Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chess playing CIVers

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

  • Ken Hinds
    replied
    Originally posted by Anunikoba
    I credit my chess experience with a great deal of my logical thinking ability, as well as enhancing my skills in other strategy and tactical applications (CIV )
    My early life as a daily Blindfold player has been a great help in most of my employment since 1972. Especially since almost all the games were played for an hour in the morning, adjurned, resumed for an hour in the late afternoon and adjurned again until morning or after the weekend.

    Having to keep a long-term mental picture of the board made working with multiple passwords and other material that either couldn't be written down or required input too quickly to be looked up manually everytime it was required, very easy to adjust to. It also enhanced my performance and greatly improved my opportunities for promotions.

    It didn't necessarily make my chess play any better however.

    Ken

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban Ranger
    replied
    Vet,

    You are absolutely right about pattern recognition, it is a basic element of human cognition. Pattern recognition evolved much earlier than logical thinking. Most animals recognise patterns: food, enemies, mom, etc. Only humans - maybe a handful of other higher mammals - are capable of logical thinking.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban Ranger
    replied
    There are no random elements in chess, unlike in bridge and Civ - although duplicate and swiss team playes in bridge do a lot to minimise the impact of chance.

    Among the three I'd say Civ is the most complex - and strategic - due to its scope. Chess is like a small battle which happens zillions of times in an average Civ game. The complexity of bridge lies somewhere in between since there are more units with additional rules (esp. with regards to ruffing).

    The body of accumulated knowledge of chess is the biggest, not only because it has been around for the longest but it makes an ideal subject for artificial intelligence studies.

    Years ago I played chess regularly, when I got a half-decent rating. I stopped when I enter college because those bums only wanted to play bridge

    Leave a comment:


  • War4ever
    replied
    do you guys move the pieces at home....or just memorize where they are on the board when you post the moves....

    i find that part of it amazing and just can't get the handle on it....

    Leave a comment:


  • TCO
    replied
    Two very good strategic games that combine luck and strategy nicely are Scrabble and Bridge. Most Bridge and Scrabble champions have been big chess players at one point.

    Bridge adds the interesting nuance of exchanges of information between partners through actions in the game (and the auction). Scrabble gives an interesting workout in verbal ability and memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • tonic
    replied
    I'd have thought that book knowledge in Civ2 will have been of more significance after the admirable work of Scouse Gits and others in erecting their Great Library in the Civ2 forum.

    On the theory of chess, there definitely is "book" knowledge which gets refined and modified with each grand tournament. What the great grandmasters have is their more rapid and insightful grasp of possibilities which as Rib mentioned is their private preparation for future tournaments/matches. Theoreticians on the other hand take lots more time and publish various new possibilities which can be tested on the "battlefield".

    The fact is that even the greatest players are "human" which results in the occasional lapse (or less precise move) which gets picked up by theoreticians after the event (and the players themselves of course).

    I really can't see any a priori reason for the lack of professional Civers - if they can have tournaments for Scrabble and duplicate bridge (both taking into account the random starting positions), why not Civ2?

    Leave a comment:


  • Julius Brenzaida
    replied
    Ribannah, you're right. But my point was that the top players take and use lots of information by books (informators) and now databases. It has nothing to do with civ2 which has a random start. Serious chess is more work than civ2. But by the way, any professional civ2 player around ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ribannah
    replied
    Top chess players don't read opening books. They collect games and make their own analysis, which they won't publish. Good middle game and end game books at top level are rare, but important.

    Leave a comment:


  • tonic
    replied
    For two players of equal playing strength, a knowledge of the theory will tip the balance. This is an area that is highly developed compared to games like civ. After every important tournament the theorists will update their books with the latest analysis. Of course if you do not have a chess mind (ie the ability to see combinations and judge positions) all the book knowledge will do you no good.

    I used to play seriously at club level and even had a draw against an international master in a simul. But that was a long time ago although I still have the old collection of chess books and magazines.

    Leave a comment:


  • ravagon
    replied
    Originally posted by Julius Brenzaida

    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. What’s more you’ve got the poisonous gift of knowing everything about your opponent’ situtation and enter the “If I play that, and him/her that, and so on” nightmare. You may calculate for hours, and I bet nobody can do that with civ.
    6) I’ve 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 won’t beat you only because of it.
    I think the reason behind ones not being able to think the same way about civ as one would about chess is the random factor. Complex calculations are thrown out the window if the right tech is not researchable or if ones units are knocked out through chance.
    In chess there is no random chance (unless ones siblings have a tendency to displace the board somewhat violently )
    other than simple (or not so simple) foresight (or lack thereof).

    [Edit: I think I just quoted war4. should have read all posts first. On another note has anybody ever come up with a civ chess scenario? It wouldn't be exact of course but with identical start positions and no units buildable/techs researchable you might come close..]
    Last edited by ravagon; October 22, 2001, 05:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • ColdWizard
    replied
    i've played chess but not for years now. i've more fun playing civ, more people to learn from

    Leave a comment:


  • Carolus Rex
    replied
    I play chess.

    Carolus

    Leave a comment:


  • Sarxis
    replied
    I guess moving this thread here was good afterall

    I haven't played chess in a while, but I am hoping to get back into it. I credit my chess experience with a great deal of my logical thinking ability, as well as enhancing my skills in other strategy and tactical applications (CIV )

    Leave a comment:


  • VetLegion
    replied
    you people stated both games are fun, I agree

    I am discussing the simmilarities and unsimmilarities because I like to try and understand them. one day I will try to write a good (best! ) civ AI, and chess AI, and understanding chess may help me.

    that is why I am often thinking about the game, quantifying it, viewing different aspects, trying to figure out what luck has to do with it and simmilar.

    I agree, chess is stressful (great post Julius), and there is no luck factor outside your head when you play.

    about calculations, it is true, nobody does them all because it is impossible, so you dont really go deep with your 'if I do this, he can do this...'. actually, you can do some nice moves on a tactical level in civ, which can be more simmilar to chess (on the scale). like attacking a city, or fighting units in the countryside (where to land, where to attack, how to end the turn ... tactical part of civ can be very intense and fun, especially if you attack with minimum force and need them all to count, like I do)

    I read once that Kasparov said something like 'expirienced chess players can recognize patterns on the board, they are like words and sentences to him. expirienced player knows many of them and they make sense'.

    simmilar is true for civ too. Player does not always go from unit to unit and look where it can go (and calculate numerous possibilities), there are sentences to be read from the data. quick glance on the year of the game, number of techs and simmilar can tell a lot to the player what he should do on strategic, and consequentialy on the tactical level.

    about pregame knowledge, actually it is very important in civ. like in chess, there are believe it or not, standard openings
    these openings are simple, yet they are something you need to know to play well.
    also, when to start building roads and stop building cities? sure, we all intinuitevly know that, but mathematical optimum can be calculated.

    and the patterns. although not as formal as in chess, there are important patterns that you must recognize and act acordingly.

    in a civ MP game, things are more chess-like then in civ SP game. there are standard openings and responses. when you pick a long term strategy you better stick with it, because you can only worsen your position by being indecisive... etc. even one wrong move, bad decision, can cost you dearly.

    I think civ can be as annoying, as rewarding and even as difficult as chess. ofcourse all your points are valid Julius, I am not disputing them

    I know that chess computer calculates a lot of possibilities for every move. because civ has many more factors then chess, in civ this is impossible. I seriousely doubt civ is even in the same 'branch' of game theory as chess, because it is very nondeterministic. (I dont have any formal mathematical knowledge on the issue, so I am guessing)

    instead, I am trying to somehow describe patterns in civ, so I can tell AI how to act, and when to act. how to adjust tactics each turn and keep strategy in mind...

    Leave a comment:


  • War4ever
    replied
    julius and Smash....well put....

    I really do enjoy chess..... admittedly i don't play as much as civ....but chess is a better game and much tougher to play well....

    The only luck in chess is a missed play....unlike civ where its huts and land....

    So like i said before...... if you can't play well i am your man but anyone who plays like these guyz above..don't waste your time on me......

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X