 |
How often do you play chess?
This poll is closed. |
| All the time! Next to Civlization, its my favorite! |
   |
3 |
21.43% |
| Sometimes. I like chess, but can't get away from playing CIV. |
   |
7 |
50.00% |
| I have played it, but don't like it much- CIV is where its at! |
   |
4 |
28.57% |
| chest? |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Total: |
14 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Anun Ik Oba
|
 |
Grace of God
Sep 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
hmm
Last edited by Anun Ik Oba on 09-10-2001 at 14:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rwprice
|
|
Lynchburg, VA USA
Mar 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Anun Ik Oba
|
|
Grace of God
Sep 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
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 Anun Ik Oba on 10-10-2001 at 10:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
Lynchburg, VA USA
Mar 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
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?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Julius Brenzaida
|
 |
Currently cleaning the 9000 rooms of Sticky Mouse's Palace
Aug 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
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 !
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ColdWizard
|
|
i've played chess but not for years now. i've more fun playing civ, more people to learn from
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2001 14:20
) or when i did not have a PC to play civ on...
Didn't notice Ken's post. I retract the above statement 
)
|