a) Weakest to cheese amongst the three races
b) Most sensitive to the map size/layout (large being the best, and smaller being the worst)
I believe this is the consensus amongst a majority of the community, and high level players such as:EGIdrA, LiquidRet, and Artosis. Before writing this post I would of quickly agreed with them, for I had accepted these as facts as well.
They (SOTG guys) also mentioned how Terran as a race is the most tolerant to cheese, and that's why the 7 of the 8 top players in GSL4 are Terran. This makes sense to me, Terran is the most tolerant to cheese because:
a) They can repair their buildings (making early pressure easier to handle, because you can repair your wall-off/bunker making it significantly harder to break)
b) Their buildings can fly (so one can lift off structures in peril, or rearrange their buildings to be more defensible)
c) They can get their main defensive structure (the bunker) out earlier/easier than Protoss can get out a cannon or Zerg can get out a spine crawler. (Faster build time than the crawler by 15s and 10s for the cannon/ quicker tech path to get to the bunker than to get to the cannon ect)
d) Their base unit is ranged, making it less vulnerable to damage, and makes it easier to work with SCVs in desperate defence/defend ramps (not to mention you can sort of kite zealots with them to)
What doesn't make sense to me are the statements "Zerg is weaker on smaller maps" and "Zerg is weaker to cheese". These statements are thrown around like facts, I'm not saying that they aren't true; but no one ever bothers on to elaborate why. I feel this makes these statements lack substance because they are not properly justified. So I ask you, the community:
1. What makes Zerg more sensitive to map size/layout then Protoss or Terran.
2. What makes Zerg more vulnerable to cheese then Protoss or Terran.
And do please be detailed general statements really aren't going to help, please try to be specific!