Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chess playing CIVers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Julius Brenzaida
    replied
    Smash, thanks for the compliment.
    Iím sure youíd beat me pretty easily in civ mp ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Julius Brenzaida
    replied
    In difficulty and stress, I definitely give chess the EDGE :
    1) because of time, in chess you must decide and act quickly. In civ2, youíve got more ease, especially in SP.
    2) there is no coming back in chess, pawns donít move backward. In civ, you can always make up out of your mistakes.
    3) whatís more : you have so few pieces in chess than losing a pawn is definitely not like losing a warrior. And you may lose it all with one mistake, losing queen or allowing mate. It will never happen that way in civ.
    4) as Smash said, there is no one to blame but yourself in chess, so losing is VERY TOUGH. In civ you can pretend the terrain was bad, the computer cheated and so on.
    5) chess requires more calculation. While it is true that the rules are simpler, there are so many move possibilities and you always have to calculate. Whatís more youíve got the poisonous gift of knowing everything about your opponentí situtation and enter the ďIf I play that, and him/her that, and so onĒ nightmare. You may calculate for hours, and I bet nobody can do that with civ.
    6) Iíve kept the worst for the end : pregame knowldege. While there are a few nice things to know about civ (especially in the apolyton forums), there are literraly billions of books about chess, some holding key informations about openings or endings. The more you learn and keep in your mind, the better you may in some circumstances play. When you reach a certain level, it makes chess practice and preparation essential. None of that with civ. Oedo year is great knowledge but your opponent wonít beat you only because of it.
    7) So chess requires more calculation, more preparation, does not allow any mistakes, and leaves nothing to chance SO MUCH MORE STRESSFUL.
    8) But both civ and chess are fun to play. Thatís the key !

    Leave a comment:


  • Smash
    replied
    I play all the time at civfanatics.Both games are "thinkin" games.You do stuff with long term implications.Sometimes good..sometimes not so good.Both have players with "styles".Civ has way more luck or variables.Luck in chess is a product of bad play,most times.

    I finish WAY more chess games than civ games.

    a duel with no huts is pretty close....still the terrain though.It can be like an extra piece in chess.

    Chess might be interesting with huts.Pop an extra knight or 2....I might give Julius a run for his money with that

    Leave a comment:


  • War4ever
    replied
    i love chess..... and although i can beat most novices, i am only 50-50 against intermediates and about 5% in the win columm against established players.....

    the game is fun..... i prefer civ.... but enjoy a few games of chess a year to tame my cravings.......

    Leave a comment:


  • ravagon
    replied
    I used to really enjoy the occasional chess game but just haven't been able to find the time for it of late. Sadly Civ time has suffered too

    I'm surprised Smash/CR/Julius haven't posted yet. Maybe its a case of those who can do/those who can't post about it!

    [Edit: Didn't notice Ken's post. I retract the above statement Sorry Ken ]
    Last edited by ravagon; October 18, 2001, 02:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwprice
    replied
    I often like to compare chess and civ, although I agree that it's nearly impossible to do a direct comparison. As I've thought about it, one main difference that I see is that, in chess, you can see all the pieces, and you know what their legal moves are, both yours and your opponent's. Thus, you attempt to calculate as many possibilities as you are able to calculate. This is why it seems so mentally taxing. Civ, on the other hand, may well be more complex, and that's due to the sheer size of the board, the number of available units, and the different characteristics of those units. When the board is filled with a lot of stuff, though, it becomes nearly impossible to do any real kind of "calculations" as to where the best places to move are, or what you think your opponent may do. Since your opponent in civ may literally move in any direction they want (provided it's clear), it's pretty tough to try to work out the possibilities in your head. So, it's more likely in civ that you may choose not to try all that thought, and instead you may try a move and then just see what happens. To me, that's why civ feels less mentally taxing than chess. Of course, those who spend hours per move in civ are exempted from these generalizations!

    In any case, aren't all these games about having fun?

    Leave a comment:


  • VetLegion
    replied
    I like the following question:
    "Do great chess players make great computer programmers?"
    I dont know, although I am programmer from hobby

    Although it may be true. If someone has patience to play chess, or another thinking game, he may have patience to solve programming or any other engeneering problems too. It is possible, but I dont think anyone can prove it definately

    as for civ being a thinking game, yes, it is.
    it can not be easily compared to chess, but I compare it to it very often.

    I read chess is a game that falls under mathemathics as a 'graph game' and ce be described by graph theory. Chess has been calculated by mathematicians, so we know what computer can and what it will never be able to do in chess. It can beat human, but if the board would be only one tile more in size, all the work up to today can go to the garbage bin

    I wonder is it possible to mathematically prove the limits of civ2 AI?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ken Hinds
    replied
    I showed up to make my next Chess Move and saw the poll. I'd have to say that chess is actually my preference, but Civ and other Strategy games are a close second.

    Ken

    Leave a comment:


  • MattyBoy
    replied
    I am bad at chess, but love playing it.
    Also loved a book on the game - IIRC, "Nimzovitch - My System"

    The problem is that it is so insulting to lose.
    My wife would divorce me if I beat her (at chess) again.
    And I am insulted that my old Palm Pilot can beat me without much effort at all.

    In the end it is hard to find people willing to play and closely matched, so I just play SP computer games when and where it suits me.

    Chess has a real mystique to it. If you carry yourself with enough attitude and play in public places, it must be an effective way of wooing women. (not that I can back up that claim).

    I like the following question:
    "Do great chess players make great computer programmers?"

    A friend is an elite bridge player and cites this as proof of his programming ability (even on his Resume).

    Leave a comment:


  • VetLegion
    replied
    Is one game superior to the other? That's a purely personal question. Overall, I think chess is a game that requires more mental exertion than Civ.
    I disagree about difficulty, although I agree it is personal choice

    You see there is reason why they havent been able to make a good Civ AI yet. It is because Civ is hugely more complex then chess. Bigger board, more units, new units appearing, cities, etc. Sure, you can play Civ casualy, so you can shess, but against real opponent you wont last long.

    Chess playing computers are a reality, however civ ones have yet to come. I think civ has that amazing balance between strategy and tactics, between one decision and overall that makes it both easier to recover if something is wrong and be really creative and inovative in managing a civ.

    Since AI sucks, and MP is inpractical, I play civ against myself mostly as do many other players, trying to perfect our 'openings', adjust to terrain or maximize resources or something.

    Anyway, not to bash any of the games, I like chess, but I view civ as more complex game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sarxis
    replied
    Re: ???

    Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
    I'd say you should edit the poll in either what is better chess or civ for chess playing civers. Or on what do you spend more time.
    Well the thing is- this whole post was moved from the CivIII general forum, and was never intended to be here.

    That is why I said there is now no point to it: the whole poll was intended to see how many would be 'CIVIII' players play chess. But a mod didn't pick up on that I guess.
    Last edited by Sarxis; October 10, 2001, 01:34.

    Leave a comment:


  • November Adam
    replied
    I like playing chess but I haven't played it for soooo long I don't know how well I would do at it.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwprice
    replied
    This is one of my favorite questions. Actually, I asked this same question, but in reverse at a chess forum. There, I asked the chess players if they played any other strategy games, and for the most part, they are focused only on chess. Obviously, a lot of Civ players also play chess, since you can see ongoing games both here and especially over at Civ Fanatics.

    In the Civ newsgroup, there are occasionally debates over which game is more strategic, chess or Civ? It's a difficult question to answer, but it serves to show the interest and passion for both games. I myself go back and forth all the time. I love chess and I love Civ, but which to play? Both games require a large investment of time and energy to play well, so with my limited time it's often difficult to choose. I think one big advantage that chess has is that it so purely strategic. To play a game of chess requires you to calculate and plan and strategize all the time, with no element of luck (please, let's not fight over the luck issue). Civ also requires strategic planning, but there's also an element of "let's try this and see what happens". There's simply too much going on in a game of Civ for the player to be able to keep up with everything, so the result is that sometimes you just do something/anything. Also, every move in chess is significant, and has the potential to change the whole course of the game. To an extent, this is also true in Civ, but I think it's easier to recover from a bad move in Civ than it is to recover from a bad move in chess.

    Is one game superior to the other? That's a purely personal question. Overall, I think chess is a game that requires more mental exertion than Civ. That's why sometimes I'll choose Civ over chess--because I don't want to think as hard as chess requires me to think. On the other hand, Civ (and other strategy games as well) offers an ambience and feeling that chess simply doesn't have. Everyone has their own favorites, and one isn't better than another.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zopperoni
    replied
    Well...chess is fun...to watch......I don't really like to play it myself...my best friend is pretty good @ it...

    Leave a comment:


  • OneFootInTheGrave
    replied
    ???

    I'd say you should edit the poll in either what is better chess or civ for chess playing civers. Or on what do you spend more time.

    At least for me is since I don't have live chess partners here, and not enouh time for both. I am playing more civ in the last 5-6 years, but it used to be different before. (especially before civ existed ) or when i did not have a PC to play civ on...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X