Chess requires more skill than Draughts/Checkers to master!

Both sides agree that we are talking about whether chess is "harder to master" or not. Let's take a look at Pro's flow of logic:(1) More Possibilities implies More Complicated(2) More Rules implies More Complicated(3) More Complicated implies Harder to MasterThere are more possibilities. There are more rules. However, that is where the Pro and Con cease agreement. I will refute all of the above, but if I can successfully refute (3), or (1) and (2), then Con automatically wins. Throughout the round, notice how Pro keeps trying to make a claim about "MORE" of something and then say that it is inherently related to Chess being harder to master. However, "MORE" is not sufficient for a link. Let's boil down Pro's arguments:(1) More Possibilities implies More ComplicatedIn his case he never explains why this is true, only that it is. I argue that this is not necessarily true, which is enough for me to negate this point. First of all, notice how his More Possibilities point and his More Rules point contradict, because rules are restrictions on moves, so rules limit the number of possibilities. Pro does not explain any sort of trade-off during the round, so his whole case falls right there. But furthermore, I already negated (1) in my case with the removing forced-capture counterexample. It is not the greatest example, sure, but it functions appropriately. I successfully negate (1) if Pro cannot provide an adequate response to this, which he did not:"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). "The subsequent sentences are in response to something that Pro misinterpreted, so I omit that in this refutation. Pro completely missed my point. I brought up the removing forced-capture rule as an example that would not make the game more complicated, so a counterexample to (1). I provided two counterexamples in my case to (1) and (2), so I am not contradicting myself because I am giving counterexamples to two completely separate points. Because Pro's only response to my removing forced-capture counterexample was not adequate, (1) falls. (2) More Rules implies More ComplicatedIn his original case he cites "en passant", "castling", and "checks" as additional rules to chess. Sure, this is "more" than checkers. However, this fact alone does NOT make chess more complicated. First of all, look to my 100th move example. Like above, if this example still stands, (2) falls. The only way he wins (2) is if he can counter adequately. This is his counter:"Actually, it does [make chess more complicated]. 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. "There is no logic in this response. Whether new strategies would exist or not is irrelevant; so long as they are simpler my point still stands. The only other logic he provides in this response is "More rules implies more things to know implies complicated. " Finally, we see Pro's "link" between More Rules and More Complicated. However, "More things to know" about a game means absolutely nothing. That just makes chess a little bit harder to learn, which has nothing to do with more complicated. (3) More Complicated implies Harder to MasterI include this as an "even if chess is more complicated, it is NOT harder to master"There is absolutely no support of this whatsoever in this round, so (3) falls. His only response is:"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. Example: Skiing is easier to learn than snowboarding. Skiing is much harder to master.