It'd be nice if you actually replied to anything I said, instead of constructing ridiculous strawman arguments and pretending that I said them.

No, there's nothing wrong with trying to recreate checkers (Checkers, incidentally, is in the public domain. And is a game so old that it's not even obvious who to credit) There's also nothing wrong with recreating pong (But maybe don't call it 'Pong'; that word was still under an active trademark registration, last I checked.. which admittedly has been a couple years. Do note that the original Pong is still under Copyright, but its 'artwork' was so abstract and simplistic that it's difficult to imagine it would have much protection.. and I can't imagine that somebody would actually copy & paste it into their game, rather than making their own rectangles. But your mileage may vary).

And for heaven's sake, I didn't say there was anything wrong with learning. I didn't say anything even remotely like that. Have you no shame?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with learning. I said there's something wrong with copying copyrighted artwork created by someone else and plastering your name over it with a big "by Brent Aureli" notice, and taking money for it, and failing to acknowledge where the work actually came from. If you don't understand why any of those things are problematic, then I can't help you.

Anyhow, I'm done with this exchange. Please feel free to "win" the argument by ignoring everything I've said again, and inventing something different and absurd to claim that I had said again, if that will make your happy. I'm done with this.