On May 24 2012 16:48 Primadog wrote: I remember enjoy this series as result.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Please elaborate.
Wow those words didn't came out properly.
I really enjoy this series, because it tells a story about small things. We have a tendency to expect the games to be the story. StarCraft 2 is good for stories, very good, but it has its limits too. Stories that StarCraft tell will always be the heroic tales or dramatic falls - where are the diaries of a soldier or much ado about nothing?
So here is your story. Most likely, it won't be a prelude to revTiberius, the greatest SC2 player ever lived, or the first chapter of an autobiography on how you changed esports. Yours paints a person, a small person compare to the Day9s or IdrAs of the scene, but a part of the scene never-the-less. In such an odd time for the "industry," it's interesting too.
On May 24 2012 05:13 RevTiberius wrote: I've been wondering for a long time: Playing SC2 at the highest level - or even just trying to get there - for many players means sacrificing their college careers. To me this seems incredibly risky and something I'd never do even if I had the skills to play SC2 competitively. Of course I respect other people's choices though.
But my point is this. It's one thing to arguably lose career potential by not having a college degree. But what's much worse is that by not going to university you lose out on a lot of diversity that goes far beyond simply getting a degree. For example, it means meeting a very diverse group people and having exposure to things and ideas that you did not even know existed. College to me just seems too important a part of character and personality development.
Of course SC2 professionals travel a lot too and meet all kinds of people, but it seems that everybody is still just living in their SC2 bubble. Same goes for professional athletes in other games and sports, too. For example, I always cringe when I hear professional soccer players talk about non-soccer related topics, and think to myself "DUDE, you shouldn't have spent your ENTIRE youth on soccer".
I'm looking for interviews with professional SC2 players where they discuss this tradeoff. I respect their choices and I enjoy the entertainment they provide to the SC2 community, but I would like to hear their thoughts on not being able to go to university as a consequence of playing SC2 competitively.
I've been looking all over this site for information about this, but couldn't find anything. I'd appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction.
"Going to college", these days is universally accepted to be the correct path in achieving a life of personal happiness and material comfort. I feel otherwise. In my opinion, pursuing what you are most passionate about is the key to a happy, brimming life. Unfortunately for the 99% of gamers who look to be professional, doing what you love and making end's meat do not coincide. And potentially for my own case (as I'm 17 years old), attending a university, while practicing, competing, and going to events can be tricky. I'll talk a little bit about my own case for a moment here. For most young gamers, keeping up with the pros can be strenuous. There are always setbacks and sacrifices when persevering in anything. Keeping up in school while playing StarCraft 2, a year ago, used to be an easy case to choose. I always preferred to do well in school and finish homework, before playing StarCraft 2 with any free time I have left. Nowadays, it's the opposite. I practice when I get home and compete in many online tournaments at set times, and do homework and studying when I have free time. This culture is what allowed me to thrive in the game. Now, I don't consider myself a "Pro" by any means yet, but I'm definitely along the lines and/or nearing towards it. College. College will be the destructible rocks that prevent me from actually pursuing a professional StarCraft 2 career this early. Again, college and StarCraft 2 do not synchronize. Any attempts to do so will either result in lackluster grades or lackluster play. Destructible rocks. Eventually, college ends and (much like qxc) that's when I'll try to reignite my StarCraft 2 playing. So in essence, yes, you are correct: you cannot play StarCraft 2 effectively while competing (especially as a foreigner) and some people do defer or sacrifice college to play professionally, but in my own case, I will just be putting it on hiatus.
On May 24 2012 16:48 Primadog wrote: I remember enjoy this series as result.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Please elaborate.
Wow those words didn't came out properly.
I really enjoy this series, because it tells a story about small things. We have a tendency to expect the games to be the story. StarCraft 2 is good for stories, very good, but it has its limits too. Stories that StarCraft tell will always be the heroic tales or dramatic falls - where are the diaries of a soldier or much ado about nothing?
So here is your story. Most likely, it won't be a prelude to revTiberius, the greatest SC2 player ever lived, or the first chapter of an autobiography on how you changed esports. Yours paints a person, a small person compare to the Day9s or IdrAs of the scene, but a part of the scene never-the-less. In such an odd time for the "industry," it's interesting too.
Well, I take that as a compliment. Thank you very much!
@ IS.Pyre: a detailed response will follow soon
@ most featured streamers: The music during your streams is awful. Often even just the same 4-5 bad songs in an endless loop. As a matter of cultural and intellectual self-defense I have decided to introduce more classical music to the teamliquid community. This piece here is strictly speaking not classical music - I'll get to that later - but still incomparably better than the "music" I have to suffer through when I tune in to 98% of the streams here on this site.
It's a delight seeing all the other threads here in the forum celebrating Germany's win over Portugal at EURO 2012 today, but it is with great pleasure that I re-post the most important scene of the game :-)
And this article about the German team is highly recommended. Even I wasn't aware that the team holds so many different records and achievements! :-)
As I was going through an old external hard drive of mine earlier today, I rediscovered this old training video I made a long time ago, explaining the most effective use of stim and concussive shells. Enjoy :-)
On May 25 2012 09:52 iS.Pyre wrote: "Going to college", these days is universally accepted to be the correct path in achieving a life of personal happiness and material comfort. I feel otherwise. In my opinion, pursuing what you are most passionate about is the key to a happy, brimming life. Unfortunately for the 99% of gamers who look to be professional, doing what you love and making end's meat do not coincide. And potentially for my own case (as I'm 17 years old), attending a university, while practicing, competing, and going to events can be tricky. I'll talk a little bit about my own case for a moment here. For most young gamers, keeping up with the pros can be strenuous. There are always setbacks and sacrifices when persevering in anything. Keeping up in school while playing StarCraft 2, a year ago, used to be an easy case to choose. I always preferred to do well in school and finish homework, before playing StarCraft 2 with any free time I have left. Nowadays, it's the opposite. I practice when I get home and compete in many online tournaments at set times, and do homework and studying when I have free time. This culture is what allowed me to thrive in the game. Now, I don't consider myself a "Pro" by any means yet, but I'm definitely along the lines and/or nearing towards it. College. College will be the destructible rocks that prevent me from actually pursuing a professional StarCraft 2 career this early. Again, college and StarCraft 2 do not synchronize. Any attempts to do so will either result in lackluster grades or lackluster play. Destructible rocks. Eventually, college ends and (much like qxc) that's when I'll try to reignite my StarCraft 2 playing. So in essence, yes, you are correct: you cannot play StarCraft 2 effectively while competing (especially as a foreigner) and some people do defer or sacrifice college to play professionally, but in my own case, I will just be putting it on hiatus.
I mean, I agree with you it is extremely dificult to go to college while playing sc2 as a "pro" level, however I also think its the stupidest thing a person can possibly do with there life to drop, or suspend college or university for starcraft, I think that is absolutely rediculously sad unless you show insane potential, and by this I do not mean your really good and with more time could be better, I mean your already being considered to win Mlg's etc. Otherwise I think your proving alot of people right by gamers just being procrastinators. I feel good for the top players, they are making a living doing what they love, but its the same as dropping out of college to be in a band. Ya maybe you will make it big, but the odds are so slim you will get out of that semi pro level that its a stupid life choice.
Just my 2 bits as I have been in the situation you have mentioned and am so glad I picked a real life over the chance of a gaming life (which from all the depressed pro gamers cant even be that amazing)
There are more and more chess threads here on TL so I decided to upload a couple of screen shots myself again. I'm currently really rusty with my rating dropping to the lower 2100 range, but this is a nice little game from earlier today.
In all honesty I didn't play well and should have lost it:
My king is pretty much unprotected, and the black bishop on b7 is probably going to be the final nail in the coffin. However, as it so often happens, once a player's attack gets going and check mate seems just around the corner, they often neglect their own king's safety. This particular guy allowed me to reach the following position just a few moves later:
I quit SC2 after I got promoted to diamond and even made it to top 8 there on a consistent basis. I noticed that playing more didn't help me get better. Making a few changes to my game helped me a lot more than just grinding out more games on ladder. I'm wondering if this is true on GM level, too, that playing SMARTER is more important than playing MORE OFTEN. This might help balance a busy schedule. But I guess at GM level constant practice and muscle memory are equally important?!
It partially depends on what type of GM player you are. At the GM level, there are plenty of bad players, and we're all bad at something. There are GMs that play situational playstyles and there are GMs that play a few builds / single playstyle and win games that way.
The latter may need to learn when to recognize the appropriate times to switch plays. Spotting moments of weakness in your opponents play is just as important as improving your own play.
But for the most part, I'd argue the MORE OFTEN choice. At the GM level, regardless of how you win, we all lack consistency. It's very difficult to play at the potential you're capable of at all times. Consistency and mechanics can only come from practice.
It's often discouraging, because you'll play games where you feel like Stephano, and other times where you question how you've made it even this far.
Most GMs are smart though. There's always room for more knowledge, but you can't expect to improve without putting in games. Consistency becomes crucial at the highest level because the slightest mistakes are exposed, leaving no room for error. We're all bad at something; but for the most of us, consistency is on that list.
At lower levels, learning more about the flow of the game, so you don't have to question your own decision-making, is more beneficial than just grinding out games.
Starcraft is like any other skill. First you master whatever it is, then it becomes an art form. Trying to perform your own art before understanding the limitations of efficiency, effectiveness, etc, etc. of that skillset can even have adverse effects. Building inefficient habits is never good. Bad habits are hard to break!
Watching pro streams and following the cursor is my best advice. Find out how the pros do every step of their play; most pros have learned the gimmicks and tricks of macro and micro to optimize the use of their time.
Practice makes perfect, but only if you're practicing correctly!
TL;DR It's a mix of both, but mostly practice so you have the consistency and raw mechanics to compete at the highest level.
Ok, it's been a while. I haven't played SC2 (or any other video game for that matter) in almost 9 months, but I still follow what's going on at the highest level, and there are a few things I want to talk about. So stay tuned for updates!
Recently he asked me whether I would help him become a better chess player, and naturally I accepted the challenge. The avid reader of this blog will recall that I never was a great SC2 player. I retired at the top of my diamond division. However, I used to be a 2200 ELO chess player, and though I’m not quite that good anymore, I’m still a pretty strong player.
Pyre’s current online rating is around 1050. His goal is to reach 1500. I know that this seems a daunting task to many beginners, but I’ve played a great deal of chess over the years and in my opinion the difference between 1000 and 1500 isn’t all that great. Going from 1000 to 1500 is certainly easier than going from 1500 to 2000, or, as I myself had to learn the hard way many years ago, going from 2000 to 2500.
In my opinion, the only real difference between a 1000 player and a 1500 player is that the 1500 player has a better understanding of basic chess strategy and tactics. However, the upside is that basic chess strategy and tactics are fairly easy to learn, and in my experience the real litmus test of a chess player is not whether he or she reaches 1500, but whether they continue to develop from there because once you have mastered the fundamental concepts of chess, it gets a little harder to improve further.
I also should mention that I firmly believe that anybody who is serious about becoming a better chess player MUST also play the game offline over-the-board. Online games and chess lessons are a lot of fun and certainly help, but the best way to get better at chess is to play and analyze games at your local chess club.
So now the question is how do we actually get Pyre’s skills from 1000 to 1500? My coaching style combines elements of Gandalf, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann.
Currently we’re still getting started and regularly play longer games so that I can get a better understanding of what Pyre already knows and where his weaknesses are. For the same purpose I have also flipped through some of the games he’s played against people at his level. At the same time, our games provide a good opportunity to discuss some of the tactical and strategic themes that arise. For example, the following game provided an opportunity to discuss the so-called “smothered mate”, arguably one of the most dramatic maneuvers in chess.
These games are also important because I need to know whether Pyre is a more tactical/aggressive player, or prefers more strategic/positional games. Based on his macro-heavy/no-nonsense approach to SC2 I kind of expected him to be more on the strategic/positional side, but he appears to prefer more aggressive, all-out attack on the king kind of games. I found that to be an interesting observation.
Once I've concluded my assessment of his style, we'll start working on more technical aspects of the game, such as the fundamentals of
a) Strategy: e.g. developing minor and major pieces, pawn structures, typical plans, activity and initiative etc.
b) Tactics: e.g. how to calculate variations efficiently, how to choose among several moves, and of course typical beginner level tactics such as various check mates, forks, pins and skewer, zugzwang, double attacks etc.
c) Opening Theory: I firmly believe that beginners and players below maybe 1600-1700 really do not need to know all that much about the different chess openings. At that level a player is much better off dedicating his or her time to the fundamentals of strategy or tactics. However, Pyre and I will spend some time on some of the basic chess openings to make sure he plays those openings that result in the kind of positions he's comfortable with and enjoys playing. To reiterate: It is NOT necessary for him to memorize all the different lines of the French defense, for example, but he does need to form an opinion on whether the kind of position that typically comes out of a French opening is something he wants to go for.
Over the coming weeks and months I will chronicle our progress here including lessons learned, successes, failures, and interesting observations. In the meantime I encourage everybody to check out Pyre's stream (link above).
And no, I am not getting paid for these lessons, my awesomeness comes free of charge :-)
Are you going to be documenting your lessons or anything? As a person who picked up chess around 2 years and playing it a good bit over board with friends and on an android app called chess time, I'd be curious what I could learn / where I'm at! I too am also 17, about to be 18 like pyre. Would be interesting =D . maybe I could play him while you observe / critique the later games?
Nice chess game postings btw, was fun to look at them.
edit: Just wanted to post my 2 favorite openers for both colors. For white i like Queens gambit, and English opener. I don't mind opening king pawn but Queens gambit and English are by far what i'm comfortable with. (then again i haven't really tried many other openers, I kind of began learning with just king pawn then slowly learned different openers where i would exclusively play them as white to get a feel for them.) As black my most comfortable games are against king and queen pawn openers, because i respond sicilian or indian. I'm kind of curious what this might mean as far as my play style Rev :p , if you don't mind giving me your opinion.
Is a 1000 online rating similar to a 1000 USCF rating? That was about my rating back in 4th grade before I quit. I was bad though, cause I approached chess in completely the wrong way. I just played games and read chess magazines instead of learning openings and analyzing positions and strategies. I also lacked good practice partners and the only practice I got was at tournaments and my afterschool chess club.
On January 06 2013 09:45 monk. wrote: Is a 1000 online rating similar to a 1000 USCF rating? That was about my rating back in 4th grade before I quit. I was bad though, cause I approached chess in completely the wrong way. I just played games and read chess magazines instead of learning openings and analyzing positions and strategies. I also lacked good practice partners and the only practice I got was at tournaments and my afterschool chess club.
Yeah it is similar for the 1000 online to USCF. When you start getting higher in rating there is a big difference in my opinion. I think that at 1500 is similar to 1400 USCF. Then the difference gets greater. A 1700 USCF is around 1900 online. I think a 2000 rated USCF is around a 2500 online.
@Smoodish: I don't really know you well enough to comment on your choice of chess openings. Though I want to repeat that I don't think that at your level it is particularly useful to spend too much time on openings because beginners' games are too flawed in too many ways for detailed opening theory to make any sense. I suggest you start with simple tactics and strategy.
WikiBooks has a good section on chess strategy and tactics that's worth working your way through. In this blog I'm most likely not going to publish any training material. Rather, I'll focus on my observations of how Pyre's development is coming along.
@ Monk & Lightrise: I agree. Offline ratings give a better indication of a player's skill level, and ELO is a little better at that than USCF. I also agree that online ratings tend to be a bit higher than ELO and USCF without the player actually being any better, though someone at 2000 USCF would probably not quite be 2500 online. More like 2300 or maybe 2400. 2500 is really, really good.
Anybody who's interested in my chess games can find me as RevTiberius on Chess.com
This is the second in a series of articles about my efforts to teach chess to Pyre, a high-ranking North-American SC2 Grandmaster If you missed the first part of this series, you can find it here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17433807
I’m now about 3 weeks into my project to teach chess to SC2 Grandmaster Pyre. As I described in the first article in this series, my initial task was to figure out how much he already knows about the game. To this end we’ve played a number of games and I’ve also observed some of his games against players at his level. My initial assessment of his skills is this: For someone who picked up chess fairly recently, he has a pretty good understanding of beginner level strategies and ideas. At the same time his knowledge of tactics is limited and as a result most of his losses are due to losing material to standard tactics such as forks and pins. This is by no means unusual. In fact it’s quite normal and the reason why in our sessions I mainly focus on tactical themes. I noticed that Pyre has quite a good understanding of what needs to be done once I've explained a position to him, but he's sometimes lost when he tries to make sense of a position on his own. That, too, is perfectly normal, and I have no doubt that over time he'll develop his "game sense" to know what needs to be done. It's a combination of experience and intuition, and it takes a while to acquire.
One of the very common tactical themes we discussed so far is “deflection”. The basic idea is to deflect one of the opponent’s key pieces – usually through sacrifice or check – so that it can no longer fulfill the task assigned to it. It so happened that in one of my own recent games on chess.com a very interesting example of this came up (you may have to click on the diagram and enlarge it):
I was White, and I had sacrificed an exchange in order to reach this position. My thoughts were kind of like this: - Black’s King is still in the center and kind of naked - I have a rook on the open f-file - My Queen is threatening to take on e6 - My knight can easily join the attack via f3 and then either to e5 or f5 - Other than being an exchange up on me, Black has no immediate threats
I wanted to take on e6 with my Queen, but realized that after Black plays Queen to e7 in response, I have no further checks and no way to continue the attack. But still Queen takes on e6 is obviously the way to go, so I had to find a way to distract Black’s Queen temporarily. And here I brilliantly (though I say so myself…) found the move Pawn d4 takes c5. This move activates my previously useless Bishop on b2 and pins the Black Queen to the rook on h8, thereby inviting the Queen to take my Bishop. And that’s what Black did, but after Queen takes Bishop, I take on e6, followed by Rook to f7, and Black has no defense against checkmate. A nice little example of how powerful the deflection of a defending piece can be.
It has to be said though that Black, instead of taking my Bishop, could have and should have played Pawn to e5 to close the dangerous diagonal. However, this move is not so easy to see as evidenced by the fact that both I and my opponent (both of us pretty strong players) overlooked this move during the game. I only discovered it after I spent some time analyzing the position after the game was over.
In any case, this game was another important example that tactics really are the “mechanics” of chess, and that one must have a good understanding of chess tactics in order to become a good player. Also, “Deflection” is closely related to the idea of “Decoy”, which is a maneuver I’ll introduce to Pyre in our next session.
I can’t emphasize enough how important it is as a beginner to study chess tactics. Doing just one or two chess puzzles a day can make a really big difference. A 1500 player doesn’t really play “better” chess than a 1000-1100 player like Pyre, he just makes fewer tactical mistakes. The same holds true for me, too. I’m a 2100 player, and most of my games are won and lost on tactics. Bottom line: practicing tactics is like taking the Elovator…
But of course we don’t just do tactics. We are also looking at famous chess games. So far I’ve shown Pyre 2 classics:
Nigel Short – Jan Timman, Tilburg 1991 Anatoly Karpov – Victor Korchnoi, FIDE Candidates Final 1974
I picked these games not only because they are brilliant achievements by the players and really fun to go through, but more importantly because these games are based on straightforward strategic plans and feature many of the tactical patterns we have already discussed.
One of the next games I’d like to show him is one of Capablanca’s positional masterpieces as an illustration that one doesn’t always have to launch an all-out attack in order to win the game.
Tactics in Chess = Mechanics in SC2? I’m not trying to say tactics in chess and mechanics in SC2 are the same thing, but I think it’s an interesting comparison. Without solid tactics, one will never be a good chess player because one will keep losing too much material needlessly. Tactics are the foundations upon which a good player executes his strategies and plans. Similarly, in SC2, strategies and build orders are useless if one doesn’t have the mechanics to execute them efficiently.
Transferable Skills? Pyre is undoubtedly a very strong SC2 player. But does that make it easier for him to learn chess? And are chess players predestined to become strong SC2 players? I don’t think so. Though I think it is fair to say that if one likes strategy games in general, it wouldn’t be unusual to enjoy both games, as different as they may be.
Chess Software and Videos So far I’m not introducing chess software in our sessions because I think this would be a great disservice to Pyre. That’s like giving kids in first grade math a calculator. I believe it is essential – especially for beginners – that one reaches one’s own conclusions as erroneous as many of them may be in the beginning. If you use chess engines too early in your development you’ll distrust your own judgment and never build up the confidence necessary to make it through complex calculations. I also have mixed feelings about watching chess videos. Of course they are entertaining and do help to some extend. But at the end of the day it’s like watching Day9’s SC2 commentary. It’s fun, it’s instructive, but unless one actually plays SC2 and practices what he preaches, watching his videos alone won’t make one a better player.
Having said that, I think among all the material that is available on YouTube, Daniel King’s channel clearly stands out:
There is nothing wrong with watching Daniel King’s videos. It’s just no substitute for practice. Chess is fun, but there’s no denying that it also requires some work.
Feedback Feedback and suggestions to my articles are highly welcome. Especially from people with experience in online coaching. I have a lot of experience in both coaching people at chess as well as being coached, but I've never done it online. I'd like to hear from people who have experience in online chess lessons.
I’ve been asked why I’m teaching Pyre for free when an experienced chess coach of my skill level typically charges about $40/hour. The answer is quite simple. In my chess career I’ve already played hundreds of serious tournament games and literally thousands of blitz and bullet games. While I keep enjoying this, my marginal utility (yes, I have an econ degree among others) of PLAYING chess is somewhat decreasing. On the other hand, TEACHING a friend to get better at chess gives me more satisfaction than simply winning a few more blitz games. And when I pursue my hobbies, I have no financial interests. It kind of defeats the purpose.
In a few weeks time I'll provide another update on how things are progressing. In the meantime I encourage everybody to check out Pyre’s entertaining stream:
Any chance Prye (or you) could stream your lessons and then upload them for the people following your blog? I and I'm sure quite a few others might be interested in seeing that.
I just started getting into chess a few weeks ago. I'm currently at a lowly ~800 on Chess.com. But after reading this post, I've realized my lack of knowledge regarding tactics is a bigger flaw than I thought it was. I have a beginners chess book I bought but it's just so dry I never made any progress in it. Guess I'll have to pick it back up.
Also, do you have any more recommendations as far as YouTube channels go? I've been watching ChessNetwork (http://www.youtube.com/user/ChessNetwork) and feel as if I'm picking a bit of information up as I go. Hearing someone experienced go through their though processes has been eye opening, at the very least.
I am not as good in chess as you, probably because I quit sooner. I once was the youth champion of my country, and competed on the nordic championship against the likes of Magnus Carlsen and other good players. However, I quit at the age of 14-16 and took up other hobbies. I am mid masters protoss right now and I look at sc2 the exact same way I used to look at chess. I have both been coaching sc2, but way before that I have been teaching chess quite a lot. Having taught chess really really helped me as a sc2 coach. Here are some of the reasons why.
You have your openings, the only difference is, that in starcraft you don't know what opening your opponent is doing until in move 6 (or something like that). But the key in both games is to have an understanding of how to start the game the most efficient way, know a couple of openings by heart and be as efficient with your resources as possible (your moves and pieces in chess, minerals/gas and units/buildings in sc2). A sloppy opening is the doom of players in both games. A 1500 rated chess player (gold/plat level sc2 player) can easily play against a 1900 rated opponent (dia in sc2 terms) and beat him if his understanding of that single opening is much better. Good tactical players can falter against weaker players if their openings aren't up to par with the rest of their play. Same can be said about sc2, so in both games openings are really important.
Both games have mid games. Here the tactical geniuses get to shine in both games. It is in the mid-game that we most of the time get to see one player take advantage. In chess, one player can take the positional lead, having his pieces in stronger spots, holding better lines. In sc2 that relates to either putting on some aggression to get some lead, or holding off some aggression to take the lead, it can either be army wise or economical, but in the mid game we usually see one player pulling ahead of the other in both games. In the mid game we see the players utilize the foundation they had built in the early game to get an edge on the opponent. Very similar. Understanding your pieces/units is key in the mid game, knowing your limits and the strength of your pieces/units and how best to utilize them is what sets players apart along with general knowledge of the game.
Lategame/endgame: My favourite part of chess and probably where I shined by far most as a player. While my openings were sometimes sloppy, my late mid game/endgame saw me surpass many much better players at a very young age. The endgame is all about "understanding" in both chess and Sc2. Knowing how to utilize those few key units, how to win certain positions. While a lesser player get's a draw from some position, a better player can almost always force his way to victory with superior late game knowledge in chess. This is however not the case in sc2, this is where I feel the games do diverge a bit because sc2 doesn't seem to leave the chess equivalent of top of the action mid game. However it does happen, when players trade bases, and go from having 4 mining bases to possibly only having 1 mining base and scarce resources, that is when they need to utilize their units the same way you need to when playing the endgame in chess.
--
Now with all this said, all I wanted to say is that approaching the games the same way is smart. Spend time studying your opening, perfecting your understanding of it and counters to what the opponent does. Understand how that translates into the midgame, what openings it gives you when your opponent doesn't respond the correct way, and then learn how to finish an opponent off.
Love seeing a decent chess player on TL making a thread about this. For myself I can say the same as you, I have great passion for teaching and I have thought chess myself a bunch, and also done some sc2 coaching with good resaults, getting players to masters through having the right approach to the game. I am looking forward to reading the rest of your posts, that was my take on chess/sc2, very excited to see what you will do more.
---
Btw, nice move against Gyoi, don't know how neither of you saw e5, but it doesn't seem to matter, looks like you have the upper hand on him anyway afterwards?? Nice move
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Zltrt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ut2DX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0xBUt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Bxb6S.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/G5PGf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZvIlr4P.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/huIDqRg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qpPEgzM.gif)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/0/04/No.png)
Magnus Carlsen and other good players. However, I quit at the age of 14-16 and took up other hobbies. I am mid masters protoss right now and I look at sc2 the exact same way I used to look at chess. I have both been coaching sc2, but way before that I have been teaching chess quite a lot. Having taught chess really really helped me as a sc2 coach. Here are some of the reasons why.
