The more I think about it, BW and chess seem to have a lot in common. I'm a pretty good chess player (around 1800 on Yahoo chess and used to be the best player back in high school...unfortunately I can't say I'm as good at BW, but I like to watch pro games often), and I found the similarities between BW and chess to be striking. Aside from the superficial differences, I think anyone can say that even the dissimilarities between the 2 games can be translated into chess from BW, or vice versa. Let me elaborate.
You have build orders, which are established and standard openings in BW games. Chess too has opening theory, based on hundreds of years of constantly evolving ideas...
You have strategy. Chess is known to be all time classic game of strategy. And BW is a game you keep coming back to, in large part, because of its strategical appeal. You need to be able to plan ahead, anticipate your opponent's moves, formulate plans, try to stay at least a step ahead of your opponent and just basically try to get an advantage in any way possible. Strategy is just 1 way to get an advantage...
You have mechanics/apm. This is a huge part of BW because it's a real time strategy game (RTS). This of course isn't the case for chess but, in a sense, chess is also RTS. The only difference is that in BW, you're making decisions and executing them at the same time as your opponent, whereas in chess you can make decisions at the same time as your opponent but execute them only after your opponent completes his turn. More concretely, like in BW, where your superior micro can defeat an opponent who has equal strategical and game sense as you, in chess, all your strategical formulations and ideas are useless unless you can execute properly...and for this you need technical expertise. Also in chess you have the same time to make your moves as your opponent does, so it's really just a distorted RTS, but an RTS game nonetheless.
Obviously, the games have pretty big differences too. In chess, there is no map imbalance. There is pretty much only 1 race in chess too, as opposed to 3 distinct yet balanced races in BW. I also don't see how the concept of cheese or proxy rushes can be applied to chess. On the other hand, chess has a concept of draw, which is neither a win nor a loss, whereas in BW you can only win or lose (even though draws are possible in BW, they are extremely rare). Some people will say that BW is more fun because you actually see blood and gore and battles and everything moving, but in chess the battles play out more subtly, although I won't argue that this means that chess has more subtlety (as it's obviously not true). But the games are quite similar in all other respects. Playing both chess and BW has definitely given me greater perspective on both games.
EDIT: haha i forgot to add the most important thing....chess has no 'fog of war', so you can see all the actions your opponent carries out.
there is micro in chess too, when a game is timed, when you play it in real life yuo'll have to be able to think fast and put your pieces in the right placse fast to deal with the timer.
I've actually recently had an argument about chess vs. starcraft with my roomate. He seems to think that it's easier to master/solve chess than it is starcraft, when starcraft is obviously infinitely times more complex.
Starcraft you have to play with at high speed, and it's not a game of perfect information (even though you try as hard as you can to make it one). Also new maps are coming out and have to be memorized all the time. There's only so many games of chess you can play, albeit there's a lot, but there's literally an infinite amount of games you can play in one matchup on one map in starcraft.
Dude, chess micro? Try that tempest game... too lazy to link it now, but people were talking about it in a blog earlier. Essentially chess without turns. Go as quickly as possible.
There's only so many games of chess you can play, albeit there's a lot
A lot?
Allis also estimated the game-tree complexity to be at least 10^123, "based on an average branching factor of 35 and an average game length of 80". As a comparison, the number of atoms in the observable Universe, to which it is often compared, is estimated to be between 4×10^79 and 10^81.
Allis also estimated the game-tree complexity to be at least 10^123, "based on an average branching factor of 35 and an average game length of 80". As a comparison, the number of atoms in the observable Universe, to which it is often compared, is estimated to be between 4×10^79 and 10^81.
Ok, there's a shit ton, an unfathomable amount, an ungodly number. But still there's an infinite amount of ways any given game of starcraft could be played for just one matchup on just one map.
I think playing literally perfect starcraft is so far above literally perfect chess.
On April 03 2010 12:23 YPang wrote: there is micro in chess too, when a game is timed, when you play it in real life yuo'll have to be able to think fast and put your pieces in the right placse fast to deal with the timer.
I'm not sure if that qualifies as micromanagement...
Micro vs macro is fairly different than positional play vs tactics lol
On April 03 2010 13:12 Cube wrote: just picking nits, but the number of games of starcraft for one matchup on one map is still finite. it's just massive.
Every possible path any unit at any point in the game can take is another "possible" game, this is just one example of the huge realm of game possibilities. Yes, I'll admit it is finite but there's no way to compute the number. If the possible number of chess games is 10^123, as stated earlier in the thread, then the possible number of starcraft games must be like 10^10000.
This kinda reminds me of the time we were doing series' and limits of Taylor series' and on the final I put that something that approached 1,500,000! approached infinity and got it wrong ... stupid me. I even put after my answer something along the lines of "for all practical purposes this approaches infinity".
On April 03 2010 13:48 crate wrote: Chess is almost entirely symmetric (both players have the same options), whereas BW is only symmetric in mirror matches.
That's really the biggest draw to most of the strategy games I play, is the asymmetry.
Chess is usually only symmetric during the first few moves, and not even then many times. For example, the Sicilian defense (a very popular opening) diverges on black's first move. The options for each side really are very different.
Proxy raxing and other cheese builds are comparable to bishop sacks and whatnot.
Watch that game. Doesn't it just scream "proxy 9/9 gate"?
And those pimpest play videos are the exclamation marks you find in chess notation.
Also, both games are split into three sections, an opening, a middle game, and an end-game.
Macro is like the pieces that you have, while micro is how you use them, and piece placement. For example, I once lost an endgame that was King and Rook versus King and four pawns. He managed his pawns very well and ended up promoting one, so it's like Dragoon versus five SCVs. The units are different, and the winner will be determined by micro alone.
EDIT: By the way, what do you mean Chess has no fog of war? I mean sure, standard chess doesn't, but there are variants with fog of war. You need either a computer or a third party to help set up the two different boards, but basically, you don't see any of your opponent's pieces except for the ones that you are attacking or are attacking you.
Actually, there are some 'cheese' builds in chess, that, if countered properly, will get you killed, but if unexpected and incorrectly answered to, can lead to an overwhelming advantage. For reference, random opening I use for fun (I'm pretty good, High School chess team): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Gambit
Or two of my favorite countergambits as Black, the Falkbeer and the Albin. They're not that dangerous for black, but very dangerous for white if he's not studied up on them. So in that sense, it's like a 2 base arbiter rush...
Chess is not a RTS, because RTS means real time strategy, so the correct word would be TBS as turn base strategy. The beauty of starcraft comes from the race diversity and map variety. The most exciting are the asymetric matches, while in the symetric ones often the one who is faster - has better execution and micro wins.
Chess provides you with all the information, there is no fog of war and you don't have to scout, just make the correct decisions apropriately fast. In Starcraft you rely on scouting and guessing upon the things you've scouted or experienced. In this aspect Starcraft feels more like poker, where scouting is like betting and decisions are made upon reactions and table cards.
Chess on the first glance seems like a symetric PvP or TvT matchup, but it really isn't symetric because one player starts first which gives him like starting with 5 probes lead vs the other. Another thing is in chess you can move only a piece at time and you aren't allowed to skip turn, where in many TBS you move with all your pieces and are able to skip turn.
We've been talking about chess and TvT in IRC for a bit.
TvT is chess with...
10+ boards exploding pieces invisible pieces sometimes your pieces die when they step in a square some pieces can transport your pieces to another board
On April 03 2010 20:54 Waxangel wrote: We've been talking about chess and TvT in IRC for a bit.
TvT is chess with...
10+ boards exploding pieces invisible pieces sometimes your pieces die when they step in a square some pieces can transport your pieces to another board
We should make this shit. 10-board chess with fog of war. Except you also spawn on one board and somehow your units expand.
Chess is always played on the same "map" which is also completely open and without any features. The map in BW makes a huge difference in how you play.
Watch that game. Doesn't it just scream "proxy 9/9 gate"?
And those pimpest play videos are the exclamation marks you find in chess notation.
Also, both games are split into three sections, an opening, a middle game, and an end-game.
Macro is like the pieces that you have, while micro is how you use them, and piece placement. For example, I once lost an endgame that was King and Rook versus King and four pawns. He managed his pawns very well and ended up promoting one, so it's like Dragoon versus five SCVs. The units are different, and the winner will be determined by micro alone.
EDIT: By the way, what do you mean Chess has no fog of war? I mean sure, standard chess doesn't, but there are variants with fog of war. You need either a computer or a third party to help set up the two different boards, but basically, you don't see any of your opponent's pieces except for the ones that you are attacking or are attacking you.
That was probably the first game of chess I've ever seen that dropped my jaw. YES! It screws proxy 9/9 gate!
Watch that game. Doesn't it just scream "proxy 9/9 gate"?
And those pimpest play videos are the exclamation marks you find in chess notation.
Also, both games are split into three sections, an opening, a middle game, and an end-game.
Macro is like the pieces that you have, while micro is how you use them, and piece placement. For example, I once lost an endgame that was King and Rook versus King and four pawns. He managed his pawns very well and ended up promoting one, so it's like Dragoon versus five SCVs. The units are different, and the winner will be determined by micro alone.
EDIT: By the way, what do you mean Chess has no fog of war? I mean sure, standard chess doesn't, but there are variants with fog of war. You need either a computer or a third party to help set up the two different boards, but basically, you don't see any of your opponent's pieces except for the ones that you are attacking or are attacking you.
Very fun game, although I had to mute it. I don't want to insult his voice any further because I have a feeling he might be disabled.
TvT on a perfectly symmetric map is probably the closest thing to Chess. It's not very close but there are many interesting parallels. Without the mechanics out of the way though, Starcraft overall is more like poker in terms of levels of thinking and limited information.
Chess and broodwar have two completely different setS of rules. Gameplay flows independently, and no matter how you look at it, microing a tank and pinning a knight are in no way comparable. Chess is a game of brute force, where pure calculation is supplemented by build orders and experience. Because all the information is given, chess is a game where superior foresight by either player will win. There is no macro or micro, just simple recognition and execution. They are definitely alike in their separation between early, middle, and late game, but as far as the gameplay and thinking goes, they are too different to compare.
I consider a proxy a opening of where u move the middle pawn where ur castling forward and then put your bishop where the pawn used to be. This allows u to take units much more easily as the bishop has a huge area of power and may even be able to take a rook or queen when ur opponent forgets about ur bishop. This bishop has saved me from utter defeat/ granted me a win in countless games.
EPT
... stupid me. I even put after my answer something along the lines of "for all practical purposes this approaches infinity".
