EPTChess and Starcraft - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
fishinguy
Russian Federation798 Posts
| ||
|
Sleight
2471 Posts
On February 05 2011 09:18 GaryBrackett wrote: I am fluent in both Starcraft and Chess ... Professional Players ( Foreigners Onli) Naniwa = Magnus Carlsen Magnus Carlsen is currently #1 in the FIDE rating just like Naniwa had #1 on the ladder before. Naniwa is also extremely innovative, as is Carlsen who defeated Spike Ernst with an Epaulette mate at the age of 14. IdRa= Gary Kasparov Gary Kasparov has the highest FIDE rating known to mankind and although losing to an Android has met Grubby irl and is considered one of if not the best of all time. Idra is generally considered hte best foreigner and also knows Grubby (teammates in EG) Drewbiw= Vladmir Kramnik Vladmir Kramnik is also arguably Drew. Kramnik has a very tentative, pragmatic, safe style meaning he loses very few games. Obvious similarities to Drewbiwe. Sjow=Lasker Both are really creative imaginative players  Ret= Ivanchuk Both go to the gym and are very talented players Also both very confident risk takers and dangermen.Any other Similies i would appreciate as well as further Analysis Go Packers!!!!!! If you are "fluent in Chess" you will quickly realize your list is nonsense. Putting Emmanuel Lasker on a list with quite literally 5 of the current top player's in the world shows that a) you don't know any of the current 'creative' chess players and b) you think Sjow is terrible, because, by today's standard, Lasker would be a lowly GM and get trounced by the Super GM's you listed. Also these comparisons are nonsensical. In SC, you ALWAYS play for a win. That is just not the case in Chess. You don't have Kramnik's in SC, because there is no realistic drawing mechanism. You don't have Tigran Petrosians either, for the same effect. You really don't even get strong parallels with the others, because Naniwa is NOT Magnus Carlsen. Magnus Carlsen is a 15 year old trained by probably the greatest chess player of our time, with a genius that literally rocked the world. Naniwa is good. Whoops, thats not quite the same. Garry Kasparov CHANGED chess forever. IdrA has no such claim. Drewbie to Kramnik? Drewbie isn't even one of the 10 most dangerous players outside of Korea. Ret to Ivanchuk... I don't even understand this one. Here's a comparison.... SC2 : Chess :: Magic: The Gathering : Poker. Notice the games on the left have a player-controlled element to unit value and the games on the right really don't. Notice also that there is an element of individual "speed" not seen in Chess or Poker. | ||
|
Heimatloser
Germany1494 Posts
how the he** do you count 20 openings in chess? theres just no way to count 20, unless you count only the very first move of white? i dont get it, sorry... | ||
|
Perscienter
957 Posts
Examples would be 'opening, endgame, sac'. We could borrow much more. The biggest difference is probably that sc2 doesn't have stable rules and is controlled by a corporation. It is strongly influence by shareholder value. It really lacks constant, high-quality enlightenment. Chess is a classic with loads of useful literature to everyone's disposal. On February 05 2011 22:43 Sleight wrote: Here's a comparison.... SC2 : Chess :: Magic: The Gathering : Poker. Notice the games on the left have a player-controlled element to unit value and the games on the right really don't. Notice also that there is an element of individual "speed" not seen in Chess or Poker. Ships and cards are no units? Speed matters a lot in blitz chess and especially in online poker, since time is money. | ||
|
GaryBrackett
Bulgaria106 Posts
2 horses = 2 x2 = 4 =20 you smart | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On February 05 2011 23:18 GaryBrackett wrote: 20 openings = 8 pawns 1 or 2 spaces = 16 2 horses = 2 x2 = 4 =20 you smart Yeah but the first move of the game isn't really an "opening", the opening is defined by the first several moves by each side. Sometimes overly theoretical openings take 15+ moves to deviate. What you're basically saying is "Oh look, he made probes and built a pylon at 9, that's a great opening!" | ||
|
GaryBrackett
Bulgaria106 Posts
| ||
|
ShatterZer0
United States1843 Posts
Kasparov =?= Nada Both revolutionized how the game was played. Both the best players of their eras. | ||
|
vyyye
Sweden3917 Posts
The games are nothing alike. One is a turn based, symmetrical boardgame where you can see what your opponent is doing, the other is a computer RTS. How can you even try to compare the two? It doesn't make anyone seem more sophisticated either, by the way. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
At the whole idra = garry thing, that's absolutely crazy: 1. Garry dominated chess for an incredibly long time, Idra has dominated SC for exactly 0 seconds. 2. Garry started a revolution in chess, came up with creative strategies and defeated the most accomplished soviet GMs. Idra plays exactly by the book in every game, has lead no revolution in SC, and is not a creative player. 3. Garry was insanely talented, he started shining since he was 12, won the junior world championship at 17 and beat karpov at 22 to become the youngest world champion in the history of chess. I don't think we need to make the comparison to Idra here. Dont get me wrong, Idra's an outstanding player in SC2, but comparing him to Kasparov is just too wrong. Maybe Grubby could be closer to the kasparov profile, in WC3. In SC, as someone said before, I think NaDa would be the closest player to that profile. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On February 06 2011 00:00 vyyye wrote: Isn't it about time people stop making these ridiculous threads? Starcraft is more like Command and Conquer than chess, and Starcraft is bloody nothing like Command and Conquer other than sharing a genre. Yeah, you can compare everything to everything but what the hell man? I guess Starcraft is like Sins of a Solar Empire as well. Hey, you have to chose tech paths and manage your army, it's practically the same thing! The games are nothing alike. One is a turn based, symmetrical boardgame where you can see what your opponent is doing, the other is a computer RTS. How can you even try to compare the two? It doesn't make anyone seem more sophisticated either, by the way. Very true. Starcraft is more like a fine whisky, in that they are both things I do to forget about life. | ||
|
zanmat0
188 Posts
On February 05 2011 09:18 GaryBrackett wrote: I am fluent in both Starcraft and Chess Stopped reading there. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
But in the 1800er region i saw alot of games end in under 20 turns (game goes for around 2 hours which is quiet fast), because people play really aggressiv while trying to keep any piece alive. Often it is a win of opening, because it takes alot of effort to learn 1 opening completly. And if you have white you don't want to give up your initiativ, while black tryes to get it. Since i didn't trained for around 6 years (still used in team league), the openings played at the moment are totally unknown to me, so i try to not lose at the start and force my play onto the opponent, as my end game is mostly superior. (I only play in 1400er regions though) | ||
|
IMlemon
Lithuania296 Posts
On February 05 2011 12:06 AKomrade wrote: Alexander Alekhine would be qxc. Both have/had aggressive playstyles. If we were to go through BW and SCII for chess players, Flash is Karpov, and iloveoov is Tigran Petrosian. Cant think of a good Kasparov in terms of playstyle.. Probably sAviOr. There is no Bobby Fischer. Never will be, not in chess and not in Starcraft. He was insanely dominant, crushing a Russian chess team that was made up of a great deal of the best GMs of all time; Spassky, Karpov, Petrosian and Tal. When he beat Spassky (number 2 player in the world, ELO wise) in 71, his rating SANK. Who can you think of who has been that good? Anywyas, chess is a solved game based solely on the memorization of openings. Even higher level play is based on memorization of openings and games played with similar scenarios. He didn't beat karpov, he chickened out of his match against him which was a great shame to chess world because it would have been awesome. Those who say that chess is about memorization of openings are clearly clueless and just use this as excuse why they suck. Its the same as people saying sc(sc2) is just about who can click faster. Don't be like them. Opening knowledge (not memorization, no one does that, ever) is becomes somewhat useful when you become strong amateur (~2000 ELO). It becomes absolute must when you're trying to win super GM tournaments. Anything less than that, middlegame and endgame play is much, much more important. | ||
|
AKomrade
United States582 Posts
On February 06 2011 02:07 IMlemon wrote: He didn't beat karpov, he chickened out of his match against him which was a great shame to chess world because it would have been awesome. Those who say that chess is about memorization of openings are clearly clueless and just use this as excuse why they suck. Its the same as people saying sc(sc2) is just about who can click faster. Don't be like them. Opening knowledge (not memorization, no one does that, ever) is becomes somewhat useful when you become strong amateur (~2000 ELO). It becomes absolute must when you're trying to win super GM tournaments. Anything less than that, middlegame and endgame play is much, much more important. I thought he had played him before his match v Spassky. Thanks >< And yeah, it would've been awesome. | ||
|
stockton
United States128 Posts
20 openings? i can probably name 100 easy. and i probably play 30+ from time to time. carlsen? carlsen is a fu$%ing genius. he's a 20 year old kid who is (i consider) the best player in the world at a game that has been around for hundreds of years. my favorite part of it is this In Chess there are various openings: e.g. The King's Indian, The Sicilian Defence. 20 openings = 8 pawns 1 or 2 spaces = 16 2 horses = 2 x2 = 4 =20 you smart you say 20 based on the number of opening moves for white. but your 2 examples are openings named after black's RESPONSE!! (to 1.d4 (or1.c4 or 1.Nf3) and 1.e4 respectively) rofl rofl rofl. they aren't horses. they are called knights. I'm rated 1850+ USCF and have played in (or directed) 172 tournaments over the past 3 years. | ||
|
bqzg
64 Posts
| ||
|
RoarMan
Canada745 Posts
On February 05 2011 22:41 fishinguy wrote: Chess requires a lot more intelligence than SC2. Sc2 also takes some intelligence but a large part of it is mechanical and physical skill., while chess is almost 100% mental game. This is true and probably the biggest difference between the two. However out of all the games I've ever played I'd have to say that the Starcraft series is the most mentally taxing game out there. | ||
| ||
