|
I am fluent in both Starcraft and Chess and very muchily enjoy expressing myself through both games  I will begin a deep analysis of the similar concepts purveyed in both games that may be beneficial for loyal readers.
Openings
In Chess there are various openings: e.g. The King's Indian, The Sicilian Defence. Chess openings are generally adapted based on your opponents moves. Certain openings are more effective and offer positional advantage over other openings.
In Starcraft it is very similar, a plethora of openings are available to you, perhaps not as many as the 20 in Chess but the Adaptation based on Scouting and Opening advantages are very apparent. Especially in Mirror Matchups like ZvZ.
15 hatch > 14 gas 14 pool > 10 bling before pool > 15 hatch.
However these openings are generally done blind while in Chess you can see your opponents moves.
Styles
In Chess there are various styles: Creative play involving aggression and risks (perhaps less common at very high levels) or a very defensive passive style involving establishing an advantage in the late game.
When i play Chess against Scrubs i like to trade pieces as i feel confident moving into the end game that i can win. I rarely think of thought out checkmates and prefer to play a solid style without risk aiming to get a small pawn advantage.
Other plays are very offensive and aim to get Checkmates. (In professional Chess, most games are draws but the styles still apply)
In Starcraft there are cheesy styles or solid macro styles. In Chess pure Offense does not work if your opponent is prepared and this is the same with Cheese in Starcraft. This is not to say that Grandmasters cannot checkmate using forced sequences of moves.
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!!!!!!
|
like the change from idra/vlad to drewbie/vlad thought it was more fitting
nice comparisons
|
Carlsen was 12 when he beat ernst
anyway, I started playing chess about 2-3 years ago, and right away I realized that they are very similar games. Chess captivated me so easily... It's not wonder a chess thread pops up on teamliquid often ^ ^
|
Lame... Comparing Kasparov to Idra... Idra would be some Down Syndrome, Aspergers kid who's memorised 1000 Chess openings and hence 'knows" the game. (Which is equivalent to the way he approaches SC2).
User was warned for this post
|
pretty cool comparisons, I have a few questions though:
Could you elaborate on Kasparov meeting Grubby? Did they actually play wc3 or chess?
Also is there anything considered "cheese" in chess?
|
|
|
There isnt really anything that can be considered cheese since you can see all there move. It like cheesing against someone that is map hacking lol. If they are knowledgable and have common sense, then they can easily defend it and take advantage of it. A good example is the 4 MOVE Check mate. Pretty much a cheese if you dont know how to defend it and the opening is pretty all in cause it leave you pretty open and there arent very good variations from it afterward. Basically, its like a 6 Pool and if stopped, you dont really have much of a follow up.
Im surprise you did not consider choosing a race an "opening" it self. I always choosing a race as a way to signify your play style and is also itself, an opening.
I have always considered Castling to be the equivalent to Expanding. Such as the King indian attack could be consider a 1 rax FE or a 1 gate FE variation :3
|
On February 05 2011 09:35 nihoh wrote:
Lame... Comparing Kasparov to Idra... Idra would be some Down Syndrome, Aspergers kid who's memorised 1000 Chess openings and hence 'knows" the game. (Which is equivalent to the way he approaches SC2).
Wow, Im suprised you didn't get banned for this. IdrA doesn't just know the game, he has some of the best macro and micro in the world. Maybe you should watch some of his replays
|
Truly a "deep analysis." Thanks for this.
|
On February 05 2011 09:36 insaneMicro wrote:
pretty cool comparisons, I have a few questions though:
Could you elaborate on Kasparov meeting Grubby? Did they actually play wc3 or chess?
Also is there anything considered "cheese" in chess?
Chess is thousands of years old, so the "cheesey" strategies are all figured out at this point. Basically anyone with a 1800+ rating in chess could potentially survive ~15 moves against the top players in the world while maintaining an even position. i.e. cheese only works on new players, although if you're playing at a level where cheese is able to attain wins, then like starcraft, usually you just lost some kind of advantage, be it positional, pieces, etc. if the cheese fails, and if not, then you really didn't learn anything from the game.
I'm a Class B rated chess player myself, and never like comparing Chess to Starcraft. They do have their similarities, of course, but really you can compare anything to starcraft--life, politics, etc. I've always thought of Starcraft as more of a game of poker to be honest. I would obviously, then, disagree with your comparison of players, as 1) I believe SC2 is far too primitive at the moment to be compared to chess, and 2) There are dozens of people who fit each style of play in chess. (Also, if anything I'd compare Carlsen to Flash, both of them coming out of nowhere at a really young age and dominating more experienced players, though Bobby Fischer would also fit there )
Also, on a last note, I often lol when Americans/Europeans get called foreigners in starcraft, considering the game was made in America. Funny, isn't it? (It's also kind of wrong since any non Russians would be called foreigners in chess -_-)
|
On February 05 2011 09:47 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 09:35 nihoh wrote:
Lame... Comparing Kasparov to Idra... Idra would be some Down Syndrome, Aspergers kid who's memorised 1000 Chess openings and hence 'knows" the game. (Which is equivalent to the way he approaches SC2). Wow, Im suprised you didn't get banned for this. IdrA doesn't just know the game, he has some of the best macro and micro in the world. Maybe you should watch some of his replays
Probably because no admin saw it yet otherwise it's not explainable.
|
It's a bit presumptuous to compare arguably the best chess player of all times (Gary Kasparov) to a very good, but not really the best SC2/BW player of all times (IdrA).
Note that for chess the Soviet-Union (Russia) is the equivalent of South-Korea for BW/SCII.
The equivalent of Gary Kasparov would need to be a Korean SCII/BW player.
|
On February 05 2011 09:47 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 09:35 nihoh wrote:
Lame... Comparing Kasparov to Idra... Idra would be some Down Syndrome, Aspergers kid who's memorised 1000 Chess openings and hence 'knows" the game. (Which is equivalent to the way he approaches SC2). Wow, Im suprised you didn't get banned for this. IdrA doesn't just know the game, he has some of the best macro and micro in the world. Maybe you should watch some of his replays
You either don't know how Chess is played or really think Idra is some strategic genius.
Chess nowadays is based on memorising thousands and thousands of games, for the vast majority of players. This is exactly equivalent to how Idra plays the game. Would you call him an innovator? Not exactly. He's a rigid player who tries to play the game in a limited style. A better comparison would be Kasparov and Nada.
I didn't exactly put down Down Syndrome and Asperger sufferers in my post? I'm just saying they don't match up to Kasparov. Just because I put the word LAME at the start of my sentence DOES NOT imply I think Down Syndrome, Asperger, or Idra are lame. I am saying the COMPARISON is lame. Sigh for verbal comprehension, right?
Also Bobby Fischer = Savior lol, if we're doing proper comparisons.
|
so all I know about chess is the basics, as in bare basics like the moves for each pieces
where does one start? I'm willing to buy a book but I'd rather not do it blind if I can talk to people who know their shit.
|
I know a lot of people on TL are obsessed with Chess for whatever reason, but I REALLY wish people would stop making this comparison as it seems to inevitably come up in an inordinate number of threads. Granted, it's not as bad as seeing the Street Fighter/Chess comparison on fighting game forums, but it's still reaching real far for similarities...
On February 05 2011 09:55 ShangMing wrote:Chess is thousands of years old,
Try a couple hundred.
|
On February 05 2011 10:15 LegendaryZ wrote:
I know a lot of people on TL are obsessed with Chess for whatever reason, but I REALLY wish people would stop making this comparison as it seems to inevitably come up in an inordinate number of threads. Granted, it's not as bad as seeing the Street Fighter/Chess comparison on fighting game forums, but it's still reaching real far for similarities...
The TL forums are obsessed with Starcraft/Chess comparisons because it makes them sound intelligent, cool and legitimate.
You can't 6 pool in Chess and you will never die to cloaked banshee raven allins either.
|
|
|
On February 05 2011 10:08 nihoh wrote:
Chess nowadays is based on memorising thousands and thousands of games, for the vast majority of players. This is exactly equivalent to how Idra plays the game. Would you call him an innovator? Not exactly. He's a rigid player who tries to play the game in a limited style. A better comparison would be Kasparov and Nada.
I'm not sure how much you know about chess, but that is hardly how many of the top players I know train. Sure, chess openings are quite important at the highest level, but much of that is learning ideas,
analyzing games, and coming up with new ideas, as opposed to "memorizing thousands and thousands of games." All of this is even less so for players not 2700+.
|
I wonder who would fit Bobby Fischer... That guy was batshit crazy. We need a well-known pro who can play brilliant and say outrageous things. Suggestions?
Didn't Magnus Carlsen drop to second now by the way?
|
Idra is not that good. MVP is Kasparov
|
I would say there are more openings in starcraft then there are in chess (not less). The reason being, its not about WHAT you make in starcraft, but WHEN you make it, and that adds a ton of options.
I would also say that there are styles in starcraft like their are in chess. Agressive kyrix style zerg, is TOTALY diffrent then passive defensive idra style zerg.
As a chess player I always try to avoid trading pieces with people that arnt as good as me. The reason is simple, more pieces on the board, is a more complicated position. And I am more confidant that I can see farther ahead in a complicated position then they can. As such I only trade down if there is an advantage for doing so (even positionally).
Pawn advantages are great if you can get them, but a good player will NEVER let you get one without a price. You need to be thinking about those checkmates all the time! Longest I have ever had was a mate in 16, but always be thinking about how you can threaten.
And to those that say you cant 6pool in chess, thats what a Fool's Mate and Scholar's Mate are (and yes I get those against new players all the time).
|
On February 05 2011 09:55 ShangMing wrote:Chess is thousands of years old,
Try a couple hundred.
actually chess is around 1500-2000 years old originating from ancient China and India
|
Day[9] = Mark Dvoretsky
Both were very very good players during their active careers but never made it quite to the absolute top. Both ended their active careers to teach the game. Both are arguably the best teachers in the game today.
from wiki:
However, for personal reasons he opted not to remain an active player and instead followed his urge to become a chess trainer. This was something he had tried out and enjoyed while studying at Moscow University and he quickly gained a reputation for transforming serious, hard-working 2200 (Elo) players into grandmasters. Similarly, it was said that established grandmasters could become champions under his tutelage and his student register began to read like a 'who's who' of chess greats. Kasparov, Anand, Topalov, Bareev, Lautier and Van Wely were just a few of the players who benefited from his coaching. Four of his students went on to become Junior World Champions.
.............................................................
One could argue that Day[9] doesn't really do 1-1 coaching, but I'm sure if he would, "he could transform serious, hard-working diamond players into high masters", and who knows, maybe even GSL winners.
|
On February 05 2011 10:51 Klosetmonkey wrote:actually chess is around 1500-2000 years old originating from ancient China and India
That's like saying Starcraft has been around for 17 years because it was derived from Warcraft 2, which was derived from Warcraft 1 (1994) and so on and so forth until the beginning of time... It's not the same game. When we talk about "chess" we're obviously talking about modern chess.
|
No, chess is about 1000-1200 years old. A game much like chess existed before, but had very different rules.
The modern rules of chess emerged like in the 1500 century.
If you need a source just look it up on the internetz.
|
On February 05 2011 11:26 mappiechampion wrote:
A game much like chess existed before, but had very different rules. .
Exactly.. And yes, I can use Wikipedia too.
|
Even if they're both strategy games, Chess is a solved game, and a game of perfect information.
Starcraft is neither.
|
Chess is very far away from being mathematically solved.
|
Interesting. And who would Veselin Topalov be? ;]
|
Blitzer
Australia243 Posts
SC2 hasn't been around long enough to make comparisons to famous chess players. There is no sc2 player that deserves to be compared to Kasparov at this moment. Kasparov was at the top of the chess world for decades, nobody in the korean or foreign scene has dominated enough or for a long enough period to make a comparison worthwhile and it will be a long time before they get the chance to. Personally i wouldn't be surprised if about half of the current 'top' s class players drift away by the end of the year.
As for chess comparisons to sc in general, yeah its an ok comparison in terms of strategic and tactical nous required for both games. But sc being real time changes everything. Also chess is far more figured out and has more fixed and concrete limitations as to the ways pieces can move which really changes everything. Chess is a great game though, I was playing it a lot early last year although i've recently got sick of it and haven't really played much in the last half year.
|
I have to argue with Idra as Kasparov as well. I think Idra could be more likened to Fischer for his extreme study of the game along with his moody nature.
|
On February 05 2011 09:35 nihoh wrote:
Lame... Comparing Kasparov to Idra... Idra would be some Down Syndrome, Aspergers kid who's memorised 1000 Chess openings and hence 'knows" the game. (Which is equivalent to the way he approaches SC2).
I find that really offensive.
|
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.
|
On February 05 2011 12:00 Blitzer wrote:
SC2 hasn't been around long enough to make comparisons to famous chess players. There is no sc2 player that deserves to be compared to Kasparov at this moment. Kasparov was at the top of the chess world for decades, nobody in the korean or foreign scene has dominated enough or for a long enough period to make a comparison worthwhile and it will be a long time before they get the chance to.
I agree with this.
Another interesting question is: Can there ever be a Mikhail Tal of SC2? Tal is mostly remembered for his extremely aggressive style involving many (often times unsound) sacrifices. In SC2 that would probably compare to cheesy all ins, that if dealt with properly will lose the game, but if catching the opponent off guard will win it on the spot.
Tal however was praised for this sort of ultra aggro style (and rightfully so), because it produces many - from a chessplayers' point of view - beautiful games. All in cheeses are very rarely, if ever, considered beautiful and players tend not to be praised for them at all.
Maybe players like Liquid.TLO or Root.Kiwikaki could stand up to the Tal comparison just because they use creative styles that not a lot of other people use?.
|
On February 05 2011 11:31 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 11:26 mappiechampion wrote:
A game much like chess existed before, but had very different rules. . Exactly.. And yes, I can use Wikipedia too.
No you can't, because actually, even with modern rules it has existed for more than 500 years. In fact the Ruy Lopez has existed for 500 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_lopez
When you contradict someone in an subject unfamiliar to you be prepared to eat your words.
|
Cheesy chess play is completely null and void after a certain skill threshold, probably around 1300-1400 rating. Probably less. After that, all players play the game "properly".
In starcraft you can get away with doing a very cheesy opening at all levels of play.
Comparing an RTS with a fog of war to a turn based completely visible board is kind of fruitless, tbh.
The fog is really the limiting factor in comparing the two games. If you were to play chess in the dark while only occasionally being able to glance at the opponents openings / pieces, then chess becomes very chaotic and would resemble SC much more.
|
On February 05 2011 13:00 junemermaid wrote:
Cheesy chess play is completely null and void after a certain skill threshold, probably around 1300-1400 rating. Probably less. After that, all players play the game "properly".
Depends on how you define cheesy. If you mean stuff like Fool's Mate for example, then yes, I agree with you. Probably no 1200+ player will fall for that. However gambits such as the Smith-Morra in the sicilian or even hyper aggro two pawn gambits like the Danish Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2), while basically never seen in master play, can be very effective up to the, say, 2200 level. I'm a ~1600 scrub and have beaten 1800-1900 players with it online.
|
Enjoyed your post though I agree some of the comparisons are shaky.
And yeah! Go Pack!
|
comparing drewbie to kramnik made me cringe.
in general you do have a point though.
|
Edit: Nevermind, just saw my point got posted before.
Anyway, interesting comparisons, although I don't think any SC2 foreigner is dominant enough to compare them to Carlsen/Kasparov. I think Naniwa is more like the Hikaru Nakamura of SC2, somewhat cocky and bad-mannered so none of the other professionals want to admit to how talented he is.
|
Russian Federation798 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
i have to admit that i only came here to feed the troll which is the op, but before i do that i have to ask 1 question:
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...
|
It is understandable that chess and sc2 are often compared. They share a few similar theoretical structures like certain time periods in the game. The sc2 community often heavily borrows terms from chess.
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.
|
20 openings = 8 pawns 1 or 2 spaces = 16
2 horses = 2 x2 = 4
=20
you smart
|
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!"
|
there are hundreds of openings, i am merely referring to the initial move that white has that black must respond to. The 'opening' move
|
Poker + Chess + Violin = Starcraft.
Kasparov =?= Nada
Both revolutionized how the game was played.
Both the best players of their eras.
|
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.
|
I think they have some similarities, but I find that many times comparing chess to SC is used to make SC a lot grander than it is. In a strategic level, chess is much more complex than starcraft, and it is also a lot harder to learn.
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.
|
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.
|
On February 05 2011 09:18 GaryBrackett wrote:
I am fluent in both Starcraft and Chess
Stopped reading there.
|
oh i actually thought there was another compare a round based to a real time game thread. But its a compare chess players to western sc2 players thread. Interesting knowledge/analyses of the persons.
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)
|
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.
|
On February 06 2011 02:07 IMlemon wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I thought he had played him before his match v Spassky. Thanks >< And yeah, it would've been awesome.
|
This is just a gross injustice to the work it takes to be a top level chess player.
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.
|
i think brood war would be a much better comparison to chess. the game is much more figured out than sc2, is (debatably) deeper, and top players dominate for years. the early game has been more or less "figured out" and cheeses, while they can still work, are niche strategies (like the example the other guy gave with the 2 pawn gambit).
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
