3 ms·

Genuinely curious - what makes chess such an intellectually engaging game over more "fun" games such as dota2 or StarCraft? These have all of the same Dynamics

by elhudy 8y ago

Genuinely curious - what makes chess such an intellectually engaging game over more "fun" games such as dota2 or StarCraft? These have all of the same Dynamics plus some. They are so dynamic, in fact, that the odds of just seeing the same "opening move" (hero picks) occur in two separate games are ridiculously low. Sure there aren't decades of documentation on the strategy and history of modern video games, but that isn't to say they aren't more complex.

kyralis 8y ago
Chess is not real-time, and it's intellectually very "pure" in that your ability at the game is not influenced by any ancillary skills- APM, hand-eye coordination, rapid scanning of multiple windows of screen when managing, say, multiple RTS expansions, etc. Your win or loss is never going to be driven by "I couldn't click fast enough" or "I mis-clicked in the heat of a battle". Also, at least in my opinion, the very limited nature of the total set of states relative to the total set of states in something like an RTS lends itself to repeat engagement and analysis. You can, and likely will, see exactly the same board position in more than one chess game. You almost never going to see exactly the same game state in multiple SC games. That changes the dynamics of post-game analysis and skill development, IMO. (Don't get me wrong, I enjoy both- but I do enjoy them differently.)
- noir_lord 8y ago
  > Your win or loss is never going to be driven by "I couldn't click fast enough" or "I mis-clicked in the heat of a battle". True with 1 exception, 1/0 (all moves in 1 minute per side) bullet, some of the really strong players at that use high end/high accuracy gaming mice because with so little time even a slight decrease in move time pays off. I don't play anything less than 15/15 or 20/10 though and your point holds for that.
- elhudy 8y ago
  >Also, at least in my opinion, the very limited nature of the total set of states relative to the total set of states in something like an RTS lends itself to repeat engagement and analysis. You can, and likely will, see exactly the same board position in more than one chess game. This makes it reactive, rather than proactive. Reactive judgments are driven more by depth of knowledge, habit, and memorization. Whereas proactive judgments are driven more by predictive/entrepreneurial reasoning. Both seem equally driven by calculated risk with a little psychology involved. Ancillary skills are important in start craft, I'll give you that. But at least in DotA those skills could be learned by anyone relatively quickly. I don't play video games any more so no other examples come to mind unfortunately.
  - rainsil 8y ago
    Turn-based strategy games such as the Civilization and Total War series are probably good examples to compare chess with. Aside from the potential asymmetries (which can be removed), they are both 'purer' than RTS games and less deterministic than chess. In 1v1s, they're probably a better test of predictive reasoning than chess.
yesenadam 8y ago
Genuinely curious - what makes chess such an intellectually engaging game I don't know, but it is very addictive. It's a 'fight to the death', but in a realm of ideas. There's a neverending amount to learn, so many different types of situation can arise in a game, so many varieties of strategy and tactics, unlimited, it seems. I'm not sure what you mean 'these have all the same Dynamics plus some. They are so dynamic'. There is a fairly common chess variant, Chess960/Fischer Random, where the pieces are shuffled before starting, and you will rarely see the same opening move. But it hasn't taken over from normal chess, which seems the better game to most people. The opening move won't be new, but after a few moves you're in uncharted territory.

by elhudy 8y ago

kyralis 8y ago

Chess is not real-time, and it's intellectually very "pure" in that your ability at the game is not influenced by any ancillary skills- APM, hand-eye coordination, rapid scanning of multiple windows of screen when managing, say, multiple RTS expansions, etc. Your win or loss is never going to be driven by "I couldn't click fast enough" or "I mis-clicked in the heat of a battle". Also, at least in my opinion, the very limited nature of the total set of states relative to the total set of states in something like an RTS lends itself to repeat engagement and analysis. You can, and likely will, see exactly the same board position in more than one chess game. You almost never going to see exactly the same game state in multiple SC games. That changes the dynamics of post-game analysis and skill development, IMO. (Don't get me wrong, I enjoy both- but I do enjoy them differently.)

noir_lord 8y ago
> Your win or loss is never going to be driven by "I couldn't click fast enough" or "I mis-clicked in the heat of a battle". True with 1 exception, 1/0 (all moves in 1 minute per side) bullet, some of the really strong players at that use high end/high accuracy gaming mice because with so little time even a slight decrease in move time pays off. I don't play anything less than 15/15 or 20/10 though and your point holds for that.
elhudy 8y ago
>Also, at least in my opinion, the very limited nature of the total set of states relative to the total set of states in something like an RTS lends itself to repeat engagement and analysis. You can, and likely will, see exactly the same board position in more than one chess game. This makes it reactive, rather than proactive. Reactive judgments are driven more by depth of knowledge, habit, and memorization. Whereas proactive judgments are driven more by predictive/entrepreneurial reasoning. Both seem equally driven by calculated risk with a little psychology involved. Ancillary skills are important in start craft, I'll give you that. But at least in DotA those skills could be learned by anyone relatively quickly. I don't play video games any more so no other examples come to mind unfortunately.
- rainsil 8y ago
  Turn-based strategy games such as the Civilization and Total War series are probably good examples to compare chess with. Aside from the potential asymmetries (which can be removed), they are both 'purer' than RTS games and less deterministic than chess. In 1v1s, they're probably a better test of predictive reasoning than chess.

yesenadam 8y ago

Genuinely curious - what makes chess such an intellectually engaging game I don't know, but it is very addictive. It's a 'fight to the death', but in a realm of ideas. There's a neverending amount to learn, so many different types of situation can arise in a game, so many varieties of strategy and tactics, unlimited, it seems. I'm not sure what you mean 'these have all the same Dynamics plus some. They are so dynamic'. There is a fairly common chess variant, Chess960/Fischer Random, where the pieces are shuffled before starting, and you will rarely see the same opening move. But it hasn't taken over from normal chess, which seems the better game to most people. The opening move won't be new, but after a few moves you're in uncharted territory.