Chess playing CIVers

[Sarxis]

hmm

[Sarxis]

Well, this pretty much wasted the point of this.

[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.

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...

[Zopperoni]

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

[rwprice]

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.

[November Adam]

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

[Sarxis]

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.

[VetLegion]

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.

[MattyBoy]

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).

[Ken Hinds]

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

[VetLegion]

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?

[rwprice]

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?

[ravagon]

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 ]

[War4ever]

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.......

[Smash]

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

[Julius Brenzaida]

In difficulty and stress, I definitely give chess the EDGE :
1) because of time, in chess you must decide and act quickly. In civ2, you’ve got more ease, especially in SP.
2) there is no coming back in chess, pawns don’t move backward. In civ, you can always make up out of your mistakes.
3) what’s 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. 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.
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. That’s the key !

[Julius Brenzaida]

Smash, thanks for the compliment.
I’m sure you’d beat me pretty easily in civ mp ...

[War4ever]

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......

[VetLegion]

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...

[Sarxis]

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 )

[Carolus Rex]

I play chess.

Carolus

[ColdWizard]

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

[ravagon]

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..]

[tonic]

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.

[Ribannah]

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.

[Julius Brenzaida]

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 ?

[tonic]

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?

[TCO]

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.

[War4ever]

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....

[Urban Ranger]

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