Chess is one of easiest things in category "hard stuff"

@kindaspongey

Might not one now consider Lasker's ideas and viewpoints largely outdated?

Well, yes and no. (I am in a kindaspongey mood, today.)

"Lasker's ideas and viewpoints largely outdated"

• It is the same game with the same rules.

Lasker is a good choice for debate as he was a chess master and a PhD in mathematics. In chess he became world champion. In mathematics he tried for many years to obtain a full-time university professorship but failed. So he was more successful at the 'easy' chess than mathematics.
On the other side, Noam Elkies is a well respected study composer and a Harvard professor in mathematics. Also at Harvard, Ken Rogoff was a chess grandmaster before he became professor in economics. Dennis Hassabis was a promising 2300+ junior in chess, now he is better known as CEO of Google Deep Mind and Nobel prize winner in Chemistry.

@lizani said ^

1. Count the number of chess masters in your country.
2. Count the number of university graduates with a degree in computer science, mathematics and physics from a single university in one year in your country.
   Impressed?
   It's a skewed comparison, of course, as university degrees require years of full-time study and few can devote the same effort to chess. Nevertheless, it shows how hard chess i...

Here a flaw in that logic, chess is competitive game based on elo, meaning by design here would be less and less people having higher elos, elo is comparason how much better you're compared to other players in log scale.
So by design here are way smaller amount players being masters.
So diffrence between professor and being a master at chess, is professor proves purely by knowleage and skills, but chess masters proves by being better than nearly everyone else at chess.

So any competitive game with elo system, here exist such high elo what meets that critera.
Amount of people with that elo or higher < amount of STEM professors.

just Imagine any game, cs:go, valorant, e.c.t

@tpr how have you been? its been a while. nice to see youre back in the forums again.

@lizani said ^

1. Count the number of chess masters in your country.
2. Count the number of university graduates with a degree in computer science, mathematics and physics from a single university in one year in your country.
   Impressed?
   It's a skewed comparison, of course, as university degrees require years of full-time study and few can devote the same effort to chess. Nevertheless, it shows how hard chess i...

There isnt that few chess masters because the game is hard, the number is so low because no one wants to invest that much time into chess to become a master, as that for large matter is pretty useless thing to become, at least when you get a degree you acquire actual useful skills and knowledge, chess is just a hobby, it is just a game

@ChessPriyome said ^

Connect Four is easy to master: has been strongly solved.

True: You can read a connect four guide and be an expert in an hour.

Also True: You can read chess books for a lifetime and still suck at it.

Note: reading chess books does not make you good at chess. you need to read chess books in conjuction with pushing the wood around the board and having a dialogue with your pieces and your study partner, ask questions, experiment, and see what happens.

Chess cannot be hard: a cell phone can do it.

Award the phone a GM title.

Chess is hard when you start to learn, but it becomes easy after you learn