Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 07 Mar '06 18:07
    Chess is one of the oldest strategy games, and obviously one of the most popular. Is it convievable that game such as Starcraft might be bolstered by regular chess play? Vise-versa?

    Gracias
  2. 07 Mar '06 22:46
    Originally posted by DanFaggella
    Chess is one of the oldest strategy games, and obviously one of the most popular. Is it convievable that game such as Starcraft might be bolstered by regular chess play? Vise-versa?

    Gracias
    If your trying to compare RTS games to chess i think you're mad....things like Red alert require no real tactical skill, just quick button bashing and making sure tanks fight infantry but advoid the anti-tank stuff.....

    RTS games are MUCH SIMPLER and have elements of LUCK - therefore they won't be on the same plane as games such as Chess or Go...
  3. Standard member Amaurote
    No Name Maddox
    08 Mar '06 00:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Shinidoki
    If your trying to compare RTS games to chess i think you're mad....things like Red alert require no real tactical skill, just quick button bashing and making sure tanks fight infantry but advoid the anti-tank stuff.....

    RTS games are MUCH SIMPLER and have elements of LUCK - therefore they won't be on the same plane as games such as Chess or Go...
    I think this is broadly true, but a little unfair: I used to be a huge fan of Total Annihilation, which was a terrific game with imbalances in favour of the Core on a majority of the maps - however, a good player with expert keystrokes could level things, and the computational element was greater than in chess because there mathematical elements were complicated by about four or five factors (metal, energy [x2], turn rate, firing rate and terrain). Tactics and strategy were definitely important, but ultimately RTS games featuring factions have more in common with paper, scissors and stone than chess. Particularly Starcraft, which suffered from its own imbalances, notably with the notoriously underpowered Zerg.
  4. 08 Mar '06 00:13
    I used to like Duke Nukem a lot. Didn't help my chess at all. Doom didn't either.
  5. 08 Mar '06 00:50
    Originally posted by Amaurote
    I think this is broadly true, but a little unfair: I used to be a huge fan of Total Annihilation, which was a terrific game with imbalances in favour of the Core on a majority of the maps - however, a good player with expert keystrokes could level things, and the computational element was greater than in chess because there mathematical elements were compli ...[text shortened]... arcraft, which suffered from its own imbalances, notably with the notoriously underpowered Zerg.
    I completly disagree that there was a greater computational element - chess is complicated by thousands of things - King safettly - mobilty of forces - material advantage/ disadvantage - Pawn structures - attack/defence strength, etc etc fruthermore, all of these have to be considered 6-7 ply down the line


    Chess is vastly superoir [in terms of tactics] to any RTS for a number of reasons. - to list a few.

    1) it has NO element of luck [some games, like civIII have a 'random factor' which means if your bowman attacks a warrior you CANNOT BE CERTAIN OF THE OUTCOME)

    2) each side has the same peices, which means it is as close to fair as possible (in age of empires you can practically win by simply choosing your civ -- they got the english longbowman?? - get Huskarls and watch them suffer)

    RTS game do require skill, but tactical abilities {that Chess Demands} is less important than simply knowing where the resources are on the map.
  6. Standard member Amaurote
    No Name Maddox
    08 Mar '06 01:26 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Shinidoki
    I completly disagree that there was a greater computational element - chess is complicated by thousands of things - King safettly - mobilty of forces - material advantage/ disadvantage - Pawn structures - attack/defence strength, etc etc fruthermore, all of these have to be considered 6-7 ply down the line


    Chess is vastly superoir [in terms of tactic {that Chess Demands} is less important than simply knowing where the resources are on the map.
    Of course, no question, but I did specifically say computational, by which in my perhaps rather clumsy way I was referring to pure arithmetical factors relating to material, which are not particularly complex in chess. Of course if you subsume tempi, position, initiative into the word "computational" chess is far superior, which is why I said scissors, paper and stone would be a fairer comparison - but I think pretending the material element in chess is complicated is to deny one of the major reasons why chess is so popular...its ostensible simplicity.

    However, simplicity or no simplicity, nothing in chess can compete with the spectacle of a fully-powered Core Buzzsaw opening up on a line of Arm fortifications.
  7. 08 Mar '06 01:40
    Originally posted by Amaurote
    Of course, no question, but I did specifically say computational, by which in my perhaps rather clumsy way I was referring to pure arithmetical factors relating to material, which are not particularly complex in chess. Of course if you subsume tempi, position, initiative into the word "computational" chess is far superior, which is why I said scissor ...[text shortened]... with the spectacle of a fully-powered Core Buzzsaw opening up on a line of Arm fortifications.
    ahh...I see what you mean now - -

    Yes --- Capturing peices is 1 dimensional and has No real factors (other than legality) that prevent it.

    But by "computation" I was refering to the analysis of the position and the sequences sprouting from it.
  8. 08 Mar '06 08:16
    Originally posted by Shinidoki
    ahh...I see what you mean now - -

    Yes --- Capturing peices is 1 dimensional and has No real factors (other than legality) that prevent it.

    But by "computation" I was refering to the analysis of the position and the sequences sprouting from it.
    Chess is great for Alpha Centauri players! Alpha(SMAC) is a turn based strategy game so button quickness is not a factor. Rather calculation and long term planning (sound familiar) is what breeds success at SMAC.


    By the way, SMAC is the sequel of Civ II but released before Civ III. I like to think of it as Civ II 1/2. Actually my post could apply to Civ I & II as well although I dont know too much specifically about those games. SMAC is awesome though and recommend it to anyone who likes chess.
  9. 08 Mar '06 13:14
    Originally posted by DanFaggella
    Chess is one of the oldest strategy games, and obviously one of the most popular.
    Another one of the oldest strategy games is "Game of Go" originated in China and Japan millennia ago. It is vastly more sophisticated than chess and with a lot fewer and less complicated rules but much harder to master.

    The Game of Go is one of my favorite strategy games.
  10. 08 Mar '06 14:03
    Originally posted by Gambitzoid
    Chess is great for Alpha Centauri players! Alpha(SMAC) is a turn based strategy game so button quickness is not a factor. Rather calculation and long term planning (sound familiar) is what breeds success at SMAC.


    By the way, SMAC is the sequel of Civ II but released before Civ III. I like to think of it as Civ II 1/2. Actually my post could apply to ...[text shortened]... ecifically about those games. SMAC is awesome though and recommend it to anyone who likes chess.
    alpha Centuri **Im more familiar with CivII and CivIII but i have played it.

    and its damn easy

    the problems with games like that (unlike chess) is that when you increase the difficulty the AI doesn't get smarter...no, to make it harder the computer is given bonuses, like defence bonuses, more money to start with, etc.....

    thats like letting your openant start with 5 extra mins on the clock and 2 queens

    this all means, you don not need tactics, to win you simply need to have a clear vision of what you want to do and have a very effecient way of making that come true.

    what this forgets however is that games such as this do not try to replicate chess - they try to simulate war - which of course, has its elemtents of luck and uncertainty to it - you cannot be 100% sure my archers will take down those No-Dachi Samurai for example - even if the factors favour my archers - on a hill far away...indeed they could just losesn the formation and march up the hill, and kill....

    Do you think Chess would be as popular is dice were involved?? role a 6 to move the queen 5 for a rook etc?

    No, a Huge element of skill would have been replaced by luck -- and its the skill required that gives chess its followers
  11. 08 Mar '06 20:19 / 1 edit
    Your oppinions are valid, but calling chess INTRINSICALLY better than any RTS game is pretty hard to do. Chess may not require compensation for some kind of random factor, or require quick hands, but it also doesn't have as many complicated units and options as do many RTS games. Most RTS fans would say the exact thing about chess, they would call it inferior and lame. I personally don't take sides, both do in fact require plenty of skill, in starcraft unit combinations, height advantages, expansions, numerous units with numerous ways of attack, and numerous angles and tricks of attack, and much more all put together to make up a game that can develope immensely, and its complexity can be pretty intense.

    I just wanted to know if skills in either one would transfer.

    Obviously I wont be playing SC my whole life like I will with chess, because chess will be around til I'm gone, while SC is likely not to. Though if SC were very popular and stood that way for ages like chess, I would be tempted to play SC a lot more, because it would be a more constructive use of my time since it would be a game of smarts i could play until old age, not until the fad ends.
  12. 08 Mar '06 20:37
    Originally posted by Shinidoki

    Do you think Chess would be as popular is dice were involved?? role a 6 to move the queen 5 for a rook etc?
    This may seem rediculous to you, but there are serious reasons to believe that chess once was played with a dice (can't remember any details but I think it would be fun to try once ^^)
  13. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    10 Mar '06 15:08
    Originally posted by Testrider
    This may seem rediculous to you, but there are serious reasons to believe that chess once was played with a dice (can't remember any details but I think it would be fun to try once ^^)
    It's not really ridiculous, there are dozens of variants of chess with rule changes - suicide chess is the best known. You can add knight moves to the queen's capabilities. Someone is bound to have produced a variant with dice rolls. You could roll a die and then the player who'd rolled would be restricted to moving no more than that many squares - or you could roll to determine the outcome of taking, so that if you try to take a piece it may be your one that ends up off the board if you're unlucky.
  14. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    10 Mar '06 15:59
    Originally posted by Testrider
    This may seem rediculous to you, but there are serious reasons to believe that chess once was played with a dice (can't remember any details but I think it would be fun to try once ^^)
    True (that it was so played, not that to do so again would be fun). Some of the details are in H.J.R. Murray, A History of Chess (1913).

    "All race-games are dice-games, and it is probable that all board-games were in the first instance played by means of dice or other implements of similar import. There is no reason, as far as I can see, why we should make an exception to this in the case of chess." (46-47)

    Then, chapter III, pp. 68-77 attempts to reconstruct the method of play of the ancient Indian four-handed dice-game that employed several pieces still used in chess. Murray's discussion highlights many points of connection in ancient India between the two games known to us today as chess and pachisi (Parcheesi is a trademark name for a game based on pachisi).
  15. 10 Mar '06 20:09
    Here is my two cents: I believe that you can apply chess knowledge to RTS games... but you have to realize what the knowledge relates to.

    In starcraft for example, you have a chance to "mature" your base, just like in chess you can choose to mature a Knight or a pawn, in Starcraft you can choose to go for certain technologies which may or may not give you an advantage depending on what your opponent chooses to go for... which is why scouting is so important to the game... if you don't scout you are definitly relying on luck!