Conquer Club

Maybe it's because I am a freestyle player, (I'm excellent at rebounding in my intramural co-ed basketball league), but I'm horrible at chess. How do the rest of the CCers rank up on the chess board? Should we some battles on a third party site to see who's the best at chess?

I'd like to argue that success on the risk board doesn't beget success on the chess board. Your thoughts?

I am terrible at chess too, but I'm a sequential player. Maybe it's because I am good at multi-player games; I'm terrible at 1v1. Perhaps my strategy is wait until someone screws up so I can win. That doesn't happen as often in 1v1 games, or in chess.

redhotpawn is a good chess website if you do want to play some games.

im ok at chess.. i win more than i lose.. but the people i play aint professionals..

Beckytheblondie wrote:I'd like to argue that success on the risk board doesn't beget success on the chess board. Your thoughts?

Of course, with chess there's set strategies that people play with or often see from others, so it's fun to watch the masters play their games. What is interesting is how a computer can be programmed to excel so well in chess, and yet it's not that great at Risk (at least from the AI I've experienced).

Risk has more unpredictable outcomes, and it lets one react in many different ways; whereas, chess seems to be much more linear. Linear in that each game slowly whittles down to one fine point, but Risk can go anywhere in any given game.

Playing in person, I've always enjoyed Risk more because then it enables me to talk freely, joke around, get people laughing, and let me wheel and deal. It's very difficult to do that on sequential games here and a little less but not much more difficult in speed games which are just too clunky for my taste. that and there's no voice, so much communication is killed.

In chess, there's no need for talking really, so it's not as fun for me. Too set, and too fixated on just the moves of a game--no influences of speech really allowed.

Thanks, Stalin, for your thoughts. I believe they are correct. I agree with what you have written. The factor of dice does change this game much. I think Risk is more fun anyway, that's why I'm here and not spending all my time on redhotpawn.

I'd pwn tdans at chess any day

Im the man and will challenge anyone to a game

Beckytheblondie wrote:(I'm excellent at rebounding in my intramural co-ed basketball league)

I bet I could out rebound you in that intramural co-ed league anyday...

And then beat you at chess during a timeout!

All modesty aside, I'm excellent at pretty much all board games, chess included.

I havent played in years but held a rating over 2K.

Brann2006 wrote:I'd pwn tdans at chess any day

HAHHAHA so you think..

I'm half decent chess player. Play at chessanytime.com best rating was about UK equiv of ELO 2000 (174 British) but bit crap these days.
Still love the game tho

Chuuuuck wrote:

Beckytheblondie wrote:(I'm excellent at rebounding in my intramural co-ed basketball league)

I bet I could out rebound you in that intramural co-ed league anyday...

And then beat you at chess during a timeout!

I'll out rebound most people in the world in a basketball seeing as I have a bit of a height advantage at 6'6" and have played basketball my entire life.

Now back to the topic of chess. I am relatively good at chess, I am better than the average person but not better than the average chess player.

ljex wrote:

Chuuuuck wrote:

Beckytheblondie wrote:(I'm excellent at rebounding in my intramural co-ed basketball league)

I bet I could out rebound you in that intramural co-ed league anyday...

And then beat you at chess during a timeout!

I'll out rebound most people in the world in a basketball seeing as I have a bit of a height advantage at 6'6" and have played basketball my entire life.

Now back to the topic of chess. I am relatively good at chess, I am better than the average person but not better than the average chess player.

Don't underestimate the small guy at 6'-0". I am a feisty little guy. Not afraid to throw some bows and bite ankles!

i agree with Stalin

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Beckytheblondie wrote:I'd like to argue that success on the risk board doesn't beget success on the chess board. Your thoughts?

Of course, with chess there's set strategies that people play with or often see from others, so it's fun to watch the masters play their games. What is interesting is how a computer can be programmed to excel so well in chess, and yet it's not that great at Risk (at least from the AI I've experienced).

I believe that is partially due to effort put into making AI, for 30+ years some of best computer minds have been working on chess AIs, while guessing a risk AI gets months worth of effort by not that gifted programmers.

The basic characteristics of a good chess player: Focus, awareness of opponants last move, movement of the pieces and flow of the board all translate well onto the Risk platform.

I was once quite good at chess, then I hit a block where I couldn't win at all....now I just don't play.

I'm eager to see the CC chess map though.....

JRock

There's no element of chance in chess. Except the chance of someone's error which exists in risk to. I don't think it comes down to 1v1 vs multi-player games chess is more about tactics, study and experience only.

I will f*ck Bobby Fisher's mouth in chess and make it bleed.

Just wait until the Chess Map in the Foundry gets finished...then you can mix World Domination and Chess...esque play.


--Andy

I used to be very good at chess before I quit playing. Was rated in the top 50 of my age in the US. Then I went on a surge and played a minimum of 4 hours a day (10 hours minimum on weekends).

Long story short: got so sick of it that I quit and have not yet gotten back into it. I've gotten a lot worse (as you'd expect after almost 3 years of rarely playing it.)

ChickenSandwich wrote:There's no element of chance in chess. Except the chance of someone's error which exists in risk to. I don't think it comes down to 1v1 vs multi-player games chess is more about tactics, study and experience only.

errrrrr..............and skill i think.

Re BBS earlier and computers risk / chess. You couldn't be more wrong. The reason chess computers have become so strong (as someone stated earler) is that since the early 70's it has been a man vs machine battleground.
Huge resources and skills have been put into this, for "feel / understanding" vs calculating brawn.
In the late 70's in certain tournies computers were allowed to enter - and they were shit.
In the end although programs have improved it is the sheer increase in brute force calculation speed that have made them great players.
Programmers were able to dispense with human style understanding (to a certain degree) and just calculate all possibility trees. This is why computers are so strong now.

A decent program would annihalate the opposition at CC, particularly 1v1, dubs, trips, quads. It would be much easier than chess especially since they are based on dice calcs etc.

Try playing backgammon vs a strong program.

As you say the chatbox wouldn't be as much fun tho

King_Herpes wrote:I will f*ck Bobby Fisher's mouth in chess and make it bleed.

But he's dead and there's a "c" in his name

lol

Wait and see...

I'm a chess club captain