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
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.