pool the position of the cue ball limits what shot options you have which in my opinion is a lot easier the pool table tells you what pattern you have. I find that the more options that you have the more difficult/ mental strain you have."
In pool dealing with singularities are computationally intensive beyond any chess program.
Everyone knows about point shot problems, other singularities in pool exist.
In a chess program the only singularity to deal with is a fatal error for an opponent to exploit, which is brute forced.
What is the deal for?
Without a doubt, chess is much more mentally challenging than pocket billiards or any comparable billiards game.
Now why is that? Hmn, care to venture a guess, take a stab at it so to speak? It is as obvious as the nose on your face.
Chess is a game entirely, completely, totally comprised of strategy and hardly any physical skills. You can’t win at chess
by being physically more adept and skillful at moving the chess pieces than your opponent but you have to be in pool.
In pool, no matter what strategy you come up with, it doesn’t matter the slightest if you do not physically execute the
shot correctly pocketing the ball. The shot selection & how you intended to play it, i.e., strategy, becomes worthless.
There are no physical skills required to win at chess & you cannot win at pool without having the physical skills unless
your opponent happens to be a lot worse of a pool player than you are. Pool has more choices but chess is all mental.
Oh, there is also no slop in chess. The chess piece isn’t lifted & placed on the strategic square by the player because
he accidentally dropped it and it lands on a much better, stronger square than the player originally intended it land on.
In pocket billiards, as long as the object ball arrives and deposits itself in the intended pocket, it matters not how it took
place even if the object ball had been errantly played & goes in by accident. And in 9 ball, pure slop can win a game.
In chess, physical skills are generally not needed to accomplish the movement of the chess pieces, except for players that are physically handicapped & need assistance. There’s little question which of the two is more mentally challenging.
Now why is that? Hmn, care to venture a guess, take a stab at it so to speak? It is as obvious as the nose on your face.
Chess is a game entirely, completely, totally comprised of strategy and hardly any physical skills. You can’t win at chess
by being physically more adept and skillful at moving the chess pieces than your opponent but you have to be in pool.
In pool, no matter what strategy you come up with, it doesn’t matter the slightest if you do not physically execute the
shot correctly pocketing the ball. The shot selection & how you intended to play it, i.e., strategy, becomes worthless.
There are no physical skills required to win at chess & you cannot win at pool without having the physical skills unless
your opponent happens to be a lot worse of a pool player than you are. Pool has more choices but chess is all mental.
Oh, there is also no slop in chess. The chess piece isn’t lifted & placed on the strategic square by the player because
he accidentally dropped it and it lands on a much better, stronger square than the player originally intended it land on.
In pocket billiards, as long as the object ball arrives and deposits itself in the intended pocket, it matters not how it took
place even if the object ball had been errantly played & goes in by accident. And in 9 ball, pure slop can win a game.
In chess, physical skills are generally not needed to accomplish the movement of the chess pieces, except for players that are physically handicapped & need assistance. There’s little question which of the two is more mentally challenging.
Last edited:
It’s such a silly topic that keeps coming up. Each time we get to express our thoughts in new and interesting ways. Or maybe we just keep saying the same things. Maybe this conversation is like chess.
But ultimately chess is just an analogy for strategy. War is also an analogy for strategy. Analogies hold up until you start taking them literally. Chess is obviously more strategic. I’ve never beat a GM by thinking my way through their games. I’ve beat Fedor, Filler and SVB in my head by thinking where I want the cueball to go. Pool has execution. Without it pool is stupid. Chess strategically runs laps around pool. Chess makes pool look about as strategic as archery. This is why analogies are only good for expressing a vague concept and fall apart when you try to take them seriously.
Because at the end of the day, excellence in either is just as rare. Magnus, Karpov, Anand, Kasparov, Morphy, Fisher, etc. you might as well be saying Filler, Fedor, Earl, Sigel, Efren or Mosconi. The challenge of being the best at something still takes prodigy-turned-adult level talent that’s more difficult than putting lead weights in fish.
But ultimately chess is just an analogy for strategy. War is also an analogy for strategy. Analogies hold up until you start taking them literally. Chess is obviously more strategic. I’ve never beat a GM by thinking my way through their games. I’ve beat Fedor, Filler and SVB in my head by thinking where I want the cueball to go. Pool has execution. Without it pool is stupid. Chess strategically runs laps around pool. Chess makes pool look about as strategic as archery. This is why analogies are only good for expressing a vague concept and fall apart when you try to take them seriously.
Because at the end of the day, excellence in either is just as rare. Magnus, Karpov, Anand, Kasparov, Morphy, Fisher, etc. you might as well be saying Filler, Fedor, Earl, Sigel, Efren or Mosconi. The challenge of being the best at something still takes prodigy-turned-adult level talent that’s more difficult than putting lead weights in fish.
The deal is for cheating cover. You did ask about cheating.
How does everyone feel about being caught? It is a drama that can last for ages.
Chess drama is forever a child. Billiards drama are shots that lasts into old age.
Billiards Experts can't even identify a standard system for ranking, scoring and assessing.
Billiards is way more complicated than Chess. Chess might as well be sliding scale. Billiards is a Eigenfunction.
Woodshaft
Do what works for YOU!
Years ago "Games Magazine" had a ranking of the most difficult games to truly become great at. Golf was number one, billiards was number two.
I only remember those two, but if anyone has tried either, they understand where this is going.
Chess is oblivious (relatively) to physical obstacles.
Golf and billiards, on the other hand, are played on, and with, many courses (tables), and clubs (cues). So there are many ever-changing variables/obstacles to overcome.
THEN, on top of that, due to these ever-changing conditions, your risk-taking (mental strategy) must adapt.
The main reason imo golf is truly hardest of all games/sports is the ever changing weather and course obstacles.
Chess, while mentally challenging, isn't really hindered by playing conditions, which allows players to focus easier imo.
In chess you play the player. In pool you play the player AND the table.
Thus, with less variables, chess is easier to get "good" at than pool and golf. (Especially if you cheat
)
I only remember those two, but if anyone has tried either, they understand where this is going.
Chess is oblivious (relatively) to physical obstacles.
Golf and billiards, on the other hand, are played on, and with, many courses (tables), and clubs (cues). So there are many ever-changing variables/obstacles to overcome.
THEN, on top of that, due to these ever-changing conditions, your risk-taking (mental strategy) must adapt.
The main reason imo golf is truly hardest of all games/sports is the ever changing weather and course obstacles.
Chess, while mentally challenging, isn't really hindered by playing conditions, which allows players to focus easier imo.
In chess you play the player. In pool you play the player AND the table.
Thus, with less variables, chess is easier to get "good" at than pool and golf. (Especially if you cheat
)
I am a awesome pool player, and I am even better at chest !
So we're not cheating anymore? It's already been laid out that chess is not billiards and neither is billiards, chess. Competition supplies the need for strategic tactical awareness in pool but chess crosses no boundaries into the realms of pool performance. A chess match doesn't even require participants to be present. Chess is think and pool is do.
Chess had more focus on sharing strategies. Pool has more emphasis on incorporating more viewpoints.
Its faster to grow a chess player. Pool grows faster viewpoints. A talented player must be a strong user of their physical and mental equipment. In chess you just need to know battleship level strategies. Pool has not finished cataloging all the shots worth noting. Chess has millions of books mostly with the same info like a counting book.
Zerksies
Well-known member
Your point is useless. My cueball can't hit a OB buried within a stack.