Strategy are always linked with chess. If someone is good at making strategy, they are often called the Chessmaster. Chess is definitely played with strategy, and those who are good at chess should be good at making strategies.
But really, chess have too much rules to abide to reflect real life situations. People who tried to treat real life with chess approach will fall short with real strategician. Chess must save all it's highest pawn to be won, while the highest are the slowest, hardest to play pawn. In real life, I think, the winner is the one which ended having more. Sacrifying one important factor is okay to save lots. It could be replaced, changed, etc. to make winning possible. Shouldn't it be the role of the highest?
But really, chess have too much rules to abide to reflect real life situations. People who tried to treat real life with chess approach will fall short with real strategician. Chess must save all it's highest pawn to be won, while the highest are the slowest, hardest to play pawn. In real life, I think, the winner is the one which ended having more. Sacrifying one important factor is okay to save lots. It could be replaced, changed, etc. to make winning possible. Shouldn't it be the role of the highest?
posted from Bloggeroid
