https://xcancel.com/Kasparov63/status/2006907711607418920
Tags
Garry Kasparov; Mamdani; collectivism; socialism
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026
115 points (99.1% liked)
Slop.
760 readers
582 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Surely chess stopped being impressive when Paradox grand strategy games were developed. Kasparov couldn't revive the Roman Empire while balancing an economy.
Grand strategy slop is genuinely better than chess (because it's actually fun) and I say this entirely to drag chess down without elevating grand strategy beyond its status as nerd slop for the trough. The only thing chess has going for it is that its comparatively simple rules have been tweaked for centuries by nerds arguing about them until they were all happy/equally unhappy with them, but this also goes along with centuries of established meta and and literature that give the most insufferable nerds a huge advantage if they do the reading.
Chess is like poker without the element of chance, and sucks for all the same reasons poker does.
Chess being perfect information makes it extremely different from poker and it's kind of a weird comparison to make.
They've both got that same simple core with a heavily matured meta where basic competency comes from memorizing a whole lot of rote moves/hands. There's really not much difference between "using rote knowledge and fuzzy reasoning about what's going to be likely and or optimal to guess what your opponent is likely to do" between a game where you can see all the bits and one where half the guess is which bits are even there. You're still guessing about what's going to happen based on having studied a bunch of absolutely insufferable, dreary bullshit and then thinking really hard at it.
Also both games suck and have horrible fanbases, so they have that in common too.
I don't think memorizing openings is remotely comparable on any level to knowing how hands work beyond "you need to learn how it works and therefore memory is involved," which is not a useful description, and you're basically handwaving the entire field of game theory as not containing any meaningful distinctions if it's a well-studied game (to say nothing of social reasoning). This is just sophism.
Poker is much better then chess. Atleast each hand you COULD win. In chess, one wrong move and woops you lose. The opening memorization shit, castling and in passing (I WILL NOT SPEAK FRENCH), the fact everyone knows white has a severe advantage...
Go is the real "simple" thinking man's game.
You can definitely lose a game of Go from one wrong move at a particular time.
do NOT shit talk poker around me 😤
LETS GO GAMBLING
Grand strategy is also nerd slop. I just like the dynamism of it. There are so many additional variables that every player has to do that "I'm so smart I can think 30 moves ahead" thing intuitively, all while keeping a similar historical metagame in mind where they have to know the trajectories of all of their competing nations/world events.
sorry that chess doesn't have fog of war mechanics
Slop is more fun than a centuries old board game, yes, probably, but they're totally different games. They're both fun, I think the beauty of chess is precisely because it is so limited, each move is so simple but means so much.
Chess is also slop, and its problem isn't that its simple it's that the actual experience of building up a library of experience of rote moves and patterns to then sit and sift through trying to guess which thing you've seen before your opponent will do is just sort of shit. Games with such thoroughly matured and optimized play are unapproachable and dull. The joy of a game is in intuiting out fresh systems and experiencing them, not performing a rote task you read in a book against the sort of person who plays chess.
Depends what you'd call slop really - I don't think there's anything predatory or addictive about chess in the same way as a lot of computer games. And as for the rote moves - I feel like I could reduce a lot of games to that too, as there's always a meta game. But yes, I agree, computer games are more varied and fun. But I still wouldn't call chess slop.
Sure, it's just most games don't have literally centuries of established strategy and meta. Like modern games are kind of a "the general level of skill is so high that this is getting unapproachable" after 5 or so years, where 1,000 hours is still considered a new player. Chess is an order of magnitude beyond that, at least.
But then I have ADHD that manifests in a paradoxical "I have a compulsive need to learn things, but not about them; I have to devour systems and rules and comprehend them and once I do most of the joy is gone unless it's something truly special and even that has to be cycled through" that leaves little room for refinement or outside study of the sort that defines games like chess.