EPTOn April 27 2013 00:24 Avean wrote:
So is Chess. You dont know what moves your opponent will do, same as in SC2.
So is Chess. You dont know what moves your opponent will do, same as in SC2.
I don't think you know what incomplete information means.
Is SC2 more like GO or Chess? - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
I don't think you know what incomplete information means. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On April 27 2013 00:26 AnomalySC2 wrote: It's like a mix of Poker, Chess, Boxing, Nascar (your skill comes from how well you control a piece of "machinery") and WWE (your personality means a LOT in sc2 ^_^ ). Hah! I like that you managed to include Nascar & WWE in there, and made it actually work somewhat... :D | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On April 27 2013 00:24 Avean wrote: So is Chess. You dont know what moves your opponent will do, same as in SC2. They just word it in a bitter tone, but right in the core. RTS games are about gathering informations and using those against your opponent. Chess and Go have god vision, they are not comparable apart from that you need to think. It is probably closer to Battleship then Chess. And no Chess is not a game of incomplete information. You should know what your opponent will do, since you have all the time (well 7ish hours) and information you need to know what your opponent is trying to do. If you don't there is no chance of victory. It is more the decision how you use what your opponent does to get an advantage. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
mousewiz
Canada18 Posts
On April 27 2013 01:09 rEalGuapo wrote: Is grey more like 7 or orange juice? 7, because it's sort of a middle number (as far as typical start and end points go) and grey is sort of a middle shade. Yes, "orange juice," has a colour in its name, but that is superfluous to what orange juice is. I would similarly say that grey is more like 7 than like grey hair; 7 and grey have the same middling essence and they could easily be used to represent each other. Grey hair just happens to have grey as a property. | ||
|
ne0lith
537 Posts
| ||
|
29 fps
United States5725 Posts
| ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
ymir233
United States8275 Posts
| ||
|
Maxilicious
221 Posts
For the sake of discussion, I will give a rather informed answer on your question. (I had previously received professional training for both Chess and Go) SC2 is more like Chess, because: - Pieces in Chess have specific purposes and they do not move in the same way. Say a rook move horizontally and vertically, while a bishop moves diagonally. Units in SC2 have their own purposes and work differently, which is like the pieces in Chess. In contrast, the pieces in Go have the similar "fundamental" value. - Losing an important piece without trading for something of equal relative value could snowball and lose you the game in Chess. You do not want to trade a Queen for a Pawn, all else being equal. Similarly, you do not want to trade a Colossus with a Marine. This is relatively more abstract in Go in terms of relative value. - There are several ways to evaluate who is in the lead in SC2, Go and Chess. In SC2, it could be determined by supply, number of bases, tech, positioning and upgrades. This is closer to Chess than Go. The positioning in Go is more abstract than Chess. In Chess, you sometimes see players sacrifice pieces to gain positional advantage which is common TvT. Tech is more similar to the logic of Chess's important pieces vs minor pieces. Supply can be argued both ways for Chess and Go. The number of bases is closer to Go (I will mention it later). Upgrade is quite irrelevant in this context, unless you want to consider promoting a pawn to a queen. Overall, the evaluation of the "state of the game" is closer to Chess. SC2 is more like Go, because: - The "space" on a Go board decreases as the game goes by since more pieces are placed on the board. On the other hand, the "space" on a Chess board increases as the game goes by since more pieces are removed from the board. In SC2, more bases are taken when game gets into the late game, and the movement of the units gets more restricted because the map is often "cut-half". - Chess opening is relatively less flexible than Go. You can compare the first ten moves of high quality games in Chess, and the first ten for Go. You will notice that Go diverges much more than Chess after the first four moves. This is quite similar to SC2. For e.g. you will get a pylon then gateway etc. before you start to diverge. - More specifically, it is harder to make opening changes in Chess in comparison to Go because the moves are often regarded as the best "consequences". It is harder to argue that the moves being set in sandstone for ages is not the best move for a specific opening than Go. In Go, the opening is more "elastic", as the "consequences" are often considered as "options", and these options are often debated by top pros in terms of which is the best move. In Go pro games, you will realise players often come up with new moves to beat the metagame as the opponent might not be as prepared than the other in terms of the "consequences". This is closer to SC2 in terms of the metagame changes, as you often see pros make minor changes to be ahead in the metagame. There is this saying, "Opening teaches you opening, late game teaches you Chess." - In SC2, players have to expand, and the battles often revolve around limiting opponent's number of mining bases, while trying to expand yourself. This is quite similar to the fundamental aim of Go, whereby every move is aimed to limit opponent's territory while trying to increase your own. | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3691 Posts
| ||
|
seodoth
Netherlands319 Posts
| ||
|
AnomalySC2
United States2073 Posts
On April 27 2013 00:34 Zocat wrote: SC2 also only has a number of finite moves. And with current computation power we can compute neither SC2 nor Go (and Chess only endgame iirc). I think Blizzard could absolutely design an AI to win 100 games out of 100, assuming the AI knows the build order you're going for of course. There is no perfectly safe build in the game, there is a hard counter to everything. | ||
|
trainRiderJ
United States615 Posts
| ||
|
Saumure
France404 Posts
| ||
|
E.L.V.I.S
Belgium458 Posts
On April 27 2013 01:49 Saumure wrote: I have read through the whole tread, and I am really impressed by how little TL knows... the more you think you know, the more ignorant you are | ||
|
Swift118
United Kingdom335 Posts
On April 27 2013 01:49 Saumure wrote: I have read through the whole tread, and I am really impressed by how little TL knows... So you thought you would just drop a one liner instead of sharing your abundant superior intellect with the rest of us. Classy. | ||
|
Charlie.Sheen
662 Posts
On April 27 2013 01:49 Saumure wrote: I have read through the whole tread, and I am really impressed by how little TL knows... Even though I agree TL transformed into a mess in last couple of years. But plz tell us what you really know, so we can pick holes in your argument. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
The big difference between chess and go seems to be specifics vs more general understanding. In chess you almost always lose because of some simple error. There's just so much stuff to look at that one player is bound to miss something 'simple'. Go games OTOH are more often decided on judgement or one player having a better overall understanding, rather than one player specifically misreading something. At least that's how I see it, I'm not very good at Go at all. In that sense chess seems to be a closer match than Go. BTW, poker isn't a perfect analogy either. Once strategies are completely revealed there's almost no play left in poker. I.e 95% of the play is centered around misleading your opponent and figuring out his strategy (the other 5% is coming up with an optimal response based on their strategy). In SC2 there's plenty of play left when both players have essentially complete information. If anything, only a small minority of games are decided by mind games. | ||
|
cloneRisky
Denmark1 Post
| ||
| ||
