chess - a little off topic

[damezzi]

Considering that toaw has some similarities with chess, in the way one conceives strategical plans (that was even stated in a review in the past), I would like to know how many of you actually play chess or like it, at least.

That may seem a little off topic, but, in fact, I was planing a kind of integration, using chess to give toaw a deeper strategical scope (not a direct interference in the game rules). I won't enter into details here, even because I was planing to do it only for personal use and satisfaction, but I just got curious about it.

[sPzAbt653]

Since COW, I've lost interest in chess. The board still sits here, though.

I can imagine as we shuffle thru the post-apocalyptic ashes, pining for keyboards and mouses ... stumbling over a broken, disfigured bishop piece. We try to explain the importance to civilization of this remnant to those that remain ...

[Veers]

Heh heh heh. I am TERRIBLE at Chess. I've never understood why I can be (I like to think) good at TOAW, but be so bad at Chess. My girlfriend, who humors me by playing TOAW once in a while (but is not all that good), beats me all the time at Chess.
 
So, while I'd expect someone to be good at both, I'm the eaxact opposite. [:D]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

Considering that toaw has some similarities with chess, in the way one conceives strategical plans (that was even stated in a review in the past),

In Chess, because you have perfect information, and because there is no random factor, the computer programmes and grand masters alike play by planning exactly how the game will progress over a number of moves, to the point where they can tell you how many turns it will take them to complete the game.

Planning in TOAW is very different. You have very imperfect information and even the best odds attack can fail through dumb luck. So you have to work in more general terms, come up with contingencies etc. You don't know that you can break through at point x with y forces in the same way as you can be sure that your bishop can take the other guy's knight.

[damezzi]

Sorry, but I didn't express myself well. I know they are completely different games, but I still think it is necessary the same kind of temperament to appreciate both. Both in chess and in toaw, analytical thinking is essential so that one must analyse it's present position and plan a way of arriving to a desired one.
But I just want to know how many actually like the game of chess.
Anyway, thanks for your answers.

[FaneFlugt]

I Love chess. But computer gaming/bordgaming (fx World in flames) isnt really comparable with chess.
The way I see it, the difference is the time factor. Chess is a relative quick game. You can play 4-5 games with your friend/friends in acouple of hours. And you can smoke cigarettes and drink beer in a cafe, while you talk about life.
Playing TOAW is solitare. And most boardgames are so complex that it takes up all your brain capacity. Chess dosent.

[damezzi]

This depends on how you face a chess game. In fact, from the games I know, chess is (for me, at least) the one which demands the higher degree of concentration. For sure you can play it drinking beer and doing multiple things at the same time, but so you can with any other game, depending on how well you want to perform.
I've already played toaw while talking to a friend... didn't do it well... after all, I don't play toaw well, yet... even alone.
Btw, chess can take many hours, depending on the type of game and can even take weeks if you play by mail and analises a position deeply.
I think chess is more brain intensive in terms of concentration (you have the clock pressing you most of the time) and calculation (a simple blunder can cost you the game if your opponent is as strong as you are); games like toaw are more intensive in terms of information management, creativity and, perhaps, intuition.
That's just my point of view, I don't want to create a dispute between those games, since both are great in my opinion.

[Curtis Lemay]

I usually take the time to solve the chess problem in the Sunday paper. But that's about it. Long ago I used to regularly take on a computer-controlled player, but I'd have to get back into form to even do that now.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

In Chess, because you have perfect information, and because there is no random factor, the computer programmes and grand masters alike play by planning exactly how the game will progress over a number of moves, to the point where they can tell you how many turns it will take them to complete the game.

No, humans do not play chess in the same way as computers. People, even GMs, simply cannot calculate combinations in the same way and with the same speed.

Both people and AI eventually run up against what AI programmers (and philosophers) call the 'frame problem', manifested in this case by selecting those combinations that are relevant while discarding those are not before even calculating them. It is something people are very good at (we could not function without that ability) - although nobody really has a clue why - and computers are extremely bad at for precisely that reason. Obviously in the case of GMs the natural ability we all have is enhanced by years of study and experience in recognising particular recurring sequences and patterns. In AI v. human chess the battle is pretty much in those terms, calculating power v. intuition. Both calculate combinations, humans more selectively but AI a lot faster. The eventual victory of AI was inevitable as the power of the former advantage slowly but inexerably overtook the latter.

Wargames are different not so much because of random factors (although they are usually there, of course) as that the 'game' situation is considerably more complex than a chess board, and AI can't figure out what to do using the same sort of 'number-crunch' algorithms.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

No, humans do not play chess in the same way as computers.

Well, what I said was "computer programmes and grand masters alike play by planning exactly how the game will progress over a number of moves"

What I said is true- and your statement doesn't actually contradict it. You certainly don't become a grand master by thinking in real world military terms. Chess isn't a simulation.

Wargames are different not so much because of random factors (although they are usually there, of course) as that the 'game' situation is considerably more complex than a chess board, and AI can't figure out what to do using the same sort of 'number-crunch' algorithms.

If there were no unknown factors (randomness is only one element of this), then a small sized wargame wouldn't be that much more complicated than chess from a computer's perspective. It would certainly be possible for it to plan a small sub-set of the scenario, say two turns worth of action on one sector of the front, by looking at all the possibilities.

Another difficulty for computers is the lack of an easily definable goal. If every wargame's objective was as simple as in chess, AI would find it much easier.