Chess requires more skill than Draughts/Checkers to master!

Refutation MasteryCon is under the impression that the number of possible moves and the variety of complex rules in Chess does not mean it is more difficult to master. However, that is exactly what makes Chess harder. Complexity and Possibilities makes Chess harder. It is impossible to say that something that is simple (i.e. Checkers) is harder than something that is complicated (i.e. Chess). Con has already stated that Checkers is simpler than Chess, thus supporting Pro's side. " Imagine adding an additional rule to checkers that one can only promote a piece after the 100th move; that is another rule, but the game does not get harder to master."Actually, it does. New strategies would be developed based on this rule, meaning that that it is another strategy that professional Checker players must know in order to improve their game play. Adding more rules makes things more complicated because there is more things to know. That is as simple as I can put it. "Likewise, if we take away the rule of forced capture there are more possibilities, but the game becomes slightly easier to master."I find that Con is contradicting himself. He first states that if a game has more rules, it is not harder to master than a game with less rules. But then he goes on to say that if a game has less rules, the games is easier to master (quotation above). With that logic, a game that has more moves should be harder than a game with less rules. Con makes two different assumptions here:1. A game with more rules is the same in difficulty with a game with less rules.2. If you take away rules from a game (e.g. Checkers forced capture rule), the game is easier. Since a game has less rules if you take them away, then, these two sentences together are not logical together. "The bottom line is, checkers is easier to learn and perhaps easier to play, but at least as hard to master as chess."I think I already covered this, but I'll repeat myself just in case. If a game is harder to learn and play, the only logical conclusion we can make about that game is that it is harder than a game that is easier to play and learn. Therefore, the harder game is harder to master than the easier game. Comprend?"Con brings up the additional point of Rules to show that Checkers is harder to master than Chess"Sorr, .what? I'm Pro. "While in chess moves are independent of each other and relatively straight forward, in checkers the moves are much more dependent due to the concept of forced capture."On the contrary, chess moves are far more in depth and complicated than moves in Checkers. In Chess, many tactical maneuvers are used. Moves such as pins, forks, skewers, discovered attacks, etc. (there is a long list) make Chess far more in depth than Checkers which only has two, maybe three, kinds of moves. [1] [3] Chess also requires much more planning and strategy in order to win the game due to the numerous phases of the game: Opening, Middlegame, and Endgame. "Looking ahead many, many moves ahead is critical in checkers, but looking a couple moves ahead in chess is sufficient to become an expert "Chess actually requires players to look more steps ahead than Checkers. Professional players must look ahead for more than Checkers player simply because of the complicated strategies that they deploy against their opponent. Also, I wanted to cover was the term "expert" or "master" that was thrown around pretty loosely. Under the definition I provided, it said that "to master" is to "be or become completely proficient or skilled in". [2] Someone who is completely skilled in Chess should be near the top of the ranking or at the grandmaster level. Therefore, the personal example is not necessarily valid.Conclusion Something complicated is harder to master than something simple. Chess is more complicated than Checkers. Therefore, Chess is harder to master than Checkers Vote Pro!swag http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]