Chess is more complex, has a LONGER history. However, whenever you go to a party and sits down with your mates, and ask him/her to play you a game of chess, they're either "PATZER" or reply with, "Sorry, I don't know how to play" or "I'm not good at it" or even "I'm not interested".
However, Monopoly seems like a better game to play when you are w/ your friends, don't ya think? It also involved Logic, Strategy and Psychology. Plus to the MAJORITY of the pop., Monopoly seems to be favored more compared to chess as a source of entertainment.
At last but not least, Chess requires dedication and STUDYING ----> most people don't enjoy that.
whether or not monopoly is better than chess depends on your opinion
i hate monopoly, mainly because i'm terrible at it (going by that logic i should hate chess as well but oh well) however i like chess because i actually have to think
if u asked an 8 yr old to play chess with you, they would get bored.
if u asked a 38 yr old to play monopoly with you, they would get bored
its all about opinion
Originally posted by EmLaskerMonopoly is a luck based game, not like chess.
Chess is more complex, has a LONGER history. However, whenever you go to a party and sits down with your mates, and ask him/her to play you a game of chess, they're either "PATZER" or reply with, "Sorry, I don't know how to play" or "I'm not good at it" or even "I'm not interested".
However, Monopoly seems like a better game to play when you are w/ your ...[text shortened]... least, Chess requires dedication and STUDYING ----> most people don't enjoy that.
So chess > monopoly
Originally posted by EmLaskerAs long as all the players basically know what their doing, monopoly is 95% luck. They're both board games and they both can be fun in the right settings, but that's where the comparison ends. It's like comparing filet mignon to a Big Mac. They're both food and they're both pretty good, but comparing them is a little sad.
Chess is more complex, has a LONGER history. However, whenever you go to a party and sits down with your mates, and ask him/her to play you a game of chess, they're either "PATZER" or reply with, "Sorry, I don't know how to play" or "I'm not good at it" or even "I'm not interested".
However, Monopoly seems like a better game to play when you are w/ your ...[text shortened]... least, Chess requires dedication and STUDYING ----> most people don't enjoy that.
I think there is a skill in monopoly when it comes to negociating the trading in regeards to how quickly you would be able to develop your new property and also how long until you could potentially land on theirs. For example, alot of people would think they have got a good deal if you trade them a high level set for a low one but they forget that it is going to cost them a large amount of money to make that set dangerous, whereas you will be able to hotel up yours and do some crippling damage to their funds if they hit it.
Of course, this sort of strategy all goes out of the window if they get lucky and manage to buy a set of their own without needing to resort to trades.
Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschexits almost impossible to cheat at over the board chess, not so with monopoly, when we play people seem able to produce those purple £500 notes at will!
I think there is a skill in monopoly when it comes to negociating the trading in regeards to how quickly you would be able to develop your new property and also how long until you could potentially land on theirs. For example, alot of people would think they have got a good deal if you trade them a high level set for a low one but they forget that ...[text shortened]... ndow if they get lucky and manage to buy a set of their own without needing to resort to trades.
Originally posted by EmashiIsn't that a bit simplistic? You could distinguish between 'luck' and 'chances'. Monopoly, bridge or poker (just three examples) have a large element of randomness (chances), but in each of these games, there is a clear difference in playing capability between beginner, good player and expert (master). One could argue that because of this extra 'complexity', these games are superior to chess in intellectual requirements, although that is probably a statement too much, I think.
Monopoly is a luck based game, not like chess.
So chess > monopoly
He probably just realized that he can't play chess with his friends anymore because he's gotten too good. I'm terrible and there are very few people that I know that I can play chess with because I'm too good for them. He's better than me.
Poker is a fun game, especially Texas Hold'em. The downside for me is that either way I lose. Either I lose my money or I end up taking another person's money. I don't care for either of those two outcomes.
Monopoly is boring.
