EPTDo You Have to be Smart to Play Starcraft? - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
x7i
United Kingdom122 Posts
| ||
|
bubblegumbo
Taiwan1296 Posts
It's the same with any physical sports, great players are born and can't be manufactured. Only smart people will be successful in Starcraft. There's a reason why it's classified as a strategy game. | ||
|
Asdkmoga
United States496 Posts
| ||
|
peachsncream
United States289 Posts
| ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
On September 22 2010 23:07 x7i wrote: i knew 78 iq person who played competitively bw with decent results While I understand that you might not want to "out" the player in question, you have to understand that some people will be skeptical without an ID. At least give us some more details. How did you know his IQ? Did he every win any tournaments? Did he ever win any lans? What was his Iccup ranking, etc... | ||
|
7mk
Germany10157 Posts
On September 22 2010 23:49 -_- wrote: While I understand that you might not want to "out" the player in question, you have to understand that some people will be skeptical without an ID. At least give us some more details. How did you know his IQ? Did he every win any tournaments? Did he ever win any lans? What was his Iccup ranking, etc... His name is Combat-Ex. | ||
|
Asdkmoga
United States496 Posts
On September 22 2010 23:42 peachsncream wrote: ^ wrong, you can only get so good being a korean robot and doing the same shit over and over and relying on solid mechanics/micro. Strategic players can abuse things that make them able to beat people with better micro/mechanics. In leagues I don't even scout because i know my opponents so well i already know what they are doing when they are doing and where they are, I don't know many people that can do that and it be as reliable. assuming your talking to me, cause no idea how often you refresh your page. Im not saying you you can be a robot and be good, im saying you dont need to be a super genius to be good at chess, and shouldnt have to be too intelligent to be good at starcraft if you practice alot. playing alot will get you good mechanics and micro, but since the people im refering to are also human beings, can develop game sense and strategies that dont require 400 IQ to perform. like i said, chess masters dont need high IQ's but they're predicting and basing their strategies off of moves 4-5 ahead of whats actually on the board, and they are doing this by playing alot, and knowing whats possible, and understanding what someone might try to do in situations, aka, game sense from experience, not being intellectually smart. | ||
|
Doc Daneeka
United States577 Posts
| ||
|
crw
Canada70 Posts
omgz lol jokes there's talent and practice in everything, you can't do amazing without both. | ||
|
Dragonsven
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
FoxSpirit
Austria160 Posts
After like 5 turns he was, "Hmmm, a xxyv-opening, quite interesting". I was so seriously impressed. He also beat the poor little machine into the ground, even though it was trying it's hardest *sniff* | ||
|
valiance.
United States13 Posts
On September 21 2010 16:34 igotmyown wrote: This is an incredibly misleading statement which has to be rectified. Let's look at the rest of his wiki Yeah, he obviously so well because of "hard work", and not because he had genius level intelligence far surpassing most people who score 160 or higher. The only thing you can take from his "125 iq score" is that he didn't do particularly well on iq test style (probably verbal) problems. Don't compare pure intellectual activities like theoretical physics or math to mechanical ones. Understanding starcraft scenarios requires no abstract knowledge that hundreds to thousands of games will fail to drill into you. If you don't like to think, maybe it will take longer to sink in. Yeah Feynman was a supergenius: Feynman's 124: in this context one often hears of Feynman's modest grade school IQ score of 124. To understand this score we have to remember that typical IQ tests (e.g., administered to public school children) tend to have low ceilings. They are not of the kind that Roe used in her study. One can imagine that the ceiling on Feynman's exam was roughly 135 (say, 99th percentile). If Feynman received the highest score on the mathematical portion, and a modest score of 115 on the verbal, we can easily understand the resulting average of 124. However, it is well known that Feynman was extremely strong mathematically. He was asked on short notice to take the Putnam exam for MIT as a senior, and received the top score in the country that year! On Roe's test Feynman's math score would presumably have been > 190, with a correspondingly higher composite IQ. | ||
|
ragingfungus
United States271 Posts
On a side note I think it would be interesting to see pros play on maps they have little to no experience on to showcase intelligent play more. | ||
|
MrWinkles
United States200 Posts
I think it is somewhat similar to Chess in that respect--nobody is ever going to have a strategy in Chess that involves a piece that is a combination of a Bishop and a Queen, and nobody you play in the ladder will ever have come at you with a Carrier that can launch nukes or punch a hole in the map to change the gameplay (blizzard you need to add this now, planet cracker returnzz). If you need to be "smart" to be really good at Chess, you need to be "smart" to play starcraft at a high level. It might be considered similar to mastering any technique or system: people who study languages eventually are able to guess new words they've never heard before based on the rules of the language they've discovered while studying. As for whether starcraft "smarts" applies outside of SC, that depends on whether what you do in life involves taking a finite set of moving parts and determining their relationships. If you need to do that sort of thing, it might be helpful. If you're not, it probably won't. | ||
|
undyinglight
United States611 Posts
| ||
|
DISHU
United Kingdom348 Posts
| ||
|
svi
405 Posts
Practice makes a huge difference in everything. | ||
| ||
