My name is Tiberius, RevTiberius, also known as MarineKingSUBPrime
Initially, this was a blog about my development from a mid-platinum level player to a top 8 diamond player. However, I have retired from active play and now only follow SC2 as an observer. From now on this will be a blog about my opinions on Starcraft and anything else I feel like writing about. Comments and feedback are welcome.
My most current project is coaching SC2 grandmaster Pyre in chess, including a closer look at the similarities and differences between SC2 and chess.
An extended version of this blog (inlcuding games - coming soon!) is available here:
TvT: Used to be my least favorite m/u. Now I enjoy TvT quite a bit. I don't cheese and the matches usually evolve from 1-1-1 into mid-late games with lots of tanks and air. I don't have exact stats but I win more than 50% of these games. I'm a little vulnerable to cheese such as reapers and all-in builds around banshees. Though I've finally learned to use my second 50 energy for a scan of the opponent's base. Which is usually still early enough to react to any kind of early aggression. I feel quite comfortable in this match up, but stuff I still need to work on includes:
- exact timing of buildings. How many factories/starports can I afford when? - timing and sequence of mech upgrades. what do I need when? what is more important? - keep making units. Seems so simple but when I look at my replays I often find idle production buildings in my base - army composition. I usually go battle cruisers in late game, but I feel I would benefit from a few thors as well, and maybe get fewer tanks
TvZ: Definitely my least favorite m/u. I used to do quite well in TvZ but I think the patches have made this m/u more and more difficult for terran. My main issue seems to be that I don't harass enough and then my macro doesn't keep up and I get overwhelmed sooner or later. Another issue for me is that my micro isn't good enough for effective marine splits vs. banelings. And I find muta harass really annoying. For some reason in pro games the mutas only poke around a little bit here and there, but when I play vs. zerg, the mutas do a lot more damage. Eventually what I would like to do in this m/u is copy Goodie's mech heavy, thor-reliant style. Stuff I really need to work on includes:
- harass earlier - macro! - scout better! Is he going roaches or air?!
TvP: I used to lose at least 75% of my TvP. I went for 1 rax expo and always lost the big macro battles even when I was ahead in supply. So recently I switched to banshees and now I'm winning a lot more. Probably around 50%. I still need to work on the timings and my banshee micro could also be a bit better. But I think I'm on the right track here. Sometimes I go for cloak and only a few banshees to harass, sometimes I go for a lot of banshees without cloak but with marine support for a frontal attack. Haven't decided what's better yet, I need to play more games to make up my mind. The objective is to avoid macro games vs. protoss.T hings I still would like to improve are
- not neglecting my base as I micro the banshees - exact timing of the build. When to get gas, how many rax, when to expand etc.
Considering that I'm terran this shouldn't come as a surprise. I prefer smaller maps with short distances between bases. My favorite map is currently Xel Naga Caverns. From previous seasons I also liked Jungle Basin, Steppes of War, and Lost Temple.
The map I seem to be getting the most is Shattered Temple. I like it, too, though I think the spawning locations are not perfectly equal for terran. For example, it is much easier to place and repair a bunker at the upper end of the ramp of the 6 o'clock position than it is in some of the other locations.
However, recently I've expanded my game a little to include elevator drops. This works pretty well for me on Antiga Shipyard, especially when I get the right spawning position. Obviously the map isn't perfectly balanced either because spawning locations matter a lot.
I have vetoed all large maps such as Tal'darim Altar. And I'm on the fence between Shakura's Plateau and Metalopolis. Right now I play Shakuras, but I might give it up for Metalopolis.
EDIT: Season 5 just begun and brought with it changes to the map pool. There are a lot of threads here on TL discussing the pros and cons of the new maps. I think all the excitement is blown a little bit out of proportion. I can think of only very few wins and losses where the map was the determining factor. Stuff like my macro/micro/build order etc. matter much more to the outcome of the game. The only general observation I'd make about maps is that as terran I obviously prefer smaller maps because of the slow and immobile terran army. But the exact composition of the map pool is not something I worry - or complain - about.
I am always surprised how much BM I encounter on the ladder. And it's usually from people who are friendly and chatty at the beginning of the game. Here some examples from my games. This is just a very small sample... I get BMed in at least 50% of my games:
There is a lot of BM going on in platinum and low diamond and I think the reason is that a lot of players understand the game quite well, but are frustrated that they can not play it at the same level the pros do. So when they rage at me it's because really these wanna be GMs are just mad that they lost to a platinum player. Another explanation was offered to me by a friend who shall remain nameless, but who has an intimate knowledge of and plenty of personal experience with BM at high master league / GM level. According to him, losers feel emasculated and BM in a desperate attempt to reassert their ego. That's probably true!
Of course I am not thrilled when I lose a game, but the worst I do is sometimes leave without saying gg.
I don't have any particular gaming hardware and I honestly don't think I need it. I play SC2 on a 2009 MacBook Pro, with a 24" external screen, and a standard Microsoft external keyboard and mouse. The game runs smoothly on low settings, but sometimes there's lag in 3v3 and 4v4 in mid- to late game. I don't mind playing on low settings but I sometimes regret that I can't stream or cast games. I've been wondering for a while whether special gaming hardware would help me become a better player, but after all I've seen and heard I really don't think so. As I have described in the other sections, the main issues I have to work on are simple mechanics. For example, I sometimes forget to constantly make SCVs. I don't think an expensive keyboard or a "better" mouse would help here. However if anybody can put forward an argument why even platinum/diamond league players need mechanical keyboards etc., I'd be happy to discuss it here
Hotkeys is an area where I think I have a lot of room for improvement. I currently use hotkeys like this:
CONTROL GROUPS: 1+2 for units, 3 for command centers, 4 for barracks, 5 for factories, 6 for starports.
BUILDINGS: ALL BUILDINGS: lift/land COMMAND CENTERS: train scvs, scan, mule, upgrade to fortress or orbital BARRACKS: train marines/marauders/ghosts/reaper, build reactor/tech lab FACTORY: build tanks/hellions/thors, build reactor/tech lab STARPORT: build vikings/drop ships/battle cruisers/banshees/ravens, build reactor/tech lab BUNKER: unload, salvage
UNITS: TANKS: siege, unsiege BANSHEES: cloak, decloak GHOST: emp, cloak, decloak RAVEN: autoturret SCV: build + building DROP SHIP: drop units MARINE/MARAUDER: stim Vikings: land/lift
HOTKEYS I'M CURRENTLY NOT USING - BUT I THINK I SHOULD BE: - All upgrades and special abilities researched in tech labs, engineering bays and armories. I always select those with the mouse. I know I should be using the hotkeys, and I know most of them, too, but I've been using the mouse for a long time to do this, and I find this habit very hard to break. - SHIFT to give sequence of orders. When I watch progamers I sometime see them plot the path of a drop ship and then forget about because the drop is executed automatically. That looks really useful, but I'm not doing it. I also think it would be useful to not only send my siege tanks somewhere, but at the same time give the order to siege up as soon as they get there. Basically I think order sequencing can be useful to me because the less time I have to spend on micro managing a certain unit the more time I have to do other things - IDLE SCVs. F1. I'm playing this on a Macbook Pro, so F1 does not work for me. I would have to reassign this particular hotkey, but I think it's useful because especially in mid to late game when I have several SCVs build stuff simultaneously I always end up with idle SCVs. Makes perfect sense to me to get a hold of them quickly.
GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT HOTKEYS: I know that a lot of upper level players customize their hotkeys. I'd be grateful for an explanation from a terran player how they do it and why that's beneficial.
Another challenge I have come across quite recently is grouping different types of units that use the same hotkey. In particular, I've lost a few battles (and games because of it) in TvP because I had marines/marauders and ravens in the same control group. And when I meant to stim my bio (hotkey T), I would drop autoturrets instead (also hotkey T). So I'm currently trying to remember to put my bio and raven in different groups.
The autoturret/stim problem actually exemplifies my main challenge with hotkeys: actually using them, and using them efficiently. I know what to do, and I use those listed about quite regularly, but getting used to using new hotkey combinations is really hard for me. And it bothers me that I just can't get used to using hotkeys to research upgrades. This may be one of the reasons why I am sometimes behind in upgrades. In fact I should probably also hotkey armories and engineering bays like I've seen progamers do it.
I clearly don't use hotkeys to the extent possible and any feedback particularly on this section will be very much appreciated. Especially advice on how to get used to using new hotkeys.
In this section I will link replays of my games and discuss what I did well and what I should have done better.
Game 1 TvP: Banshees
As I discuss in the video, this is one of my first games going banshees vs. protoss. I used to have a terrible score vs. toss in macro games, so I decided it was time to try something else. I feel this build has a lot of potential, but as the video also clearly shows, I still have much to improve about it.
Game 2 TvP: Banshees
Shortly after playing Game 1 (see above) I got lucky and got the same map, m/u, and spawning positions in a ladder game again. By that time I had seen the first video several times and was determined to fix some of the issues from Game 1. In particular, this time I - found the time to expo - researched tech (stim in particular)
So during the game I thought things were going reasonably well. However, tQZander's harsh comments about this second game made me feel like a noob in bronze league. But he's right and there are still way too many easily fixable issues with my game. In particular I would like to comment on the following issues and decisions I made:
- SCV production: I was really surprised to see how low my SCV count was. During the game it really felt as if I was constantly producing SCVs. Of all the things that went wrong this game, the low SCV count is definitely the most serious problem. Maybe I should put an "SCVs!!!!" sticker on my monitor or something.
- Siege tech: I simply forgot to research it. Of course that's not supposed to happen, but fortunately that's usually not a problem. I very rarely forget to research the upgrades I want.
- Point Defense Drones: I'm just not used to using them. I know I need to but for the longest time I only used ravens for detections and auto turrets. It's hard to break that habit.
- Cloak: I agree I should either cancel cloak when I spot the obs, or at least use the cloak if I do research it. I guess I was thinking "no need to cloak because there's an obs anyway" but of course that's nonsense.
- Early bunker on secondary ramp: I build it because I need it eventually but also to prevent scouting and to make my opponent believe I might be 1 rax expoing or something.
- Scouting: I never seem to scout enough. Frankly at my level, almost 100% of protoss players take a quick expo at the 6 or 7 minute mark and my initial scout didn't seem to suggest otherwise, either. But still I need to confirm.
- My opponent: I know he seemed passive and didn't do very much, but he's quite representative of the kind of protoss players I encounter in top 8 platinum. And do lose to such players too often if I don't take the initiative early on and let them macro.
Conclusion: I remember I felt very good during the game because I implemented some of the improvements suggested to me from game 1. However, after listening to the harsh criticisms of this game I realize that I still have a long long way to go.
In future games with this m/u I would like to: - make sure I make SCVs ALL THE TIME even if that means sacrificing army production - not send the first scout out so early - send more scouts in mid/late game
Finally, I would like to thank tQZander for his analysis, and my opponent for letting me get away with so many mistakes.
Game 3 TvZ: Hellions
This game is significant to me because one of the openings I have vs. Zerg is double reactor hellion all-in. This works amazingly well, unless my opponent gets 2 or more sunks, or goes roaches, as in this case. This is one of the few games where I win despite roaches. Usually I lose at least 2/3 of these games. I would like to note the following about this game: - when he attacked, I probably pulled too many SCVs - I find that particular choke much harder to defend to this kind of attack than chokes on other maps (e.g. Xel Naga Caverns) - he may have left prematurely? I was a little surprised when he simply left at that point. Or was the game so clearly won for me? I really don't know - I REALLY need to scout better. McGuffin's comments about the Zerg's gas made me realize that scouting can really teach me so much more than just whether the Zerg is 6 pooling or fast expanding
There is probably more which I'll add later after watching the replay one more time.
Anyway... any kind of feedback on the game is highly appreciated! Especially from Zerg or Terran players.
SOUND: Until recently I did not pay much attention to the sound settings. I was just playing SC2 on default settings, with disabled music. Recently I started playing around with the settings a little, however, and I was surprised how much difference that makes. Increasing the number of sound channels makes the sound quality so much better. I don't really care, but from a technical point of view - and as opposed to SC1 and BW - I was surprised to see how adjustable sound settings and sound quality are. All I really need are unit sounds. Anything else I more or less consider a distraction.
MUSIC: I don't listen to music when I play SC2. I find it distracting. I also turned off the in game music. I want to be able to hear nukes and nydus and such.
For the same reason, I find streams with music pretty awful. Most players stream really loud techno and other crap that renders their stream pretty much useless to me. One commendable exception is SCDPyre who unfortunately also streams music, but at least music that coincides pretty much with what I would actually listen to. Piece of advice for SCDPyre though: I don't want to listen to Hotel California EVERY time I open your stream... :p
Once in a while, when I do listen to music when playing SC2, my playlist usually consists of some of the following:
The Rolling Stones Bob Dylan Eric Clapton Bruce Springsteen The Counting Crows Billy Joel Ryan Adams Elton John Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers Lynyrd Skynyrd and other stuff along those lines. Classic rock mostly.
As a general comment on music I have to say I do not listen to my favorite music too much because constant exposure to it kind of devalues it. That's why I listen to all kinds of music to keep things interesting. As I am writing these lines, I am listening to Keith Jarrett's "Köln Concert"
Patches. Well... cry me a river. Honestly patches don't bother me as much as all the whining about them. I think unless you play SC2 at the highest level (top GM and better) nobody really has the right to cry about the patches and their effect on balancing. If I look at my own game I have to say there is so much I can improve that would easily outweigh the effect any patch has. For example, I do not constantly make SCVs. That's a much bigger problem for my terran game than say having the bunker build time increased by a few seconds. The same is true for virtually all other players I have ever seen complain about a patch.
Being a manager for Revoki, cant you just ask some of the players to occassionaly game with you and help you out a bit? Seems like such a good opportunity to learn from upper level players.
On December 03 2011 10:42 eXigent. wrote: Being a manager for Revoki, cant you just ask some of the players to occassionaly game with you and help you out a bit? Seems like such a good opportunity to learn from upper level players.
I am one of the Revoki players and I have helped Tiberius a lot but getting into diamond is no easy feat! Good luck Tiberius I'm always here if you need me to look at some replays for you!
On December 03 2011 10:42 eXigent. wrote: Being a manager for Revoki, cant you just ask some of the players to occassionaly game with you and help you out a bit? Seems like such a good opportunity to learn from upper level players.
Yes it is a great privilege to have access to these players, but at the end of the day when I play 1v1 I'm by myself. If I don't DO all the things I know I have to, I'll still lose. Getting advice and implementing it are two quite different things. I have a hard time to stay efficient throughout a long 1v1 game
All aboard an excellent blog! Tiberius is certainly one of the most hardcore platinum players I know. I believe that any player under masters can benefit from his blog posts and awesome discussion. Good Luck!
On December 03 2011 10:42 eXigent. wrote: Being a manager for Revoki, cant you just ask some of the players to occassionaly game with you and help you out a bit? Seems like such a good opportunity to learn from upper level players.
I am one of the Revoki players and I have helped Tiberius a lot but getting into diamond is no easy feat! Good luck Tiberius I'm always here if you need me to look at some replays for you!
Lol that's funny cuz I got into Diamond back when it was the highest league by just playing random and cheesing every game.
Tiberius: Good advice, works with the community, amigo, and most recently, player! Here's some tips from me: Stay focused and don't get bored. If you need to, take breaks and work on custom games for micro (May I suggest 'Darglein's Micro Trainer') Also, mindset is important so perhaps you may want to look at Pokebunny's guide to mindset: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=285471. I wish you best of luck on your quest to success.
On December 03 2011 12:19 SCDPyre wrote: Tiberius: Good advice, works with the community, amigo, and most recently, player! Here's some tips from me: Stay focused and don't get bored. If you need to, take breaks and work on custom games for micro (May I suggest 'Darglein's Micro Trainer') Also, mindset is important so perhaps you may want to look at Pokebunny's guide to mindset: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=285471. I wish you best of luck on your quest to success.
Thanks for the comments, Pyre. I'll definitely check out that map. I also enjoyed reading Pokebunny's guide. Especially the sections on confidence and having fun.
On December 04 2011 06:26 Drakan wrote: Nice blog, I hope more and more people start to read this stuff in order to get out of bronze/silver/plat leagues. GL on your quest!
Thanks! I'll keep expanding it. Feedback and comments are always welcome. I just added a section on BM which I'm sure will keep growing over time...
On December 06 2011 09:43 Nub4ever wrote: So... was looking around on blogs and found this. At first I thought it was about the book by J.R.R Tolkein! Great guide though!
Ya I guess the title is slightly misleading. But I find it's an appropriate name. And over time I think the blog will become known for what it is.
"I know that a lot of upper level players customize their hotkeys. I'd be grateful for an explanation from a terran player how they do it and why that's beneficial.
Another challenge I have come across quite recently is grouping different types of units that use the same hotkey. In particular, I've lost a few battles (and games because of it) in TvP because I had marines/marauders and ravens in the same control group. And when I meant to stim my bio (hotkey T), I would drop autoturrets instead (also hotkey T). So I'm currently trying to remember to put my bio and raven in different groups.
The autoturret/stim problem actually exemplifies my main challenge with hotkeys: actually using them, and using them efficiently. I know what to do, and I use those listed about quite regularly, but getting used to using new hotkey combinations is really hard for me. And it bothers me that I just can't get used to using hotkeys to research upgrades. This may be one of the reasons why I am sometimes behind in upgrades. In fact I should probably also hotkey armories and engineering bays like I've seen progamers do it.
I clearly don't use hotkeys to the extent possible and any feedback particularly on this section will be very much appreciated. Especially advice on how to get used to using new hotkeys."
! To address the customizing hotkeys question you can bind/unbind your hotkeys from the main menu on bnet I believe it is under hotkeys.
Now when you have multiple untis with abilities in a hotkey bnet always decides to choose the unit you dont want to use to be selected. If you press tab this cycles to the next unit. If you click tab from raven it will go to rine rauders and you can stim all of them,.
! To address the customizing hotkeys question you can bind/unbind your hotkeys from the main menu on bnet I believe it is under hotkeys.
Now when you have multiple untis with abilities in a hotkey bnet always decides to choose the unit you dont want to use to be selected. If you press tab this cycles to the next unit. If you click tab from raven it will go to rine rauders and you can stim all of them,.
Tabbing through the units is something I don't do at the moment. I'll have to try that!
In other news: REPLAY section added with video analysis of my games
On December 07 2011 17:55 Rk0 wrote: You know RevZoohairz is a retard right?
Well I know he has a reputation of being something like the Darth Vader of the Starcraft 2 universe. But if he's Darth Vader then I'm Emperor Palpatine. So him and I get along just fine.
But seriously, I think his bad reputation is undeserved. Well, we'll see what happens when I start beating him on ladder
In other news: MAP POOL discussion slightly expanded
Ok. well, getting promoted isn't easy. I'm at the top of my division, I win a lot of games, and I play consistently vs. higher ranked people. And still, no promotion. I guess I have to keep this up for a while?! I'm going to write about this in the main section soon. For now here are some screen shots.
Beating higher ranked opponents: (That guy was REALLY BM. Beating him felt great!)
Well it took you 190 wins to hit top platinum whereas someone has 1/5 of your games and nearly equal to your points. Taking a screen shot of a series of your wins when you clearly lost an equal number of games before that, says nothing
On December 08 2011 11:55 zmansman17 wrote: Well it took you 190 wins to hit top platinum whereas someone has 1/5 of your games and nearly equal to your points. Taking a screen shot of a series of your wins when you clearly lost an equal number of games before that, says nothing
Well duh... of course there are losing streaks in my match history. But that doesn't mean it's not looking good right now...
On December 08 2011 13:10 MegaBUD wrote: Good luck... terran is very hard at this level. Thats why we are so few...
Thanks! I need all the support I can get... Looking at top 16 GMs in NA atm it seems there really aren't all that many terrans among them... not that I'd compare myself to them... but still.... terran was a lot stronger a few patches ago, now it is a little too weak. I'll address that in a major section soon...
In other news: is there a way to quote more than one message in a reply?
When I play 1v1, I do it almost exclusively on the ladder. However, once in a while I also play practice games with other people. Today I managed to beat RevOrchid, arguably Team Revoki's strongest Zerg player, in one such games. He didn't know that from time to time I go hellion all-in vs. zerg.
RevOrchid is currently in the top 8 of the most brutal Master League division I have ever seen. He also used to be in GM ever so briefly at the beginning of Season 4. I don't beat players of his caliber very often, but when it happens it really helps me feel good about my game.
He wants a rm, so I guess I have to prepare another cheese
Season 4 has ended for me and I did not manage to get the promotion I was after. Maybe a future season will prove more successful. And maybe a switch to protoss is in order... I honestly do believe protoss is easier to play at lower levels and at lower APM
Great blog! Its a great read and you should definitely keep up your progress. Still have a whole week of season 4 to play then maybe promotion at the start of season 5^^ Should keep playing Terran as you've invested all this time into your goal of diamond you'd only be setting yourself back a little and why not continue for the challenge
On December 13 2011 17:24 RevTiberius wrote: Season 4 has ended for me and I did not manage to get the promotion I was after. Maybe a future season will prove more successful. And maybe a switch to protoss is in order... I honestly do believe protoss is easier to play at lower levels and at lower APM
Everybody has to start somewhere. Don't switch races, just work harder
</3 broken because of Tiberius quitting. I think you were right that Team Revoki wasn't the right place for you to improve as a player just because there are no practice partners at your level but I'm sad to see you go and you really were a big part of the team. Bye Tiberius best of luck in the future!
On December 14 2011 01:03 Shiver wrote: </3 broken because of Tiberius quitting. I think you were right that Team Revoki wasn't the right place for you to improve as a player just because there are no practice partners at your level but I'm sad to see you go and you really were a big part of the team. Bye Tiberius best of luck in the future!
Just to clarify - I will be back at some point in mid - late January. When I will be looking forward to a few team games here and there with people beyond Revoki. As for Team Revoki itself, I will continue to get things done there as well because - though I say so myself - there are a few important things for the team that nobody does nearly as well as I do.
What this means for this blog I will determine at a later date.
NEW SECTION on patches added to first post in this thread.
In other news I'd like to say that I recently declined to have my face carved into Mt. Rushmore. Considering that most of my achievements lie ahead rather than behind, I think this would be premature!
Besides being a mediocre SC2 player I am also a very strong amateur chess player. I have been asked repeatedly to comment on the similarities and dissimilarities between the two games and I will do so soon in a longer post. For now let me just say that I think the games have very little in common, and that making comparisons between them is kind of pointless. I'll give a detailed explanation soon.
Expanded the Map Pool discussion, explaining my reasons for being indifferent toward changes in the map pool. Considering the heated map pool debates in so many TL threads here, I think many people would disagree with me.
There's another aspect where I seem to differ from a large part of the community: I know that a lot of players watch a lot of the tournaments (MLG, NASL, etc.) live even if that means staying up all night. Often when I log on to BN or Skype friends immediately ask me "DUDE are you watching MLG ?" and stuff like that.
I don't really care about watching tournaments. It doesn't matter to me whether a game comes from the final of a big tourney or simply the ladder. I select the streams I watch based on two criteria only: who is casting, and what's the race/match up.
For example, watching a 6 week old Marine King Prime replay is just as fun to me as it would be to see a live stream of his games.
Would more excitement about the major tourneys help me become a better player? I don't think so.
I made this a long time ago when I was on another team. But it is still very much valid and answers some of the most pressing questions people have about me:
One thing that has always puzzled me is the significant league placement discrepancies between 1v1 and team games such as 2v2. With a large number of partners I get placed in 2v2 master league easily, the screen shot above showing the most extreme example. All these allies are mid-master league in their 1v1s, which means they are certainly better than me, but not GMs or even just top level master league players by any means. Moreover, I do not believe that I play 2v2s better than I do 1v1s. So the question is this: How come I don't seem to be able to make diamond in 1v1, but at the same time reach top master league level in 2v2s with absurd ease? Is something wrong with the team game league placements? Or am I simply not giving myself enough credit?!
In other news, in my current role on Team Revoki I've sometimes been likened to Gandalf from Lord of the Rings. Increasingly often recently, no doubt due to the Hobbit trailer that was released last week. I have to say I like that comparison because I do see my role as someone providing guidance and advice to the team (or "fellowship"). Obviously the players on my team don't need help with playing SC2. But I have significant management and clan management experience, and my team is greatly benefiting from it though I say so myself. I'm not a very accomplished player, but I greatly enjoy contributing to well-managed organizations.
Bottom line is this: it is relatively easy to recruit good players. Keeping a team active and interesting for members and prospective members is the hard part. In my opinion, failure to do this right is the main reason why so many teams fall apart relatively quickly.
Hey man striving for diamond is a great goal... one that I had for a llong time and now that I've been diamond for a little while now it's probably to most frustrating to try and get promoted out of. I see players who've gone from bronze to masters yet I traveled all the way from silver to diamond and am now struggling a lot improvement wise.
On December 28 2011 10:38 Locustrockz wrote: Hey man striving for diamond is a great goal... one that I had for a llong time and now that I've been diamond for a little while now it's probably to most frustrating to try and get promoted out of. I see players who've gone from bronze to masters yet I traveled all the way from silver to diamond and am now struggling a lot improvement wise.
TLDR: GL with diamond but it only gets harder ;P
I know what you mean. Despite what a lot of people are saying, not everybody is destined to become GM...
Tomorrow my team is hosting a show match between White-Ra and Empire.Kas. Details can be found on our facebook page and the TL calendar. I'm looking forward to some epic PvT, of course I'm rooting for the terran
Despite my recent changes to how I play TvP I still don't really like this m/u. Therefore I'm really looking forward to this match. Maybe I'll get some fresh ideas from it.
There's a lot of hype around Team EG's new player for 2012. Now... there are many rumors to the contrary, but I solemnly swear that it is NOT going to be me!
I repeat: RevTiberius will stay with TEAM REVOKI and is NOT going to join Team EG
Tomorrow my team is hosting a show match between White-Ra and Empire.Kas. Details can be found on our facebook page and the TL calendar. I'm looking forward to some epic PvT, of course I'm rooting for the terran
Despite my recent changes to how I play TvP I still don't really like this m/u. Therefore I'm really looking forward to this match. Maybe I'll get some fresh ideas from it.
Edit: Whoops, totally wrong, only second, gl with it
I watched the games of the show match I blogged about yesterday. Empire.Kas beat White-Ra 4-1. I'm always interested in matches that involve terran.
For those of you who have already seen the games, here's my take on them. Basically I was very surprised that White-Ra never really got any colossus. In the first post of this blog I wrote about my problems with TvP, and I always had a hard time dealing with colossus (because my vikings died so easily). I'd love to go bio vs. a protoss who doesn't get any colossus. The colossus death ball is the main reason why I switched to banshee play. So the outcome of the match is no surprise to me.
But I really liked Empire.Kas' very early hidden expos. I think I'll try that, too, from time to time, especially on large maps. The few remaining ones that I haven't vetoed, that is...
I wish all readers a happy new year and successful 2012! May you always win your games - unless you happen to be facing me
As a more interesting alternative to laddering, I'm contemplating to play in some of the Z33k tourneys for gold/platinum/diamond players.
Playing games in a tournament setting might be more competitive and I might possibly approach such games with a different mindset. Or maybe I'll be more at ease because no ladder points are at stake?!
I'd like to hear from other gold/platinum/diamond league players about their experience with Zeek tourneys. And maybe someone can recommend appropriate tourneys for me?
z33k tournaments are fun, I play in the Daily pretty often and even tho there's no prize or anything, it still feels interesting and maybe a bit more competitive than ladder. Obviously I get stomped by some Masters player after a round or two, but I like it I've noticed there's a tournament named Daywalker for plats and lower on NA so I guess that could be good for ya, as in the Daily you probably wouldn't get too far.. which doesn't mean you shouldn't try it ~. Have fun.
Nice Blog. Z33k tournament are good to get exposure against players with a higher skill level. I experience a lot of different build orders in tournaments than if I play against people my level or even in the same channel. Practicing with the same people leaves you open to laziness so I think it's good if you branch out into tournaments.
As far as the Kas vs Whitera match, I think Kas simply out-macroed White-ra. Whitera needed to put on more pressure in general - 2 out of the 4 games Kas won he did quick double expands. I guess it was surprising since Whatra 4-0 Kas the previous day. Either way, both are great players...sometimes people have their on and off days.
Well... I guess since I did name this blog "Tales from the Perilous Realm" I might as well make reference to J.R.R. Tolkien's great work:
Lord of the Rings revisited: A long and perilous journey awaits RevTiberius and his fellowship. Will he reach Mordor? Is he the one to rule them all? Only time will tell…
On December 13 2011 17:24 RevTiberius wrote: Season 4 has ended for me and I did not manage to get the promotion I was after. Maybe a future season will prove more successful. And maybe a switch to protoss is in order... I honestly do believe protoss is easier to play at lower levels and at lower APM
Everybody has to start somewhere. Don't switch races, just work harder
face in desk, yes please god do not switch races. You did not get promoted because you have yet to improve on fundamentals in mechanics and strategy. This has nothing to do with your race. If you learn a solid strat for any race and execute it half way decent you will get to masters no problem. Which is why I hate the whole I wanna get to X! stuff, it really shouldnt be how you view things, you should just aim to play every game better than the last.
On December 13 2011 17:24 RevTiberius wrote: Season 4 has ended for me and I did not manage to get the promotion I was after. Maybe a future season will prove more successful. And maybe a switch to protoss is in order... I honestly do believe protoss is easier to play at lower levels and at lower APM
Everybody has to start somewhere. Don't switch races, just work harder
face in desk, yes please god do not switch races. You did not get promoted because you have yet to improve on fundamentals in mechanics and strategy. This has nothing to do with your race. If you learn a solid strat for any race and execute it half way decent you will get to masters no problem. Which is why I hate the whole I wanna get to X! stuff, it really shouldnt be how you view things, you should just aim to play every game better than the last.
I agree with you that switching races might be an extreme measure. But "Which is why I hate the whole I wanna get to X! stuff" is a point of view I am afraid I have to disagree with. My main goal is to become a better player, and the first post of this blog explains in great detail where I stand and what I need to work on. However, as someone who's been consistently in top 8 of my platinum divisions, I really don't think a promotion to diamond is an irrelevant, distracting, or inappropriate goal. Of course the main task is to improve my macro, make more SCVs, scout better etc, but sooner or later I want all these little improvements to add up to a promotion to diamond.
I repeat, I do want to become a better player, but a promotion - which at least in theory I should be very close to - would be a tangible manifestation of the progress I have undoubtedly made over the past weeks and months.
Great information on here, especially for players seeking ways to get better. I think players can learn from the hotkeys section. All in all, the game is to have fun, but here at team Revoki, we can have fun while being the best! Feel free to hit me up Tiberius for practice against Protoss.
On January 02 2012 06:27 RevTiberius wrote: Well... I guess since I did name this blog "Tales from the Perilous Realm" I might as well make reference to J.R.R. Tolkien's great work:
Lord of the Rings revisited: A long and perilous journey awaits RevTiberius and his fellowship. Will he reach Mordor? Is he the one to rule them all? Only time will tell…
On January 02 2012 06:27 RevTiberius wrote: Well... I guess since I did name this blog "Tales from the Perilous Realm" I might as well make reference to J.R.R. Tolkien's great work:
Lord of the Rings revisited: A long and perilous journey awaits RevTiberius and his fellowship. Will he reach Mordor? Is he the one to rule them all? Only time will tell…
One does not simply walk into Mordor. Practice
Haha... I really didn't know that this "one doesn't simply ... into Mordor" is such an internet phenomenon until I posted that map... Amazing what the community can teach you... I'll definitely seek you out for some practice games! Thx for the offer.
This game is significant to me because one of the openings I have vs. Zerg is double reactor hellion all-in. This works amazingly well, unless my opponent gets 2 or more sunks, or goes roaches, as in this case. This is one of the few games where I win despite roaches. Usually I lose at least 2/3 of these games. I would like to note the following about this game: - when he attacked, I probably pulled too many SCVs - I find that particular choke much harder to defend to this kind of attack than chokes on other maps (e.g. Xel Naga Caverns) - he may have left prematurely? I was a little surprised when he simply left at that point. Or was the game so clearly won for me? I really don't know - I REALLY need to scout better. McGuffin's comments about the Zerg's gas made me realize that scouting can really teach me so much more than just whether the Zerg is 6 pooling or fast expanding
There is probably more which I'll add later after watching the replay one more time.
Anyway... any kind of feedback on the game is highly appreciated! Especially from Zerg or Terran players.
I suggest you read the following comments AFTER watching the replay.
Despite all the inefficiencies that Zander rightfully pointed out in my game, I consider this game progress compared to how I used to play TvT. I used to turtle in my base and either go for doom drops (which were all too often unsuccessful), or BCs. Despite all problems still in my game, I consider adapting tanks/marines and more generally a more dynamic play style progress. And now I’m also trying to take advantage of the layout of the map and don’t just try to bust through the choke. And I’m trying to incorporate more elevator play into my TvTs and TvPs. So in that respect, I’m quite happy with the game because it’s a step in the right direction. Having said that, there are obviously still a lot of problems in my game. In particular, I’d like to comment on the following points:
SCVs: The biggest problem. In all my games, no matter the match up, it always seems to me as if I’m making SCVs constantly and never skip a beat. Obviously that’s not the case. I’m always significantly behind in workers, sometimes even when I have more bases than my opponent. This is a mystery to me because I’ve recently managed to improve the utilization of my production facilities quite a bit. And I’m reasonably good at keeping my orbital energy low. But for some reason I can’t seem to manage to make SCVs constantly. Suggestions on this matter would be highly appreciated.
Vikings: The big engagement of vikings at the end of the game. This is one of the few points where I disagree with Zander. He recommended pulling back the vikings. I didn’t because it seemed to me that my vikings were outnumbers so greatly that I would have lost them anyway and pulling back wouldn’t have saved any of them. This is something I always do when I see that I’m gonna lose the unit anyway. I stay, fight and do some damage rather than run and just die. However, even pro gamers seem to run even when the situation is hopeless. So maybe something is wrong in my logic here.
Turrets: Zander is quite right when he says that I shouldn’t have built so many turrets at the southern edge of my base. I do it because I’m afraid of drops, not banshees. I know it’s a waste of minerals. I need to get into the habit of making fewer turrets in early-mid game and spend the minerals on army instead. And maybe leave a tank and a few marines behind to defend against drops. And a single turret in the mineral line will do against banshees.
Marine count: too low. I used to never make enough tanks. Now I have enough tanks. When I manage to make enough rines AND tanks, I’m set.
If I missed anything of importance, I would be grateful to any reader for bringing it to my attention.
All things considered, I remember I was quite happy after I won that game because it was - believe it or not - a “great leap forward” compared to previous games. And yet, after seeing the replay, I have to grudgingly agree when Zander calls this win “pure luck” because the opponent was in a superior position and probably a better player.
Sometimes it is a little frustrating to have a good player point out so many elementary mistakes in my game. And yet, I take comfort in the fact that as a top 8 platinum player, I’m already in the 60th percentile of the SC2 population. And as long as I feel I’m still improving I’ll enjoy playing this game.
Finally, I’d like to thank Zanderfever for casting this game. If you haven’t done so already, I highly recommend checking out his stream. His analytical casts are very instructive and much better than what some of the well-known casters churn out. http://www.youtube.com/user/zanderfeverSC
For a long time I’ve been wanting to write something about chess and SC2, and here we go. I’m not very good at SC2, but a fairly good chess player, and I find the frequent comparisons between chess and SC2 here on the strategy forums utterly misguided. In the following sections I will explain why. The following is neither complete nor necessarily coherent. It is, however, a compelling argument why chess and SC2 are two very different games and shouldn’t be compared lightly.
First a little bit about myself. I’m a top 8 platinum player who only plays SC2 casually and spends most of his time on BattleNet managing Team Revoki rather than developing his own SC2 skills. At the same time however, I’m a 2300 ELO chess player and I do play regularly over the board as well as online.
Ownership/Economics: SC2 is owned by Blizzard. Blizzard’s main objective is to make money. All other considerations are subordinate to the profitability of the Starcraft franchise. At the same time, Blizzard has total control over SC2. The company controls access to BN and can change rules and balancing of the game whenever it chooses. Chess, on the other hand, is more or less in the public domain and not controlled by a single entity. The World Chess Federation does exist, but it is a non-profit organization, purely administrative, and does not nearly exercise as much control over chess as Blizzard does over SC2.
Rules/Patches: In SC2, patches occur frequently and change the dynamics quite a bit. As discussed in the previous section, these patches occur solely at Blizzard’s discretion, and the company’s reasoning for them is never entirely public. Chess on the other hand has not undergone any major rule changes in many decades if not centuries with the exception of adjustments around time control and the conditions under which a draw can be agreed upon. But the basic mechanics of the game have been untouched for a very long time.
Cheese: In SC2, cheese is based on the fact that the two players do not have good vision of each other, especially early on. Which is why sometimes canon rushes, 6-pools and other cheese is successful. In chess, however, you always have perfect vision of your opponent’s actions. Even if you don’t always understand what he’s doing, at least you always know what he is up to. Therefore, cheese does not exist in chess. And if you consider how many SC2 games – especially in the lower leagues – are decided by successful or unsuccessful cheese, it becomes clear that the nonexistence of cheese in chess makes for quite different game dynamics.
Strategy: My main point is that chess and SC2 are two very different games indeed. Sometimes here in the forums I see comparisons being drawn between chess and SC2 strategy, but to me these comparisons never really make much sense. SC2 – for better or for worse – is a game where you can get very far as long as you have proper mechanics. As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league, i.e. top 0.2% of the entire SC2 community. Yes, strategy, and knowledge about timings, counters, game sense, etc. also matter, especially at pro gamer level, but not nearly as much as pure mechanics. Chess on the other hand is ENTIRELY different. Leaving aside blitz and bullet chess (two variants I am especially fond of :D), mechanics play no part at all. A game of chess is based primarily on the players’ knowledge of chess strategy and their ability to calculate variations, both of which are purely intellectual skills.
Experience: Because SC2 is based so much on mechanics rather than intellectual skill and experience, it can be learned relatively quickly as long as the player has good reflexes. Some of the pro gamers in the SC2 circuit have been playing RTS games for a relatively short period of time. Chess, on the other hand, is much harder to learn and much much harder to develop to highest levels. Even prodigies need at the very least 10 years of instruction, training and experience before they stand a chance vs. the world’s best players. Thus, it is not surprising that currently there is a significant number of leading chess grandmasters – including the current world champion and his predecessors – age 30 and above.
Thus, and this is my conclusion, be weary of any man who keeps a pig farm (Brick Top reference) and any SC2 player who tries to make a point using chess comparisons…
PS: I’m also active on several chess servers, and if any of you would like a game (blitz or bullet preferred) drop me a line!
Your whole text is so completly wrong. it made me so angry wow. Totally chess biased.
"Because SC2 is based so much on mechanics rather than intellectual skill and experience, it can be learned relatively quickly as long as the player has good reflexes. As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league, i.e. top 0.2% of the entire SC2 community"
you know how that sounds to me? listen. You can be a veery stupid dumbass but if you can type quickly you can be very good at starcraft2. That means: Even if you are mentally retarded but push your keys very fast, you can be better than 99.8% of the whole sc community. how can you even judge about things like that? youre "just" platinum. You can play the game but you dont know shit about it. I am ... as fas as i can tell ... pretty good at starcraft, i sometimes play chess but im not that good. Now imagine i make a blog about how complex strategies in sc2 are and then compare it to chess and say chess is only placing weird looking figures around the board. chess is very limited in its options hence there are oly 64 fields. how does that sound to you eh? thats not fair. sc2 is a complex game with millions of strategies, hundreds of maps, billions of diffrent army compositions, but all you do is present the game as a game for retards who just are good with their keyboards.
EDIT: But of course there is a lot more crap in your comparison. Blizzard’s main objective is to make money. All other considerations are subordinate to the profitability of the Starcraft franchise. At the same time, Blizzard has total control over SC2. The company controls access to BN and can change rules and balancing of the game whenever it chooses. You present blizzard as a fucking dictator who changes the game balance randomly without thinking about it just to make money. firthermore you say they dont give a shit about anything else ... this is so wrong man.
On January 10 2012 09:22 Coopa826 wrote: I repost my response from reddit:
Your whole text is so completly wrong. it made me so angry wow. Totally chess biased.
"Because SC2 is based so much on mechanics rather than intellectual skill and experience, it can be learned relatively quickly as long as the player has good reflexes. As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league, i.e. top 0.2% of the entire SC2 community"
you know how that sounds to me? listen. You can be a veery stupid dumbass but if you can type quickly you can be very good at starcraft2. That means: Even if you are mentally retarded but push your keys very fast, you can be better than 99.8% of the whole sc community. how can you even judge about things like that? youre "just" platinum. You can play the game but you dont know shit about it. I am ... as fas as i can tell ... pretty good at starcraft, i sometimes play chess but im not that good. Now imagine i make a blog about how complex strategies in sc2 are and then compare it to chess and say chess is only placing weird looking figures around the board. chess is very limited in its options hence there are oly 64 fields. how does that sound to you eh? thats not fair. sc2 is a complex game with millions of strategies, hundreds of maps, billions of diffrent army compositions, but all you do is present the game as a game for retards who just are good with their keyboards.
EDIT: But of course there is a lot more crap in your comparison. Blizzard’s main objective is to make money. All other considerations are subordinate to the profitability of the Starcraft franchise. At the same time, Blizzard has total control over SC2. The company controls access to BN and can change rules and balancing of the game whenever it chooses. You present blizzard as a fucking dictator who changes the game balance randomly without thinking about it just to make money. firthermore you say they dont give a shit about anything else ... this is so wrong man.
wow... you seem to be quite upset. I was merely pointing out the obvious: chess is primarily an intellectual game, SC2 is much more based on mechanics. Do you really want to dispute that?
I was in no way saying or implying that one game is better than the other. I was merely pointing out the huge difference between the two. Which brings me back to my main point: invoking chess when discussing SC2 strategy does not make sense.
I never understand why some people here get so upset when you say something seemingly or actually critical of SC2.
EDIT: As for the section on economics. I'm not even arguing anything. I'm just pointing out basic facts. Very uncontroversial ones at that. Blizzard, like any other company wants to make money. That's their main objective. They "care" about their fans only as much as they want to keep them as paying customers. No other business behaves any differently, and Blizzard is no exception to basic economic theory.
On January 10 2012 08:56 Bayyne wrote: Hey Rev, I don't know if you've read this, but I thought it was a pretty cool chess/sc2 entry. You might enjoy it.
This just doesn't seem right at all. I don't know why you think anyone who hits the keyboard quickly could make masters. More than 2% of the sc2 community can hit the keyboard fast.
For a long time I’ve been wanting to write something about chess and SC2, and here we go. I’m not very good at SC2, but a fairly good chess player, and I find the frequent comparisons between chess and SC2 here on the strategy forums utterly misguided. In the following sections I will explain why. The following is neither complete nor necessarily coherent. It is, however, a compelling argument why chess and SC2 are two very different games and shouldn’t be compared lightly.
First a little bit about myself. I’m a top 8 platinum player who only plays SC2 casually and spends most of his time on BattleNet managing Team Revoki rather than developing his own SC2 skills. At the same time however, I’m a 2300 ELO chess player and I do play regularly over the board as well as online.
Ownership/Economics: SC2 is owned by Blizzard. Blizzard’s main objective is to make money. All other considerations are subordinate to the profitability of the Starcraft franchise. At the same time, Blizzard has total control over SC2. The company controls access to BN and can change rules and balancing of the game whenever it chooses. Chess, on the other hand, is more or less in the public domain and not controlled by a single entity. The World Chess Federation does exist, but it is a non-profit organization, purely administrative, and does not nearly exercise as much control over chess as Blizzard does over SC2.
Rules/Patches: In SC2, patches occur frequently and change the dynamics quite a bit. As discussed in the previous section, these patches occur solely at Blizzard’s discretion, and the company’s reasoning for them is never entirely public. Chess on the other hand has not undergone any major rule changes in many decades if not centuries with the exception of adjustments around time control and the conditions under which a draw can be agreed upon. But the basic mechanics of the game have been untouched for a very long time.
Cheese: In SC2, cheese is based on the fact that the two players do not have good vision of each other, especially early on. Which is why sometimes canon rushes, 6-pools and other cheese is successful. In chess, however, you always have perfect vision of your opponent’s actions. Even if you don’t always understand what he’s doing, at least you always know what he is up to. Therefore, cheese does not exist in chess. And if you consider how many SC2 games – especially in the lower leagues – are decided by successful or unsuccessful cheese, it becomes clear that the nonexistence of cheese in chess makes for quite different game dynamics.
Strategy: My main point is that chess and SC2 are two very different games indeed. Sometimes here in the forums I see comparisons being drawn between chess and SC2 strategy, but to me these comparisons never really make much sense. SC2 – for better or for worse – is a game where you can get very far as long as you have proper mechanics. As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league, i.e. top 0.2% of the entire SC2 community. Yes, strategy, and knowledge about timings, counters, game sense, etc. also matter, especially at pro gamer level, but not nearly as much as pure mechanics. Chess on the other hand is ENTIRELY different. Leaving aside blitz and bullet chess (two variants I am especially fond of :D), mechanics play no part at all. A game of chess is based primarily on the players’ knowledge of chess strategy and their ability to calculate variations, both of which are purely intellectual skills.
Experience: Because SC2 is based so much on mechanics rather than intellectual skill and experience, it can be learned relatively quickly as long as the player has good reflexes. Some of the pro gamers in the SC2 circuit have been playing RTS games for a relatively short period of time. Chess, on the other hand, is much harder to learn and much much harder to develop to highest levels. Even prodigies need at the very least 10 years of instruction, training and experience before they stand a chance vs. the world’s best players. Thus, it is not surprising that currently there is a significant number of leading chess grandmasters – including the current world champion and his predecessors – age 30 and above.
Thus, and this is my conclusion, be weary of any man who keeps a big farm (Brick Top reference) and any SC2 player who tries to make a point using chess comparisons…
PS: I’m also active on several chess servers, and if any of you would like a game (blitz or bullet preferred) drop me a line!
I have a hard time taking your comparison seriously since, by your own admission, you only play one of the games at a high level. I think you should put this write-up on the back burner until your skill in Starcraft match your skill level in Chess.
Playing SC2 with any degree of skill takes intelligence. Your post comparing SC2 and Chess is invalid.
The mechanics of chess are not movement-based (your hands, etc) but with your memory of games, etc. The strategy, and so forth. The mechanics of SC2 require you to have good hand-eye coordination and hand speed. Different mechanics. No need to insult SC2 players' intelligence because you aren't as good at it as many, while you're clearly pretty good at Chess.
On January 10 2012 14:33 Hossinaut wrote: Playing SC2 with any degree of skill takes intelligence. Your post comparing SC2 and Chess is invalid.
The mechanics of chess are not movement-based (your hands, etc) but with your memory of games, etc. The strategy, and so forth. The mechanics of SC2 require you to have good hand-eye coordination and hand speed. Different mechanics. No need to insult SC2 players' intelligence because you aren't as good at it as many, while you're clearly pretty good at Chess.
My post was not meant as an insult of SC2 players. After all, I am one myself. And a lot of what I was saying has nothing to do with my own skill level at SC2. Most of the original comments were general in nature and do not require me to be an SC2 grandmaster.
And you misunderstood my original point. I am saying that comparisons between chess and SC2 ARE invalid. And yet, I find them quite frequently in the strategy section of TL, for example. I'm merely saying that from my point of view as a very strong chess player, these comparisons do not make sense.
As Incontrol would say, "YOU DONE GOOFED!" For you not to understand why some people here get upset when you say something critical of SC2 on their main platform SC2 forum is mind boggling. Especially when you're biased against SC2 like you were. No offense but I think you should manage a chess team rather than a SC2 one since you seem to know far more about that game. My guess tells me though that just like Blizzard that you so graciously pointed out, you know where the money lies. Perhaps you should refrain from making so many outlandish statements such as, "As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league" would be a better image for you if you are here for the long haul. The post may not have been meant as an insult but it was. I think the best response would be to apologize rather than justify.
I think I shall create a blog as well. Managing the Managers, by Soren.
On January 10 2012 17:18 Sorenlol wrote: As Incontrol would say, "YOU DONE GOOFED!" For you not to understand why some people here get upset when you say something critical of SC2 on their main platform SC2 forum is mind boggling. Especially when you're biased against SC2 like you were. No offense but I think you should manage a chess team rather than a SC2 one since you seem to know far more about that game. My guess tells me though that just like Blizzard that you so graciously pointed out, you know where the money lies. Perhaps you should refrain from making so many outlandish statements such as, "As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league" would be a better image for you if you are here for the long haul. The post may not have been meant as an insult but it was. I think the best response would be to apologize rather than justify.
I think I shall create a blog as well. Managing the Managers, by Soren.
This will be my final response on this matter.
I'm afraid I don't know what I should apologize for. Only some of the responses to my post included personal attacks against me. I was merely making a point. And it doesn't help that some people seem to take any opportunity they can get to get butthurt.
My observation that mechanics alone is enough to take you to master league is based on many such claims by master league players and GMs.
Blizzard is a company like any other. They want to make money. The fact that they make a product all of us here enjoy does not make it a "better" company as some of you seem to imply.
And - quite obviously - my views on chess and SC2 have nothing to do with my ability to manage a team. I hear no complaints from my players. But making such ridiculous claims such as me being better off managing a chess team makes it a lot easier for me to disregard your entire "argument" if there ever was one.
Seriously guys, even if you disagree with me, what's all this name calling?
On January 10 2012 17:18 Sorenlol wrote: As Incontrol would say, "YOU DONE GOOFED!" For you not to understand why some people here get upset when you say something critical of SC2 on their main platform SC2 forum is mind boggling. Especially when you're biased against SC2 like you were. No offense but I think you should manage a chess team rather than a SC2 one since you seem to know far more about that game. My guess tells me though that just like Blizzard that you so graciously pointed out, you know where the money lies. Perhaps you should refrain from making so many outlandish statements such as, "As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league" would be a better image for you if you are here for the long haul. The post may not have been meant as an insult but it was. I think the best response would be to apologize rather than justify.
I think I shall create a blog as well. Managing the Managers, by Soren.
This will be my final response on this matter.
I'm afraid I don't know what I should apologize for. Only some of the responses to my post included personal attacks against me. I was merely making a point. And it doesn't help that some people seem to take any opportunity they can get to get butthurt.
My observation that mechanics alone is enough to take you to master league is based on many such claims by master league players and GMs.
Blizzard is a company like any other. They want to make money. The fact that they make a product all of us here enjoy does not make it a "better" company as some of you seem to imply.
And - quite obviously - my views on chess and SC2 have nothing to do with my ability to manage a team. I hear no complaints from my players. But making such ridiculous claims such as me being better off managing a chess team makes it a lot easier for me to disregard your entire "argument" if there ever was one.
Seriously guys, even if you disagree with me, what's all this name calling?
Don't end with a question if this your final response.
If you don't know what you should apologize for then there really is no point. No one is attacking you. If anyone is getting "butt hurt" it seems like it's you.
Your observation is someone elses observation.
No one's implying that Blizzard isn't like any other company in regard to making money. For you to say that's the only thing they care about though is where the consensus think is silly.
I think being a good manager would be to respect the players and the game. Alongside of course those awesome daily duties of paperwork handling and such. I just couldn't have you as my manager if I knew you thought of me as someone who just pushes keys on a keyboard quickly.If I ever had an argument it would be that I don't think it was a ridiculous claim of mine that you would be an awesome chess manager. You seem to have all the necessary tools I've outlined in that game.
No one's calling you bigfoot, smalltoe or even Megan Fox's thumb toes. We are just stating our opinions which we are aloud to do, especially in a forum. I wouldn't get so upset about that. Best of luck with the managing and player road you are on. It's time I get back to my rigorous practice session of button smashing, quick keyboard moves.
On January 10 2012 17:18 Sorenlol wrote: As Incontrol would say, "YOU DONE GOOFED!" For you not to understand why some people here get upset when you say something critical of SC2 on their main platform SC2 forum is mind boggling. Especially when you're biased against SC2 like you were. No offense but I think you should manage a chess team rather than a SC2 one since you seem to know far more about that game. My guess tells me though that just like Blizzard that you so graciously pointed out, you know where the money lies. Perhaps you should refrain from making so many outlandish statements such as, "As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league" would be a better image for you if you are here for the long haul. The post may not have been meant as an insult but it was. I think the best response would be to apologize rather than justify.
I think I shall create a blog as well. Managing the Managers, by Soren.
This will be my final response on this matter.
I'm afraid I don't know what I should apologize for. Only some of the responses to my post included personal attacks against me. I was merely making a point. And it doesn't help that some people seem to take any opportunity they can get to get butthurt.
My observation that mechanics alone is enough to take you to master league is based on many such claims by master league players and GMs.
Blizzard is a company like any other. They want to make money. The fact that they make a product all of us here enjoy does not make it a "better" company as some of you seem to imply.
And - quite obviously - my views on chess and SC2 have nothing to do with my ability to manage a team. I hear no complaints from my players. But making such ridiculous claims such as me being better off managing a chess team makes it a lot easier for me to disregard your entire "argument" if there ever was one.
Seriously guys, even if you disagree with me, what's all this name calling?
Don't end with a question if this your final response.
If you don't know what you should apologize for then there really is no point. No one is attacking you. If anyone is getting "butt hurt" it seems like it's you.
Your observation is someone elses observation.
No one's implying that Blizzard isn't like any other company in regard to making money. For you to say that's the only thing they care about though is where the consensus think is silly.
I think being a good manager would be to respect the players and the game. Alongside of course those awesome daily duties of paperwork handling and such. I just couldn't have you as my manager if I knew you thought of me as someone who just pushes keys on a keyboard quickly.If I ever had an argument it would be that I don't think it was a ridiculous claim of mine that you would be an awesome chess manager. You seem to have all the necessary tools I've outlined in that game.
No one's calling you bigfoot, smalltoe or even Megan Fox's thumb toes. We are just stating our opinions which we are aloud to do, especially in a forum. I wouldn't get so upset about that. Best of luck with the managing and player road you are on. It's time I get back to my rigorous practice session of button smashing, quick keyboard moves.
You are deliberately misrepresenting my original post. As such, there is no point arguing with you.
Ok this is a question I have been struggling with for a long time:
Are team games good or bad for my 1v1 skills?
I think the answer is not easy, there are good arguments for both sides, and I change my mind on this about twice a year…
PROs (team games are good): Team games still allow me to work on my mechanics. I still have to make SCVs, execute a build order effectively, keep an eye on the mini map, micro my units, manage my base/economy, APM etc.
I also find team games a lot more relaxing and – due to Skype – a lot more social than simply laddering 1v1 on my own. I need and greatly enjoy team games in order to “recover” from nerve wrecking 1v1s. And sometimes when I play with allies who are much better than myself, I actually learn something about build orders or micro or stuff like that.
CONs (team games are bad): On the other hand, team games confront me with maps and match ups and army compositions that I never encounter in 1v1. Even though it is still practice for my mechanics, I still think sometimes that I’m getting sidetracked.
When I look only at how I play, I seem to be a little more focused in 1v1s. In team games, maybe because there is so much more going on at the same time, I find it much harder to focus on what I should be doing. Sometimes it seems to me I play team games too much like I was observing the game, not participating in it. And that is just a bad habit that I shouldn’t allow to continue. And as much as I enjoy talking to my allies on Skype, it is a distraction that's not there when I play 1v1. Also, my time for SC2 is limited, and the more I play team games the less time I have to play 1v1.
These are some of my thoughts around the pros and cons of team games. Am I missing something important? I would appreciate any suggestions about how to get the most out of team games for 1v1 game.
So I guess my conclusion so far is this: 1v1s are much more important for me on my quest to become a better player, but team games are more fun.
On January 14 2012 09:47 RevTiberius wrote: Ok this is a question I have been struggling with for a long time:
Are team games good or bad for my 1v1 skills?
I think the answer is not easy, there are good arguments for both sides, and I change my mind on this about twice a year…
PROs (team games are good): Team games still allow me to work on my mechanics. I still have to make SCVs, execute a build order effectively, keep an eye on the mini map, micro my units, manage my base/economy, APM etc.
I also find team games a lot more relaxing and – due to Skype – a lot more social than simply laddering 1v1 on my own. I need and greatly enjoy team games in order to “recover” from nerve wrecking 1v1s. And sometimes when I play with allies who are much better than myself, I actually learn something about build orders or micro or stuff like that.
CONs (team games are bad): On the other hand, team games confront me with maps and match ups and army compositions that I never encounter in 1v1. Even though it is still practice for my mechanics, I still think sometimes that I’m getting sidetracked.
When I look only at how I play, I seem to be a little more focused in 1v1s. In team games, maybe because there is so much more going on at the same time, I find it much harder to focus on what I should be doing. Sometimes it seems to me I play team games too much like I was observing the game, not participating in it. And that is just a bad habit that I shouldn’t allow to continue. And as much as I enjoy talking to my allies on Skype, it is a distraction that's not there when I play 1v1. Also, my time for SC2 is limited, and the more I play team games the less time I have to play 1v1.
These are some of my thoughts around the pros and cons of team games. Am I missing something important? I would appreciate any suggestions about how to get the most out of team games for 1v1 game.
So I guess my conclusion so far is this: 1v1s are much more important for me on my quest to become a better player, but team games are more fun.
Honestly, team games are too lax and unrealistic to gain much from. You can be extremely unskilled and have a great partner who you lean on during team games which wrongfully may teach you responses in 1v1. Team games also bring about overconfidence (when winning) and may lead yourself into not enjoying 1v1s as much as 2v2s which will end up with a scenario that's something like this: 2 guys call each other up to play 2v2s and both 6pool and laugh when they win. If you want to improve, stick to 1v1s. How often do you see players who have 200+ games in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 and still in bronze/silver/gold. All the time. But hey, if you just play this game for teh lols, knock yourself out with team games
On January 14 2012 09:47 RevTiberius wrote: Ok this is a question I have been struggling with for a long time:
Are team games good or bad for my 1v1 skills?
I think the answer is not easy, there are good arguments for both sides, and I change my mind on this about twice a year…
PROs (team games are good): Team games still allow me to work on my mechanics. I still have to make SCVs, execute a build order effectively, keep an eye on the mini map, micro my units, manage my base/economy, APM etc.
I also find team games a lot more relaxing and – due to Skype – a lot more social than simply laddering 1v1 on my own. I need and greatly enjoy team games in order to “recover” from nerve wrecking 1v1s. And sometimes when I play with allies who are much better than myself, I actually learn something about build orders or micro or stuff like that.
CONs (team games are bad): On the other hand, team games confront me with maps and match ups and army compositions that I never encounter in 1v1. Even though it is still practice for my mechanics, I still think sometimes that I’m getting sidetracked.
When I look only at how I play, I seem to be a little more focused in 1v1s. In team games, maybe because there is so much more going on at the same time, I find it much harder to focus on what I should be doing. Sometimes it seems to me I play team games too much like I was observing the game, not participating in it. And that is just a bad habit that I shouldn’t allow to continue. And as much as I enjoy talking to my allies on Skype, it is a distraction that's not there when I play 1v1. Also, my time for SC2 is limited, and the more I play team games the less time I have to play 1v1.
These are some of my thoughts around the pros and cons of team games. Am I missing something important? I would appreciate any suggestions about how to get the most out of team games for 1v1 game.
So I guess my conclusion so far is this: 1v1s are much more important for me on my quest to become a better player, but team games are more fun.
There's a lot you're not going to learn from team games. But mechanics are something that you can learn easily in team games. To work on mechanics, I initially just played against the A.I., which I found out quickly was a horrible decision. On the other hand, while you can't get a good feel for most timings/unit compositions that you would need in 1v1, you can learn a lot about how your race plays out. For instance, I was a plat zerg who wanted to see if I wanted to switch to terran, and to see how the differences in how producing and managing structures/expos worked I played 3v3s, which allowed me to start off on a much more solid foot than if I had just started 1v1ing against other plats as terran.
On January 14 2012 09:47 RevTiberius wrote: Ok this is a question I have been struggling with for a long time:
Are team games good or bad for my 1v1 skills?
I think the answer is not easy, there are good arguments for both sides, and I change my mind on this about twice a year…
PROs (team games are good): Team games still allow me to work on my mechanics. I still have to make SCVs, execute a build order effectively, keep an eye on the mini map, micro my units, manage my base/economy, APM etc.
I also find team games a lot more relaxing and – due to Skype – a lot more social than simply laddering 1v1 on my own. I need and greatly enjoy team games in order to “recover” from nerve wrecking 1v1s. And sometimes when I play with allies who are much better than myself, I actually learn something about build orders or micro or stuff like that.
CONs (team games are bad): On the other hand, team games confront me with maps and match ups and army compositions that I never encounter in 1v1. Even though it is still practice for my mechanics, I still think sometimes that I’m getting sidetracked.
When I look only at how I play, I seem to be a little more focused in 1v1s. In team games, maybe because there is so much more going on at the same time, I find it much harder to focus on what I should be doing. Sometimes it seems to me I play team games too much like I was observing the game, not participating in it. And that is just a bad habit that I shouldn’t allow to continue. And as much as I enjoy talking to my allies on Skype, it is a distraction that's not there when I play 1v1. Also, my time for SC2 is limited, and the more I play team games the less time I have to play 1v1.
These are some of my thoughts around the pros and cons of team games. Am I missing something important? I would appreciate any suggestions about how to get the most out of team games for 1v1 game.
So I guess my conclusion so far is this: 1v1s are much more important for me on my quest to become a better player, but team games are more fun.
I agree with the conclusion, i mainly play team games with my mates for fun (we dont cheese :O) they dont help with with much tatictes due, most build orders just not working in 1v1 or vice versa. but one thing i have noticed is that it greatly improves your map awarness if you want to get good. as with 1v1 both you and the other guy can only do so much, but in 2v2 or 3v3 you some time have to face drops and harrashment going from mainly diffrent directions. plus you also have to keep a eye on your allies to see what tech they are going and when to expand. so this can improve some core game mechanices alot faster than playing 1v1 as you just dont get pushed much in these areas till later on.
After a long break - Christmas and New Years - I'll finally resume my quest for Diamond shortly. I'm wondering whether my 4 week hiatus could be a chance to break with some bad old habits and incorporate some of the learnings that I have chronicled here in this blog into my game.
In other news, I find it a bit irritating how pompous some SC2 personalities have become and how much they always try to put themselves in the limelight. This is a blog so I will state my opinion here clearly: I never liked Husky's casting and all the fake excitement. But lately I completely stopped watching him because he seems too obsessed with turning himself into some sort of celebrity.
The issue at hand here: I don't like the idea of combining one's opposition to SOPA (a very serious issue indeed) with a cry for more fame on IMDB...
I took the following screen shot from Husky's Facebook page. I am TiberiusVcK there. I was glad to see that quite a few people seemed to agree with my point of view.
On January 10 2012 14:33 Hossinaut wrote: Playing SC2 with any degree of skill takes intelligence. Your post comparing SC2 and Chess is invalid.
The mechanics of chess are not movement-based (your hands, etc) but with your memory of games, etc. The strategy, and so forth. The mechanics of SC2 require you to have good hand-eye coordination and hand speed. Different mechanics. No need to insult SC2 players' intelligence because you aren't as good at it as many, while you're clearly pretty good at Chess.
Memory and thinking are not mechanics.
I never liked Husky, ever since I watched some of his casts in Brood War.
Yeah Husky is not a not a good caster at all. He doesn't analyze enough and basically just tells you what's already obvious anyway. I also don't like his fake excitement. In my opinion Day9 is better because it's easier to take something away from his casts that helps me become a better player, but I find his overall style too goofy. When I watch SC2 streams, I don't want comedy, I want simple and straightforward (almost "boring") SC2 commentary and analysis. I also don't want to hear what their political views are, how the weather is, what they had for breakfast, or which movie they saw last night... In any given SC2 game there is so much to comment on that even a caster who's focused 100% on the game is bound to miss something here and there. Dragging in irrelevant stuff from the caster's personal life is not only very narcissistic, but makes this a lot worse. I like the casters I mentioned in the first post of this thread because they abstain from such irritating behaviour.
In other news, in addition to my earlier remarks on chess I want to add that I play on chess.com from time to time. Feel free to add me there to play some games together.
I don't like chess.com too much, and I usually play on Chessbase, but I am currently not active enough so I don't want to spend the money on an account there. Chess.com is not a very good site, but at least it's free.
How useful is 1v1 practice with people who are much better than myself? That’s a question I often ask myself. As part of Team Revoki I have fairly good access to a wide variety of excellent practice partners. Most players on the team are either high master league players or GMs. And when I don’t feel like laddering I sometimes play practice matches with my teammates.
And while I’m very grateful to have such great players available, I’m never really sure whether such games really help me: First of all of course I lose almost 100% of these games, unless I cheese or something else unexpected happens. Losing almost every game would not be a problem in itself (of course a high platinum player does not normally beat GMs), however I lose these games mainly because my practice partners have far superior mechanics, and because they use different builds to what I am used to in platinum league. And I’m not sure how much I can learn from losses that were caused mainly by a huge difference in APM
On the other hand, however, I seem to be more focused when I play someone whom I know to be better than myself. For some reason my APM is a little higher and I try a little harder. I’m a pretty strong chess player, and it’s the same when I play chess. I play my best games when I’m playing someone who is better than me, but not so much better that I don’t stand a chance. Similarly, I seem to play my best SC2 games in practice matches vs. diamond players. But considering that there’s quite a skill gap between diamond league players and my team mates at the upper end of master league, it seems that beating my teammates is too ambitious a goal considering my current skill level.
So yeah. Basically I still haven’t made up my mind about the initial question. I’ll keep on playing my team mates for fun when I don’t feel like laddering or have no bonus pool left. For example, we have a weekly KOTH that I’ll start participating in so I’ll keep playing games with far better players under competitive conditions.
But I suspect that I get the most useful learnings from games against players approximately at my level. My teammates are probably best utilized by helping me analyze replays.
As always, comments by my readers are highly appreciated.
On January 22 2012 17:36 GolemMadness wrote: I had an account on ICC for many a year. Then I went inactive for a while, and it got deleted. How tragic. :-/
Ah ICC... I used to play on Chessbase because I've been using their software for many years. But currently I'm only playing on Chess.com because it's free and I am not active enough to play on any of the commercial sites.
A few weeks into season 5 I can see the pattern of doom emerging once again... the more allies I have, the better the league I am in... That's not very flattering I guess... but most likely explained by the fact that I play team games mostly with people who are much better than myself...
Like many have stated, mechanics are not simply pressing keys on a keyboard. To say that, a similar chess argument would be to say chess requires no skill aside from moving peaces on the grid. Most people can move the pieces, but its the ability to represent strengh and divide your attention that is key.
With chess one does not need to divide attention but rather a strong enough brain to analyse the whole situation. Note that I do play some chess myself and usually land around 1700 ELO online so I do know what I'm talking about.
With Starcraft 2 however the "mechanics" are in fact the brains ability to multitask. It is not simply your hands doing it but your brain conciously commanding you to do so while multi tasking other things. People that cannot execute proper mechanics simply lack the ability to divide their attention, or MORE LIKELY don't even try. I say this so critically because it is not that hard to build scvs from 1 CC until you have 200 scvs... similarily supposed you expand every 400 minerals and just build 2x then 3x scvs... if you need not build ANYTHING else, one should be able to do this yet players at gold and platinum still get supply blocked. Why is that? The only goal is to make scvs and they fail, and even people with learning disabilities should be able to do this properly... therefor one would conclude that it isn't that some people CANNOT do it. Its that some people choose to not try and expect a reward to be given to them without trying.
Since we're referencing chess, suppose you always look at other players playing games (to learn mechanics) but have no idea why pieces go where. Whereas if you stare at a fixed position (chess puzzle, win in 5 ie) for long enough you will either 1 - find a solution or 2 - FINALLY appreciate what other players discover.
Overall, the lower level leagues aren't actually players struggling to improve against impossible odds but rather people who feel its their right to improve without effort. (Assuming they want to improve, some people don't care and my argument isn't aimed at them)
Sounds harsh but to be honoust people have gone from bronze to diamond (legitly) in a week simply because they realized this concept. Best of luck <3
PS. The difficulty comes in around high masters when your ability to multitask is finally excercized as you must finally keep track of dozens of variables and elements in the game. This is a completely different story and is something I'm working on improving. But up until low masters no game sense is needed, simply make units.
I've been in this situation many times before. Ranked #1 in my division, good winning ratios vs. top 8 platinum and diamond league players. And yet, not quite good enough for a promotion. I hope it'll be different this time...
Yesterday, when I no longer expected it to happen in season 5, I was suddenly promoted to Diamond League after a win, just when my previously excellent win ratio had fallen back to about 50% again.
The two screen shots below show my last 20 games before the promotion.
I was doing pretty well, I was on a long winning streak and beating a lot of diamond players along the way. And yet, I didn’t get promoted. Just when my win ratio dropped again to about 50% - and I had given up all hope of making Diamond in season 5 – I was suddenly promoted. I was under the impression that I had to go on an insane rampage with like 10 straight wins or so before I would get promoted. So yes, the promotion was definitely a surprise, though a welcome one.
It’s interesting to note that I’ve had similar winning streaks and win ratios in previous seasons without getting a promotion. Maybe was closer to a promotion than I thought, or maybe I am playing better now than I realize. Hard to tell. I think I still don’t analyze my replays enough. My snap judgment now is that rather than becoming a better player overall, I have simply become a lot better at executing all-ins in TvP and TvZ. This seems to be supported by the fact that some of my losses in TvT are truly awful and definitely not worthy of diamond league. It’s going to be interesting to see how the match ups will evolve now that I’ll supposedly get better opponents.
Finally, and I am not sure if this made any difference in getting promoted at all, but I started the season pretty late, only a few days after new years. I think the season started in mid-December. By the time I played my first game I had a significant bonus pool saved up, and the leading players in my division were at 350-450 points already when I had 0. I thought I’d never catch up, but it was surprisingly easy. I prefer playing few sessions of many games rather than frequent sessions of few ladder games, and having enough bonus pool saved up for that was definitely useful.
I’m not going to ladder again until they lock down the leagues tomorrow. I played about 60 or 70 1v1 this season (won 43) and do not plan on playing more than that. Including team and custom games I think I played around 100 games this season, significantly less than in previous seasons. I would like to keep it that way going forward.
Of course my immediate goal must be to hold on to my spot in Diamond. I don’t want to play a placement match in season 6 only to get placed in platinum again… but then I don’t know how serious a danger that really is, and whether losing the placement match would indeed result in placement in platinum again… Once my spot in Diamond is secured, I think I have the potential for top 50 but going beyond that would require serious work. Whether I have the skills and inclination for that remains to be seen.
I guess I have to rename this blog “RevTiberius and the Quest to Cling on to Diamond”… My next blog is going to deal with the feedback I received on practicing 1v1 with far superior players.
You know the name. You know the number. RevTiberius is James Bond in “DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER”. RevTiberius – He got a license to kill!
I know… I am dating myself… but Rocky IV is a great film.
Does it make sense to practice 1v1 with players much better than you? Or is the time better spent on the 1v1 ladder? That’s the question I recently posed to the Team Liquid community, as well as on reddit.
The feedback was overwhelming, and almost unanimous. To my surprise, the community recommended to play with superior practice partners as much as possible, presumably to benefit from their better understanding of the game. So I decided to give it another try, and played a lot more 1v1s with such players than before, despite the reservations I expressed about it in an earlier post here on this blog.
Here are some these games, the outcomes of which should of course not come as a surprise to anybody. I don’t just lose, the score difference is quite substantial in every game…
And yet… from time to time and much to my own surprise I am able to beat some of these players. It doesn’t happen very often, but when it does I feel pretty good about myself…
But my skepticism remains. Of course it is great fun to play 1v1 with grandmasters and leading master league players, and I’ll keep doing it for that reason alone. However, I am very skeptical about how much this helps my game.
My main point is that when I play people at my level (high platinum to mid-diamond) it really matters what I do. Build order changes, experiments with timings etc. all have a very direct effect on the outcome of the game. When I ladder and change something about my game, it is easy for me to look at the replay and figure out whether that change was a good idea or not. When I play GMs however, everything I do is overshadowed by their superior skills, and what I do does not really seem to matter. And because the outcome of the game is never in question, it is much harder for me to decide whether I was on the right track or not. Small improvements (or mistakes) that might very well decide the game vs. a player of equal skill, are easily overlooked when you get steamrolled by a GM.
Another point is that people who are good at something are not necessarily good at explaining it, too. I know quite a few very strong players who are incapable of giving me any kind of useful advice. A lot of GMs for example, will readily tell me how they play and why their game is good. What I need to know however is what I am doing wrong and what I should do to improve it. So rather than “This is what you need to know to play like a GM” kind of advice, I simply want advice to become a better diamond league player. Advice on all the great things I could be doing if I had 150 APM doesn't really help. Nor does advice such as "macro better".
Here, a comparison to my chess training is permissible. I have analyzed some of my competitive chess games with grandmasters before, and the very same problem exists there, too: just because someone is a chess grandmaster that does not automatically make them a great coach, and much of their advice is not really applicable to players at lower levels.
So my conclusion is simple: I will keep playing GMs for fun. But I think future improvements in my game will come from two different sources: 1v1 ladder practice, and analysis of these games with GMs.
So rather than playing GMs and top level master league players, I think for someone at my level it is much more useful to analyze my replays with them.
Again my question to the community: Am I overlooking something here? How come everybody is so in favor of grinding out games with GMs, when it seems that I have good reasons for not doing so?
I think all the advice people give you about what you could be doing at 150 apm is there way of enticing you to try and work specifically on your mechanics. I personally hit a plateau until I increased my mechanical skill. The reason GM and High masters players play so much better is fundamentally all mechanics. There are many ways to work on mechanics and I would be willing to specifically help you improve your mechanics personally if you would like. Once you have mechanical skill, You can look at a GM level build and execute it with almost the same timings, micro and macro. I know I am a bit nuts about mechanics but too many people obsess over stuff that will not make them any better. The main thing is it takes work to get better, if you put in the time you'll get better, so many students of mine, get a lot of good information but never actually practice it.
I do linguistics studies and in learning a language there is something called L+1, which basically stands for language plus 1 obviously. The basic idea is that if you are practising reading, you should read a text where you know everything apart from 1% of the content (the actual % depends on who you talk to) the idea being that it will improve your fluency and from what you already know on the page you can figure out the gap from the information around it.
I think this approach can be applied to many things, and in Starcraft I also think that training with someone that is just a little bit better than you will be the best as you will need to play at your current level, but innovate or improve just a bit to overcome the new challenge.
I think this is basically what you already said, but from a different learning perspective =)
I fully agree. Having played a lot of Quake 3 some years ago, the same phenomenon was apparent. A lot of the game revolved around controlling certain powerups like armor, health pickups and weapons/ammo. When I watched (or played) a game between a good player and a mediocre player, the mediocre player almost never got a single powerup. The good player had those entirely on lockdown.
Then, when we reviewed that match, the advice was always the same: You have to control the items. Yet, even if I directly told them (while spectating) which items were going to spawn and where, how they should get to them, etc... they still weren't getting the items and losing horribly. Even though one aspect of their play improved dramatically during that match (map/item awareness), they were losing just as badly.
This is because it is nigh impossible to improve all aspects of your play at once, and unless you do, you won't notice any difference in the match outcome - this eliminates negative/positive feedback, making the learning process that much harder. Even though they were now quite on top of being around when items respawned, their better opponents were too, as well as having better accuracy, better dodging, better prediction and probably more items left over from previous engagements.
Traditionally, we say that "the better player wins". However, if you phrase that, instead, as "the player with the least weakness wins", then the above situation becomes apparent. Even though one aspect of your play improves, you still have a lot more weaknesses than your opponent, and as such the outcome of the match won't change.
I feel the same applies to Starcraft. Microing really well during a match won't make you win unless you also increased your macro, build and timings to the level of the player you are facing. Even then, it's a 50-50 tossup. As such, you might notice that your micro was slightly more effective this match if you study the replay attentively, but chances are you'll just miss this significant detail.
Tiberius, Nice Postings...I love Rocky IV. It is the best Rocky in the series in my opinion. I wanted to get ripped afer I saw Dolph in the 6th grade.
Anyway, to the point of playing people better than you: I agree. Just like the piano or any other skill there are mechanics. To tell you the truth i play this game drunk more than 50% of the time, yet my hands move by themselves because each mule, scv, depot, racks and rally is without thought.
You shouldnt have to think to build more scvs or depots or call-down mules etc. When all of this becomes a moot point, then you are really playing the game. If it means you have to be like GoOdy and make 5 depots at a time and queue up units (like me) so be it, but you are putting your mind into the game intead of worrying bout small crap like being supply blocked.
On account of my recent promotion to diamond, here's the real thing:
Welcome to hell, Blofeld! Maybe I should start saying that on ladder... but I guess most people wouldn't get the reference... alas, I'm dating myself again...
@RedDragon571: I'd defintely be interested in advice on how to improve my mechanics. That's most certainly the area where I can improve the most. The first post of this blog has a lengthy discussion of my mechanics. It is noteworthy that a lot of people tell me to improve my mechanics, but it is not so easy to find ways to actually do it. Is RedDragon571 your in game ID?
@MacGuffinSC: Good stuff. I didn't expect anybody to bring in linguistics to the discussion. I know a little bit about the Chomskyan hierarchy, but my knowledge of linguistics does not go further than that. I have studied several foreign languages in my life so far - English being one of them - and I would very much agree with you. Learning the missing 5% when you know the surrounding 95% is the easiest way to acquire a foreign language. Though I have to say that learning foreign languages is definitely the most challenging intellectual task I have faced in my life so far. And you really start making progress learning a new language when you reach a level where you can start filling in the gaps yourself.
@DarQraven: That's an interesting comparison. I don't play first person shooters, but just like you are saying I can imagine that it makes even less sense there to play with someone who is much better just because the game is even more based on pure mechanics. Which is why I stay away from such games...
@SirPinky: I think the entire Rocky franchise is awesome. Parts III and V slightly less so, but all Rocky movies are very good. And I absolutely agree. When I finally begin to do some of the common sense stuff - depots/SCVs - without even thinking about it then I'll jump to another level. In particular the SCVs bother me. There's really no reason not to have constant SCV production, but for some reason I am usually on a lower worker count than my opponent, even in games I win.
In other news: - slightly updated the intro on first page - expanded the BM section on first page
I have a question for the community. Is it BM to deny a request to pause a ladder game?
Last night I was playing 1v1 when my opponent asked me whether he could pause the game. I was in a rush and probably shouldn't have gotten into that game in the first place, but before I could say anything he already paused the game. I unpaused immediately and said "If you don't even wait for my answer I won't allow you to pause". He then spent quite some time heaping scorn and abuse on me, calling me BM and all kinds of names. Then he just left.
I recognize that not allowing someone to pause may not be the nicest thing to do, but at the same time if you make a genuine request you should at least allow for the possibility that it gets denied. I don't consider my behaviour BM at all.
Usually when I pause I try to wait for the other players reply but sometimes I need to pause immediately because the door bell rang or something or maybe something is on fire so I have no time to await their reply. I usually give someone the benefit of the doubt for a few seconds if they don't say anything but after like 15 seconds I'll unpause if they don't say anything.
It is not BM to pause a ladder game. It is however bm to un-pause a person who paused the ladder game. It is just polite to let them pause because someday you will be in that same situation and you don't want your opponent to un-pause the game do you? They pause the game not to make you wait, but because they have some unforeseen circumstance that requires immediate attention.
I think it's BM as all hell. It's a game man; what's a minute or two out of your life to be polite and allow someone else to enjoy playing it with you? I'd argue not much. Aside from that do you really need the advantage of unpausing when you KNOW FOR A FACT that your opponent is afk? I'd call that an empty win but hey I guess ladder points are super important to you.
On February 14 2012 07:32 OGZ24 wrote: I think it's BM as all hell. It's a game man; what's a minute or two out of your life to be polite and allow someone else to enjoy playing it with you? I'd argue not much. Aside from that do you really need the advantage of unpausing when you KNOW FOR A FACT that your opponent is afk? I'd call that an empty win but hey I guess ladder points are super important to you.
Hm. This blog makes it abundantly clear that ladder points are not "super important" to me.
Anyway... to the point. Of course there can be legitimate reasons (door/toilet etc.) to pause, but surely you can take the 1 second it takes to say that? I have no problem waiting for an opponent if and when they give me a reason. But if you simply pause without saying anything then you shouldn't be surprised if you don't get what you want. And the fact that my opponent suddenly had a lot of time to insult me after I unpaused seems to suggest that there wasn't really anything super urgent to begin with.
So, in summary
- No, ladder points don't mean much to me - If you can't spare 1 second to explain yourself before you open the door or w/e, don't be surprised if your request for pause will be denied. - Anybody who's played SC2 with me will confirm that I am not BM at all. Quite the contrary
It is within your rights to REQUEST a pause. It is a request and is fully within the rights of the other player to deny the request.
If you don't have the ability to play the game all the way through and the opponent does not allow the pause then you forfeit. Nothing wrong with that.
If that bothers you then you probably take ladder way to seriously and you value your time more than your opponents.
On February 14 2012 06:17 RevTiberius wrote: I have a question for the community. Is it BM to deny a request to pause a ladder game?
Last night I was playing 1v1 when my opponent asked me whether he could pause the game. I was in a rush and probably shouldn't have gotten into that game in the first place, but before I could say anything he already paused the game. I unpaused immediately and said "If you don't even wait for my answer I won't allow you to pause". He then spent quite some time heaping scorn and abuse on me, calling me BM and all kinds of names. Then he just left.
I recognize that not allowing someone to pause may not be the nicest thing to do, but at the same time if you make a genuine request you should at least allow for the possibility that it gets denied. I don't consider my behaviour BM at all.
In my opinion VERY bm. I had a super sore throat, I asked for a pause, he paused, then un-paused when I was filling up my cup, then did a marine rush all in, i rage quit for the rest of the night.
On February 14 2012 07:47 Disconnect wrote: It is within your rights to REQUEST a pause. It is a request and is fully within the rights of the other player to deny the request.
If you don't have the ability to play the game all the way through and the opponent does not allow the pause then you forfeit. Nothing wrong with that.
If that bothers you then you probably take ladder way to seriously and you value your time more than your opponents.
I couldn't have put it better myself. a pause is a REQUEST, not a RIGHT. As such, it can be be denied. That's not BM.
@Balgrog: Your situation is different. It is VERY BM to agree to pause and then unapuse anway.
I feel like every ladder match should follow the rules of a promatch, if you're not having hardware problems, asking for a pause is clearly up to me feeling nice.
On February 19 2012 23:49 Jaybles wrote: Grats on the grind to diamond, welcome to the actual battlefield, how are you doing in season 6?
Thank you! So far season 6 has been surprisingly easy, I have been Top 25 or sometimes even Top 8 the whole time. However, a lot of players in my division are very active, and I'm sure I'll fall behind sooner or later because I just don't play as much.
EDIT: And I expect the dynamics in my current league to be different because getting promoted to the league above is quite different from getting promoted when you are in platinum, as I was for the longest time.
Do you think you are improving Tiberius? Your all ins are doing well but eventually you'll need to develop new ones or get a lot better or you won't be getting to masters.
On February 22 2012 10:24 Shiver wrote: Do you think you are improving Tiberius? Your all ins are doing well but eventually you'll need to develop new ones or get a lot better or you won't be getting to masters.
First of all I should say that I set out to prove to myself that I could make it to diamond. I have achieved that, and little ambition to go any further. I don’t play much, and it will be sufficient for me to know that I can play in diamond without fear of imminent demotion to platinum.
However, your point is well taken. As I explained in an earlier post, I don't think I have become a better player overall. I simply have become pretty decent at executing certain all-ins builds.
- Team games, strangely enough, are a good indication of my overall lack of 1v1 skills. In team games very often unforeseen stuff happens that throws me off my game. Then I suddenly have to play by ear without any timings or well-prepared builds that I can simply execute. And when that happens, my performance can be truly awful
- I've seen some low-level master league players who play really bad. I'm sure they just 4-gated their way into master league and have little else to offer. This may not be the most graceful way to get to master league, but I'm gonna stay the course with what I'm doing. Any realistic chance I have of ever making master - which is very doubtful to begin with - will have to include my current all ins.
- In TvP and TvZ I currently have win rates of far above 50%. So from a purely utilitarian perspective - and being only a casual player - I have to ask myself why should I change something that works so well
- My TvT is not so all in and often evolves into long macro games, so I do get some practice there.
In other news, I have to say I am really surprised how bad players' micro is at the upper end of diamond league, and I most certainly include myself in that. After all, leaving aside master league and GM, diamond is the top 20% of the community. I hardly micro at all, and I see most of opponents do a terrible job at it as well. For example, almost all zerg opponents nicely line up their drones for my hellions, and most protoss opponents keep fighting with their stalkers right underneath my point defense drones until they are all dead.
I also get a surprising number of comments asking me to expand on my taste of music as described briefly in the OP. So here we go. While writing this, I was listening to - among others - Herbie Hancock's "Watermelon Man"
It's been a while since I last posted here. I have since retired from SC2. However, I'm still watching streams from time to time and to some extend I also keep up to date on what's going on in the community.
It's been a lot of fun playing SC2, but after making DIAMOND (even top 8 for most of season 5 and 6) I feel that I have nothing left to prove. I do think that I could make (low) master league if I really wanted to, but I lack the dedication, and grinding out more and more ladder games just does not seem worth it, and there are a lot more important things that require my attention.
I'll keep posting here about my observations about SC2 from time to time because I do plan to follow what's happening to the game - if at a much lower level of involvement. My next post is gonna be about my observations from the different streams I'm following occasionally.
I'm also still playing at Chess.com as RevTiberius, currently with a 2250 rating. Anybody who brings at least 1800 or 1900 points to the table is invited to challenge me for games there.
I wish you the best of luck, Tiberius. You're a good friend and did a lot with Revoki. Thank you for everything and be sure to stop by and say hello when you watch those streams
And another one. An interesting pawn endgame with the better end for me.
This game actually made me laugh. My position was completely lost, and I was about to resign when I suddenly got the opportunity for devastating counterplay that ended in a rather unique final position.
I have received several fan messages asking about my favourite video games. That's an interesting one, so here we go:
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The Graphic Adventure First game I ever really played, and still by far my favourite. I was maybe 12 or so when I played it, and hadn't seen the movie at the time. It's not really a difficult game but it took me a few weeks to get through. Which made it all the more memorable.
Pirates! The original game from like 1989 or so. First time for me to play an open-ended game without a story line. The game is maybe a little too easy, but a lot of fun. Ultima VII: The Black Gate and Ultima IX: Ascension Pretty buggy, but the story was very well developed. It was more like being part of an epic fantasy novel than playing a video game
Super Mario World: No explanation necessary
Bottom line is: of course nowadays' games are more sophisticated and have better graphics and all… but I am not longer at an age where video games can really impress me. That includes SC2. Same goes for movies actually. Great movies nowadays just don't impress me as much anymore… compared to like watching STAR WARS for the first time…
Song of the day: Eric Clapton / Bob Dylan: Crossroads
Today's Champions League final was a minor disappointment, but I would like to remind the team liquid community of the following:
German chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron jointly watching the game Germany-England during the 2010 World Cup. Needless to say, Germany won convincingly 4-1.
The press conference a day later during which Cameron admitted - after being taunted by Merkel - that the English team sucked and never stood a chance.
As England's striker Gary Lineker once famously said "Soccer is a game for 22 people, and in the end the Germans always win"
I've been wondering for a long time: Playing SC2 at the highest level - or even just trying to get there - for many players means sacrificing their college careers. To me this seems incredibly risky and something I'd never do even if I had the skills to play SC2 competitively. Of course I respect other people's choices though.
But my point is this. It's one thing to arguably lose career potential by not having a college degree. But what's much worse is that by not going to university you lose out on a lot of diversity that goes far beyond simply getting a degree. For example, it means meeting a very diverse group people and having exposure to things and ideas that you did not even know existed. College to me just seems too important a part of character and personality development.
Of course SC2 professionals travel a lot too and meet all kinds of people, but it seems that everybody is still just living in their SC2 bubble. Same goes for professional athletes in other games and sports, too. For example, I always cringe when I hear professional soccer players talk about non-soccer related topics, and think to myself "DUDE, you shouldn't have spent your ENTIRE youth on soccer".
I'm looking for interviews with professional SC2 players where they discuss this tradeoff. I respect their choices and I enjoy the entertainment they provide to the SC2 community, but I would like to hear their thoughts on not being able to go to university as a consequence of playing SC2 competitively.
I've been looking all over this site for information about this, but couldn't find anything. I'd appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction.
I think Bly says here, that esports can make you rich in Ukraine(although he still got an higher education).
As higher education is becoming more important for getting even the simplest of jobs, it's actually more interesting to see, how those, without higher education, can become successful in life(without having rich parents).
One thing to remember is, that people in some welfare countries, can actually have the luxury of taking risks. If I remeber correctly, then Denmark, for example, has huge support for those without jobs. The country has social support which pays almost the same, as a good salary(somewhere between minimum and middle) for 2 years. Again, this last part maybe completely wrong, as I don't remember it that well.
On May 24 2012 05:40 Bunn wrote: Deleted a big wall of text which sucked T_T.
I think Bly says here, that esports can make you rich in Ukraine(although he still got an higher education).
As higher education is becoming more important for getting even the simplest of jobs, it's actually more interesting to see, how those, without higher education, can become successful in life(without having rich parents).
One thing to remember is, that people in some welfare countries, can actually have the luxury of taking risks. If I remeber correctly, then Denmark, for example, has huge support for those without jobs. The country has social support which pays almost the same, as a good salary(somewhere between minimum and middle) for 2 years. Again, this last part maybe completely wrong, as I don't remember it that well.
Interesting video, thanks!
As higher education is becoming more important for getting even the simplest of jobs, it's actually more interesting to see, how those, without higher education, can become successful in life(without having rich parents).
Good point. Though most aspiring professional SC2 players never make it very far, and even among the top players only a handful make serious money.
And the question remains how long that success is going to last. For example there are a lot of former Brood War professionals who now have a hard time reaching similar levels of success in SC2. What are they going to do now? And looking at the professional SC2 scene, hardly anybody there is older than 25.
I guess my point is an e-sports career is going to benefit you for a few years but a university degree pays divdends for life.
===========================================
On an unrelated topic: I just had a major winning streak on Chess.com, approaching 2300. This is how I see myself when I play chess ;-)
On May 24 2012 16:48 Primadog wrote: I remember enjoy this series as result.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Please elaborate.
Wow those words didn't came out properly.
I really enjoy this series, because it tells a story about small things. We have a tendency to expect the games to be the story. StarCraft 2 is good for stories, very good, but it has its limits too. Stories that StarCraft tell will always be the heroic tales or dramatic falls - where are the diaries of a soldier or much ado about nothing?
So here is your story. Most likely, it won't be a prelude to revTiberius, the greatest SC2 player ever lived, or the first chapter of an autobiography on how you changed esports. Yours paints a person, a small person compare to the Day9s or IdrAs of the scene, but a part of the scene never-the-less. In such an odd time for the "industry," it's interesting too.
On May 24 2012 05:13 RevTiberius wrote: I've been wondering for a long time: Playing SC2 at the highest level - or even just trying to get there - for many players means sacrificing their college careers. To me this seems incredibly risky and something I'd never do even if I had the skills to play SC2 competitively. Of course I respect other people's choices though.
But my point is this. It's one thing to arguably lose career potential by not having a college degree. But what's much worse is that by not going to university you lose out on a lot of diversity that goes far beyond simply getting a degree. For example, it means meeting a very diverse group people and having exposure to things and ideas that you did not even know existed. College to me just seems too important a part of character and personality development.
Of course SC2 professionals travel a lot too and meet all kinds of people, but it seems that everybody is still just living in their SC2 bubble. Same goes for professional athletes in other games and sports, too. For example, I always cringe when I hear professional soccer players talk about non-soccer related topics, and think to myself "DUDE, you shouldn't have spent your ENTIRE youth on soccer".
I'm looking for interviews with professional SC2 players where they discuss this tradeoff. I respect their choices and I enjoy the entertainment they provide to the SC2 community, but I would like to hear their thoughts on not being able to go to university as a consequence of playing SC2 competitively.
I've been looking all over this site for information about this, but couldn't find anything. I'd appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction.
"Going to college", these days is universally accepted to be the correct path in achieving a life of personal happiness and material comfort. I feel otherwise. In my opinion, pursuing what you are most passionate about is the key to a happy, brimming life. Unfortunately for the 99% of gamers who look to be professional, doing what you love and making end's meat do not coincide. And potentially for my own case (as I'm 17 years old), attending a university, while practicing, competing, and going to events can be tricky. I'll talk a little bit about my own case for a moment here. For most young gamers, keeping up with the pros can be strenuous. There are always setbacks and sacrifices when persevering in anything. Keeping up in school while playing StarCraft 2, a year ago, used to be an easy case to choose. I always preferred to do well in school and finish homework, before playing StarCraft 2 with any free time I have left. Nowadays, it's the opposite. I practice when I get home and compete in many online tournaments at set times, and do homework and studying when I have free time. This culture is what allowed me to thrive in the game. Now, I don't consider myself a "Pro" by any means yet, but I'm definitely along the lines and/or nearing towards it. College. College will be the destructible rocks that prevent me from actually pursuing a professional StarCraft 2 career this early. Again, college and StarCraft 2 do not synchronize. Any attempts to do so will either result in lackluster grades or lackluster play. Destructible rocks. Eventually, college ends and (much like qxc) that's when I'll try to reignite my StarCraft 2 playing. So in essence, yes, you are correct: you cannot play StarCraft 2 effectively while competing (especially as a foreigner) and some people do defer or sacrifice college to play professionally, but in my own case, I will just be putting it on hiatus.
On May 24 2012 16:48 Primadog wrote: I remember enjoy this series as result.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Please elaborate.
Wow those words didn't came out properly.
I really enjoy this series, because it tells a story about small things. We have a tendency to expect the games to be the story. StarCraft 2 is good for stories, very good, but it has its limits too. Stories that StarCraft tell will always be the heroic tales or dramatic falls - where are the diaries of a soldier or much ado about nothing?
So here is your story. Most likely, it won't be a prelude to revTiberius, the greatest SC2 player ever lived, or the first chapter of an autobiography on how you changed esports. Yours paints a person, a small person compare to the Day9s or IdrAs of the scene, but a part of the scene never-the-less. In such an odd time for the "industry," it's interesting too.
Well, I take that as a compliment. Thank you very much!
@ IS.Pyre: a detailed response will follow soon
@ most featured streamers: The music during your streams is awful. Often even just the same 4-5 bad songs in an endless loop. As a matter of cultural and intellectual self-defense I have decided to introduce more classical music to the teamliquid community. This piece here is strictly speaking not classical music - I'll get to that later - but still incomparably better than the "music" I have to suffer through when I tune in to 98% of the streams here on this site.
It's a delight seeing all the other threads here in the forum celebrating Germany's win over Portugal at EURO 2012 today, but it is with great pleasure that I re-post the most important scene of the game :-)
And this article about the German team is highly recommended. Even I wasn't aware that the team holds so many different records and achievements! :-)
As I was going through an old external hard drive of mine earlier today, I rediscovered this old training video I made a long time ago, explaining the most effective use of stim and concussive shells. Enjoy :-)
On May 25 2012 09:52 iS.Pyre wrote: "Going to college", these days is universally accepted to be the correct path in achieving a life of personal happiness and material comfort. I feel otherwise. In my opinion, pursuing what you are most passionate about is the key to a happy, brimming life. Unfortunately for the 99% of gamers who look to be professional, doing what you love and making end's meat do not coincide. And potentially for my own case (as I'm 17 years old), attending a university, while practicing, competing, and going to events can be tricky. I'll talk a little bit about my own case for a moment here. For most young gamers, keeping up with the pros can be strenuous. There are always setbacks and sacrifices when persevering in anything. Keeping up in school while playing StarCraft 2, a year ago, used to be an easy case to choose. I always preferred to do well in school and finish homework, before playing StarCraft 2 with any free time I have left. Nowadays, it's the opposite. I practice when I get home and compete in many online tournaments at set times, and do homework and studying when I have free time. This culture is what allowed me to thrive in the game. Now, I don't consider myself a "Pro" by any means yet, but I'm definitely along the lines and/or nearing towards it. College. College will be the destructible rocks that prevent me from actually pursuing a professional StarCraft 2 career this early. Again, college and StarCraft 2 do not synchronize. Any attempts to do so will either result in lackluster grades or lackluster play. Destructible rocks. Eventually, college ends and (much like qxc) that's when I'll try to reignite my StarCraft 2 playing. So in essence, yes, you are correct: you cannot play StarCraft 2 effectively while competing (especially as a foreigner) and some people do defer or sacrifice college to play professionally, but in my own case, I will just be putting it on hiatus.
I mean, I agree with you it is extremely dificult to go to college while playing sc2 as a "pro" level, however I also think its the stupidest thing a person can possibly do with there life to drop, or suspend college or university for starcraft, I think that is absolutely rediculously sad unless you show insane potential, and by this I do not mean your really good and with more time could be better, I mean your already being considered to win Mlg's etc. Otherwise I think your proving alot of people right by gamers just being procrastinators. I feel good for the top players, they are making a living doing what they love, but its the same as dropping out of college to be in a band. Ya maybe you will make it big, but the odds are so slim you will get out of that semi pro level that its a stupid life choice.
Just my 2 bits as I have been in the situation you have mentioned and am so glad I picked a real life over the chance of a gaming life (which from all the depressed pro gamers cant even be that amazing)
There are more and more chess threads here on TL so I decided to upload a couple of screen shots myself again. I'm currently really rusty with my rating dropping to the lower 2100 range, but this is a nice little game from earlier today.
In all honesty I didn't play well and should have lost it:
My king is pretty much unprotected, and the black bishop on b7 is probably going to be the final nail in the coffin. However, as it so often happens, once a player's attack gets going and check mate seems just around the corner, they often neglect their own king's safety. This particular guy allowed me to reach the following position just a few moves later:
I quit SC2 after I got promoted to diamond and even made it to top 8 there on a consistent basis. I noticed that playing more didn't help me get better. Making a few changes to my game helped me a lot more than just grinding out more games on ladder. I'm wondering if this is true on GM level, too, that playing SMARTER is more important than playing MORE OFTEN. This might help balance a busy schedule. But I guess at GM level constant practice and muscle memory are equally important?!
It partially depends on what type of GM player you are. At the GM level, there are plenty of bad players, and we're all bad at something. There are GMs that play situational playstyles and there are GMs that play a few builds / single playstyle and win games that way.
The latter may need to learn when to recognize the appropriate times to switch plays. Spotting moments of weakness in your opponents play is just as important as improving your own play.
But for the most part, I'd argue the MORE OFTEN choice. At the GM level, regardless of how you win, we all lack consistency. It's very difficult to play at the potential you're capable of at all times. Consistency and mechanics can only come from practice.
It's often discouraging, because you'll play games where you feel like Stephano, and other times where you question how you've made it even this far.
Most GMs are smart though. There's always room for more knowledge, but you can't expect to improve without putting in games. Consistency becomes crucial at the highest level because the slightest mistakes are exposed, leaving no room for error. We're all bad at something; but for the most of us, consistency is on that list.
At lower levels, learning more about the flow of the game, so you don't have to question your own decision-making, is more beneficial than just grinding out games.
Starcraft is like any other skill. First you master whatever it is, then it becomes an art form. Trying to perform your own art before understanding the limitations of efficiency, effectiveness, etc, etc. of that skillset can even have adverse effects. Building inefficient habits is never good. Bad habits are hard to break!
Watching pro streams and following the cursor is my best advice. Find out how the pros do every step of their play; most pros have learned the gimmicks and tricks of macro and micro to optimize the use of their time.
Practice makes perfect, but only if you're practicing correctly!
TL;DR It's a mix of both, but mostly practice so you have the consistency and raw mechanics to compete at the highest level.
Ok, it's been a while. I haven't played SC2 (or any other video game for that matter) in almost 9 months, but I still follow what's going on at the highest level, and there are a few things I want to talk about. So stay tuned for updates!
Recently he asked me whether I would help him become a better chess player, and naturally I accepted the challenge. The avid reader of this blog will recall that I never was a great SC2 player. I retired at the top of my diamond division. However, I used to be a 2200 ELO chess player, and though I’m not quite that good anymore, I’m still a pretty strong player.
Pyre’s current online rating is around 1050. His goal is to reach 1500. I know that this seems a daunting task to many beginners, but I’ve played a great deal of chess over the years and in my opinion the difference between 1000 and 1500 isn’t all that great. Going from 1000 to 1500 is certainly easier than going from 1500 to 2000, or, as I myself had to learn the hard way many years ago, going from 2000 to 2500.
In my opinion, the only real difference between a 1000 player and a 1500 player is that the 1500 player has a better understanding of basic chess strategy and tactics. However, the upside is that basic chess strategy and tactics are fairly easy to learn, and in my experience the real litmus test of a chess player is not whether he or she reaches 1500, but whether they continue to develop from there because once you have mastered the fundamental concepts of chess, it gets a little harder to improve further.
I also should mention that I firmly believe that anybody who is serious about becoming a better chess player MUST also play the game offline over-the-board. Online games and chess lessons are a lot of fun and certainly help, but the best way to get better at chess is to play and analyze games at your local chess club.
So now the question is how do we actually get Pyre’s skills from 1000 to 1500? My coaching style combines elements of Gandalf, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann.
Currently we’re still getting started and regularly play longer games so that I can get a better understanding of what Pyre already knows and where his weaknesses are. For the same purpose I have also flipped through some of the games he’s played against people at his level. At the same time, our games provide a good opportunity to discuss some of the tactical and strategic themes that arise. For example, the following game provided an opportunity to discuss the so-called “smothered mate”, arguably one of the most dramatic maneuvers in chess.
These games are also important because I need to know whether Pyre is a more tactical/aggressive player, or prefers more strategic/positional games. Based on his macro-heavy/no-nonsense approach to SC2 I kind of expected him to be more on the strategic/positional side, but he appears to prefer more aggressive, all-out attack on the king kind of games. I found that to be an interesting observation.
Once I've concluded my assessment of his style, we'll start working on more technical aspects of the game, such as the fundamentals of
a) Strategy: e.g. developing minor and major pieces, pawn structures, typical plans, activity and initiative etc.
b) Tactics: e.g. how to calculate variations efficiently, how to choose among several moves, and of course typical beginner level tactics such as various check mates, forks, pins and skewer, zugzwang, double attacks etc.
c) Opening Theory: I firmly believe that beginners and players below maybe 1600-1700 really do not need to know all that much about the different chess openings. At that level a player is much better off dedicating his or her time to the fundamentals of strategy or tactics. However, Pyre and I will spend some time on some of the basic chess openings to make sure he plays those openings that result in the kind of positions he's comfortable with and enjoys playing. To reiterate: It is NOT necessary for him to memorize all the different lines of the French defense, for example, but he does need to form an opinion on whether the kind of position that typically comes out of a French opening is something he wants to go for.
Over the coming weeks and months I will chronicle our progress here including lessons learned, successes, failures, and interesting observations. In the meantime I encourage everybody to check out Pyre's stream (link above).
And no, I am not getting paid for these lessons, my awesomeness comes free of charge :-)
Are you going to be documenting your lessons or anything? As a person who picked up chess around 2 years and playing it a good bit over board with friends and on an android app called chess time, I'd be curious what I could learn / where I'm at! I too am also 17, about to be 18 like pyre. Would be interesting =D . maybe I could play him while you observe / critique the later games?
Nice chess game postings btw, was fun to look at them.
edit: Just wanted to post my 2 favorite openers for both colors. For white i like Queens gambit, and English opener. I don't mind opening king pawn but Queens gambit and English are by far what i'm comfortable with. (then again i haven't really tried many other openers, I kind of began learning with just king pawn then slowly learned different openers where i would exclusively play them as white to get a feel for them.) As black my most comfortable games are against king and queen pawn openers, because i respond sicilian or indian. I'm kind of curious what this might mean as far as my play style Rev :p , if you don't mind giving me your opinion.
Is a 1000 online rating similar to a 1000 USCF rating? That was about my rating back in 4th grade before I quit. I was bad though, cause I approached chess in completely the wrong way. I just played games and read chess magazines instead of learning openings and analyzing positions and strategies. I also lacked good practice partners and the only practice I got was at tournaments and my afterschool chess club.
On January 06 2013 09:45 monk. wrote: Is a 1000 online rating similar to a 1000 USCF rating? That was about my rating back in 4th grade before I quit. I was bad though, cause I approached chess in completely the wrong way. I just played games and read chess magazines instead of learning openings and analyzing positions and strategies. I also lacked good practice partners and the only practice I got was at tournaments and my afterschool chess club.
Yeah it is similar for the 1000 online to USCF. When you start getting higher in rating there is a big difference in my opinion. I think that at 1500 is similar to 1400 USCF. Then the difference gets greater. A 1700 USCF is around 1900 online. I think a 2000 rated USCF is around a 2500 online.
@Smoodish: I don't really know you well enough to comment on your choice of chess openings. Though I want to repeat that I don't think that at your level it is particularly useful to spend too much time on openings because beginners' games are too flawed in too many ways for detailed opening theory to make any sense. I suggest you start with simple tactics and strategy.
WikiBooks has a good section on chess strategy and tactics that's worth working your way through. In this blog I'm most likely not going to publish any training material. Rather, I'll focus on my observations of how Pyre's development is coming along.
@ Monk & Lightrise: I agree. Offline ratings give a better indication of a player's skill level, and ELO is a little better at that than USCF. I also agree that online ratings tend to be a bit higher than ELO and USCF without the player actually being any better, though someone at 2000 USCF would probably not quite be 2500 online. More like 2300 or maybe 2400. 2500 is really, really good.
Anybody who's interested in my chess games can find me as RevTiberius on Chess.com
This is the second in a series of articles about my efforts to teach chess to Pyre, a high-ranking North-American SC2 Grandmaster If you missed the first part of this series, you can find it here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17433807
I’m now about 3 weeks into my project to teach chess to SC2 Grandmaster Pyre. As I described in the first article in this series, my initial task was to figure out how much he already knows about the game. To this end we’ve played a number of games and I’ve also observed some of his games against players at his level. My initial assessment of his skills is this: For someone who picked up chess fairly recently, he has a pretty good understanding of beginner level strategies and ideas. At the same time his knowledge of tactics is limited and as a result most of his losses are due to losing material to standard tactics such as forks and pins. This is by no means unusual. In fact it’s quite normal and the reason why in our sessions I mainly focus on tactical themes. I noticed that Pyre has quite a good understanding of what needs to be done once I've explained a position to him, but he's sometimes lost when he tries to make sense of a position on his own. That, too, is perfectly normal, and I have no doubt that over time he'll develop his "game sense" to know what needs to be done. It's a combination of experience and intuition, and it takes a while to acquire.
One of the very common tactical themes we discussed so far is “deflection”. The basic idea is to deflect one of the opponent’s key pieces – usually through sacrifice or check – so that it can no longer fulfill the task assigned to it. It so happened that in one of my own recent games on chess.com a very interesting example of this came up (you may have to click on the diagram and enlarge it):
I was White, and I had sacrificed an exchange in order to reach this position. My thoughts were kind of like this: - Black’s King is still in the center and kind of naked - I have a rook on the open f-file - My Queen is threatening to take on e6 - My knight can easily join the attack via f3 and then either to e5 or f5 - Other than being an exchange up on me, Black has no immediate threats
I wanted to take on e6 with my Queen, but realized that after Black plays Queen to e7 in response, I have no further checks and no way to continue the attack. But still Queen takes on e6 is obviously the way to go, so I had to find a way to distract Black’s Queen temporarily. And here I brilliantly (though I say so myself…) found the move Pawn d4 takes c5. This move activates my previously useless Bishop on b2 and pins the Black Queen to the rook on h8, thereby inviting the Queen to take my Bishop. And that’s what Black did, but after Queen takes Bishop, I take on e6, followed by Rook to f7, and Black has no defense against checkmate. A nice little example of how powerful the deflection of a defending piece can be.
It has to be said though that Black, instead of taking my Bishop, could have and should have played Pawn to e5 to close the dangerous diagonal. However, this move is not so easy to see as evidenced by the fact that both I and my opponent (both of us pretty strong players) overlooked this move during the game. I only discovered it after I spent some time analyzing the position after the game was over.
In any case, this game was another important example that tactics really are the “mechanics” of chess, and that one must have a good understanding of chess tactics in order to become a good player. Also, “Deflection” is closely related to the idea of “Decoy”, which is a maneuver I’ll introduce to Pyre in our next session.
I can’t emphasize enough how important it is as a beginner to study chess tactics. Doing just one or two chess puzzles a day can make a really big difference. A 1500 player doesn’t really play “better” chess than a 1000-1100 player like Pyre, he just makes fewer tactical mistakes. The same holds true for me, too. I’m a 2100 player, and most of my games are won and lost on tactics. Bottom line: practicing tactics is like taking the Elovator…
But of course we don’t just do tactics. We are also looking at famous chess games. So far I’ve shown Pyre 2 classics:
Nigel Short – Jan Timman, Tilburg 1991 Anatoly Karpov – Victor Korchnoi, FIDE Candidates Final 1974
I picked these games not only because they are brilliant achievements by the players and really fun to go through, but more importantly because these games are based on straightforward strategic plans and feature many of the tactical patterns we have already discussed.
One of the next games I’d like to show him is one of Capablanca’s positional masterpieces as an illustration that one doesn’t always have to launch an all-out attack in order to win the game.
Tactics in Chess = Mechanics in SC2? I’m not trying to say tactics in chess and mechanics in SC2 are the same thing, but I think it’s an interesting comparison. Without solid tactics, one will never be a good chess player because one will keep losing too much material needlessly. Tactics are the foundations upon which a good player executes his strategies and plans. Similarly, in SC2, strategies and build orders are useless if one doesn’t have the mechanics to execute them efficiently.
Transferable Skills? Pyre is undoubtedly a very strong SC2 player. But does that make it easier for him to learn chess? And are chess players predestined to become strong SC2 players? I don’t think so. Though I think it is fair to say that if one likes strategy games in general, it wouldn’t be unusual to enjoy both games, as different as they may be.
Chess Software and Videos So far I’m not introducing chess software in our sessions because I think this would be a great disservice to Pyre. That’s like giving kids in first grade math a calculator. I believe it is essential – especially for beginners – that one reaches one’s own conclusions as erroneous as many of them may be in the beginning. If you use chess engines too early in your development you’ll distrust your own judgment and never build up the confidence necessary to make it through complex calculations. I also have mixed feelings about watching chess videos. Of course they are entertaining and do help to some extend. But at the end of the day it’s like watching Day9’s SC2 commentary. It’s fun, it’s instructive, but unless one actually plays SC2 and practices what he preaches, watching his videos alone won’t make one a better player.
Having said that, I think among all the material that is available on YouTube, Daniel King’s channel clearly stands out:
There is nothing wrong with watching Daniel King’s videos. It’s just no substitute for practice. Chess is fun, but there’s no denying that it also requires some work.
Feedback Feedback and suggestions to my articles are highly welcome. Especially from people with experience in online coaching. I have a lot of experience in both coaching people at chess as well as being coached, but I've never done it online. I'd like to hear from people who have experience in online chess lessons.
I’ve been asked why I’m teaching Pyre for free when an experienced chess coach of my skill level typically charges about $40/hour. The answer is quite simple. In my chess career I’ve already played hundreds of serious tournament games and literally thousands of blitz and bullet games. While I keep enjoying this, my marginal utility (yes, I have an econ degree among others) of PLAYING chess is somewhat decreasing. On the other hand, TEACHING a friend to get better at chess gives me more satisfaction than simply winning a few more blitz games. And when I pursue my hobbies, I have no financial interests. It kind of defeats the purpose.
In a few weeks time I'll provide another update on how things are progressing. In the meantime I encourage everybody to check out Pyre’s entertaining stream:
Any chance Prye (or you) could stream your lessons and then upload them for the people following your blog? I and I'm sure quite a few others might be interested in seeing that.
I just started getting into chess a few weeks ago. I'm currently at a lowly ~800 on Chess.com. But after reading this post, I've realized my lack of knowledge regarding tactics is a bigger flaw than I thought it was. I have a beginners chess book I bought but it's just so dry I never made any progress in it. Guess I'll have to pick it back up.
Also, do you have any more recommendations as far as YouTube channels go? I've been watching ChessNetwork (http://www.youtube.com/user/ChessNetwork) and feel as if I'm picking a bit of information up as I go. Hearing someone experienced go through their though processes has been eye opening, at the very least.
I am not as good in chess as you, probably because I quit sooner. I once was the youth champion of my country, and competed on the nordic championship against the likes of Magnus Carlsen and other good players. However, I quit at the age of 14-16 and took up other hobbies. I am mid masters protoss right now and I look at sc2 the exact same way I used to look at chess. I have both been coaching sc2, but way before that I have been teaching chess quite a lot. Having taught chess really really helped me as a sc2 coach. Here are some of the reasons why.
You have your openings, the only difference is, that in starcraft you don't know what opening your opponent is doing until in move 6 (or something like that). But the key in both games is to have an understanding of how to start the game the most efficient way, know a couple of openings by heart and be as efficient with your resources as possible (your moves and pieces in chess, minerals/gas and units/buildings in sc2). A sloppy opening is the doom of players in both games. A 1500 rated chess player (gold/plat level sc2 player) can easily play against a 1900 rated opponent (dia in sc2 terms) and beat him if his understanding of that single opening is much better. Good tactical players can falter against weaker players if their openings aren't up to par with the rest of their play. Same can be said about sc2, so in both games openings are really important.
Both games have mid games. Here the tactical geniuses get to shine in both games. It is in the mid-game that we most of the time get to see one player take advantage. In chess, one player can take the positional lead, having his pieces in stronger spots, holding better lines. In sc2 that relates to either putting on some aggression to get some lead, or holding off some aggression to take the lead, it can either be army wise or economical, but in the mid game we usually see one player pulling ahead of the other in both games. In the mid game we see the players utilize the foundation they had built in the early game to get an edge on the opponent. Very similar. Understanding your pieces/units is key in the mid game, knowing your limits and the strength of your pieces/units and how best to utilize them is what sets players apart along with general knowledge of the game.
Lategame/endgame: My favourite part of chess and probably where I shined by far most as a player. While my openings were sometimes sloppy, my late mid game/endgame saw me surpass many much better players at a very young age. The endgame is all about "understanding" in both chess and Sc2. Knowing how to utilize those few key units, how to win certain positions. While a lesser player get's a draw from some position, a better player can almost always force his way to victory with superior late game knowledge in chess. This is however not the case in sc2, this is where I feel the games do diverge a bit because sc2 doesn't seem to leave the chess equivalent of top of the action mid game. However it does happen, when players trade bases, and go from having 4 mining bases to possibly only having 1 mining base and scarce resources, that is when they need to utilize their units the same way you need to when playing the endgame in chess.
--
Now with all this said, all I wanted to say is that approaching the games the same way is smart. Spend time studying your opening, perfecting your understanding of it and counters to what the opponent does. Understand how that translates into the midgame, what openings it gives you when your opponent doesn't respond the correct way, and then learn how to finish an opponent off.
Love seeing a decent chess player on TL making a thread about this. For myself I can say the same as you, I have great passion for teaching and I have thought chess myself a bunch, and also done some sc2 coaching with good resaults, getting players to masters through having the right approach to the game. I am looking forward to reading the rest of your posts, that was my take on chess/sc2, very excited to see what you will do more.
---
Btw, nice move against Gyoi, don't know how neither of you saw e5, but it doesn't seem to matter, looks like you have the upper hand on him anyway afterwards?? Nice move
not sure how much experience you have teaching other people chess to have an idea of how he's picking it up relatively, but it would have been interesting to coach someone who isn't great at sc2 (or even plays at all) to see how they compare
Thank you very much for all the feedback. Here are my answers. Those of you who messaged me directly will get a direct response.
On January 22 2013 06:00 Ixirawr wrote: Any chance Prye (or you) could stream your lessons and then upload them for the people following your blog? I and I'm sure quite a few others might be interested in seeing that.
I just started getting into chess a few weeks ago. I'm currently at a lowly ~800 on Chess.com. But after reading this post, I've realized my lack of knowledge regarding tactics is a bigger flaw than I thought it was. I have a beginners chess book I bought but it's just so dry I never made any progress in it. Guess I'll have to pick it back up.
Also, do you have any more recommendations as far as YouTube channels go? I've been watching ChessNetwork (http://www.youtube.com/user/ChessNetwork) and feel as if I'm picking a bit of information up as I go. Hearing someone experienced go through their though processes has been eye opening, at the very least.
I'll have to ask Pyre about that. Maybe we can occasionally post stuff on a secondary channel or something.
As for video channels and books, what is good for you mainly depends on what level you are at. For example, the materials I practice chess with wouldn't help you very much and vice versa. A lot of people recommend Kingsscrusher's youtube channel. That may be worth looking into. Though to make serious progress, watching videos isn't good enough. I would recommend you focus on playing games over-the-board and join a local chess club.
On January 22 2013 06:04 Xarayezona wrote: Do you think it would be possible to link us to the analysis of the actual game that you put up? I'd like to see for myself exactly what happened.
Though I don't have a premium membership on chess.com and therefore don't know how long that game is gonna stay up on the site. Also keep in mind that this was a bullet game and neither player had the time for deep analysis. In bullet I select my moves based on experience, intuition, and muscle memory. There is no time for calculations.
On January 22 2013 06:17 n0btozz wrote: I am not as good in chess as you, probably because I quit sooner. I once was the youth champion of my country, and competed on the nordic championship against the likes of Magnus Carlsen and other good players. However, I quit at the age of 14-16 and took up other hobbies. I am mid masters protoss right now and I look at sc2 the exact same way I used to look at chess. I have both been coaching sc2, but way before that I have been teaching chess quite a lot. Having taught chess really really helped me as a sc2 coach. Here are some of the reasons why.
You have your openings, the only difference is, that in starcraft you don't know what opening your opponent is doing until in move 6 (or something like that). But the key in both games is to have an understanding of how to start the game the most efficient way, know a couple of openings by heart and be as efficient with your resources as possible (your moves and pieces in chess, minerals/gas and units/buildings in sc2). A sloppy opening is the doom of players in both games. A 1500 rated chess player (gold/plat level sc2 player) can easily play against a 1900 rated opponent (dia in sc2 terms) and beat him if his understanding of that single opening is much better. Good tactical players can falter against weaker players if their openings aren't up to par with the rest of their play. Same can be said about sc2, so in both games openings are really important.
Both games have mid games. Here the tactical geniuses get to shine in both games. It is in the mid-game that we most of the time get to see one player take advantage. In chess, one player can take the positional lead, having his pieces in stronger spots, holding better lines. In sc2 that relates to either putting on some aggression to get some lead, or holding off some aggression to take the lead, it can either be army wise or economical, but in the mid game we usually see one player pulling ahead of the other in both games. In the mid game we see the players utilize the foundation they had built in the early game to get an edge on the opponent. Very similar. Understanding your pieces/units is key in the mid game, knowing your limits and the strength of your pieces/units and how best to utilize them is what sets players apart along with general knowledge of the game.
Lategame/endgame: My favourite part of chess and probably where I shined by far most as a player. While my openings were sometimes sloppy, my late mid game/endgame saw me surpass many much better players at a very young age. The endgame is all about "understanding" in both chess and Sc2. Knowing how to utilize those few key units, how to win certain positions. While a lesser player get's a draw from some position, a better player can almost always force his way to victory with superior late game knowledge in chess. This is however not the case in sc2, this is where I feel the games do diverge a bit because sc2 doesn't seem to leave the chess equivalent of top of the action mid game. However it does happen, when players trade bases, and go from having 4 mining bases to possibly only having 1 mining base and scarce resources, that is when they need to utilize their units the same way you need to when playing the endgame in chess.
--
Now with all this said, all I wanted to say is that approaching the games the same way is smart. Spend time studying your opening, perfecting your understanding of it and counters to what the opponent does. Understand how that translates into the midgame, what openings it gives you when your opponent doesn't respond the correct way, and then learn how to finish an opponent off.
Love seeing a decent chess player on TL making a thread about this. For myself I can say the same as you, I have great passion for teaching and I have thought chess myself a bunch, and also done some sc2 coaching with good resaults, getting players to masters through having the right approach to the game. I am looking forward to reading the rest of your posts, that was my take on chess/sc2, very excited to see what you will do more.
---
Btw, nice move against Gyoi, don't know how neither of you saw e5, but it doesn't seem to matter, looks like you have the upper hand on him anyway afterwards?? Nice move
Thank you very much for your comments. Must have taken you a while to type that all up. Here are my thoughts:
1. Must have been great to play Magnus Carlsen at a young age, even though at the time you probably didn't know how strong he was going to become. Many years ago I played in the open of the Dortmund Grandmaster Tournament in Germany. It was great to see the world's best player up close. In 2008 I also went to one of the games of the Anand-Kramnik World Championship match in Bonn, Germany. It was awesome to be part of it, but unfortunately the game itself was a pretty boring draw. 2. What was your peak rating? 3. I'm not quite sure I agree with you on what you say about the importance of chess openings. Yes, I make sure that Pyre plays decent opening moves following general principles, but I don't think it makes sense to spend too much time on opening theory just yet. Once he has a solid 1500-1600 I'll start practicing specific openings with him, but until then it doesn't seem to be a good idea mainly for 2 reasons: a) He needs to have a bit more game sense to understand why certain openings are good and what the ideas behind them are b) At his level, his opponents don't really know any opening theory either, and if your opponent doesn't follow along, there is no point in memorizing move orders It's like this. If Pyre was teaching someone to play SC2, it wouldn't make sense for him to start with specific build orders and timing attacks because those only make sense once you have a certain understanding of the game as a whole. And lower league SC2 player play too sloppily to make specific timings work anyway. So while I agree with you that chess openings are important, I don't think Pyre is quite there just yet. After he solidifies his overall game a little bit, I'll introduce him to some of the major openings. Final point on openings: The amount of theory he needs to know also depends on how sharp the opening is. A quiet opening such as the Queen's Gambit Declined requires far less knowledge of specific variations than say the Dragon variation of the Sicilian. 4. I agree with everything you say about the midgame. I would add that in chess there is the distinct possibility of a draw that doesn't really exist in SC2. Chess games can end in a draw if both sides don't make mistakes, but in SC2 even if both players play flawlessly, sheer luck for example can make all the difference
On January 22 2013 06:34 lolstarz wrote: Wow, this is a very cool idea! Enjoyed the read. Now am thinking about finding a GM player to teach Go to.... Ideas ideas!
Thank you very much. I'll keep expanding this on a regular basis, probably once or twice a month.
On January 22 2013 07:08 ButtCraft wrote: What's pyre's Elo?
He doesn't have an ELO rating yet, on chess.com his rating fluctuates between 1000 and 1400. Which is normal. My rating too fluctuates around 2100 give or take 100 points
On January 22 2013 14:34 phiinix wrote: not sure how much experience you have teaching other people chess to have an idea of how he's picking it up relatively, but it would have been interesting to coach someone who isn't great at sc2 (or even plays at all) to see how they compare
I agree with you. However I don't have time for - or any interest in - teaching anybody else on top of what I'm already doing. I also think that Pyre's general interest in and aptitude for chess is far more important than whether he's a SC2 player. So if someone else picked up chess faster or slower than Pyre, I don't think that's because Pyre happens to be an SC2 Grandmaster
Last night, my recent “Teaching Chess to a Starcraft 2 Grandmaster” articles were featured on djWHEAT’s “Inside the Game”. The segment starts at roughly 41:30.
I certainly didn’t expect that so many people would take an interest in these articles, but of course I’m delighted that the SC2 community seems to find this interesting.
I’d like to take this opportunity and comment on some of the things that were said on the show. I should clarify that I am blogging about teaching chess to an SC2 Grandmaster, but I do not necessarily believe that the two games can or should be compared in each and every aspect. On the contrary, the games are quite different, and only in a few areas are comparisons permissible.
@djWHEAT Thanks for calling my articles “fascinating” and “fucking cool”. I appreciate the compliment. And you are right. SC2 is frequently compared to chess, and these – often erroneous – comparisons are one of the reasons why I decided to start this series. I think you hit the nail on its head when you said that SC2 skills transfer to chess only to a very limited extent. However, the “meta-skills” (not sure if that’s a word) are most certainly transferable. To take Pyre’s example. His knowledge of SC2 build orders and strategies, his APM etc. are obviously useless in chess, but the same kind of skills he needed to become an SC2 GM in the first place (dedication, hard work, aptitude for strategy games etc.) will most certainly go a long way in helping him become a better chess player. The way I explain chess to him is also a bit different from how I'd explain it to a non-SC2 player (e.g. when I compare the typical Bishop sacrifice on h7 to a baneling bust)
@EG.Idra I agree very much with Idra’s comments that the two main differences between chess and SC2 are real time vs. turn based and perfect vision vs. imperfect vision. However, I think the second point is often misunderstood and needs clarification: In SC2 the fog of war prevents you from seeing what your opponent is doing. But once you scout your opponent, it is usually easy to draw conclusions. For example, if you scan your opponent, and see a robotics bay that is being chrono-boosted, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what your opponent is going to throw at you. In chess, on the other hand, you have perfect vision of what your opponent is doing, but that does not mean you have perfect understanding of what he is up to. It is quite common to misinterpret what you are seeing. Misreading my opponent’s intentions is the reason behind many of my losses in chess.
This is also the reason why I - despite only reaching Top 8 diamond league in SC2 - can perfectly appreciate Code S SC2 games. However, despite being a very strong chess player, I do not understand many grandmaster chess games simply because perfect vision of what’s going on is not enough.
@EG.Incontrol I very much agree with EG.Incontrol’s statement that many of the strategic concepts in chess and SC2 are best suited for comparison. For example when I teach Pyre that in chess when you are far ahead of your opponent, you can start trading inefficiently, he immediately understands because the same concept holds true in SC2 as well. Or the reason why many double-pronged attacks work so well in SC2 is closely related to the ideas behind the “Principle of Two Weaknesses” in chess.
@Mainstream Media I also agree that the mainstream media doesn’t do a good job in comparing SC2 to chess. But that’s just because most journalists simply don’t know anything about SC2, and only very little about chess. I regularly read The Economist, and once in a while they have an article about e-Sports. To me it always seems as if these articles were written by people who regurgitate second and third hand knowledge of SC2, and not by people who really know what they are talking about. The mainstream media also does a poor job at covering chess. The number of simple factual errors in their reporting never stops to amaze me.
When former World Chess Champion Boris Spassky was asked in an interview whether he preferred chess or sex, he famously replied “depends on the position”.
A few days ago I was checking some chess news websites, just minding my own business, when suddenly I saw something that almost made me choke on my coffee:
Kim Kardashian wants to learn chess. Have we really sunk this low? I guess she got interested in chess when she heard that mating is the objective of the game…
So now the question is: Can Pyre keep up with Kim Kardashian? Of course he can. It may or may not seem that way to him, but over the past month or so I have already seen him make significant progress. Some of his recent thoughts and analyses are evidence of a much better understanding of the game compared to, say, 4 weeks ago.
The ugly truth is that improvement in chess comes slower than improvement in SC2. I think Pyre once mentioned that he started in Gold League and became a Grandmaster within a few months. Unless you are a prodigy, making comparable improvements in chess takes much longer. One of the main reasons is I think mechanics. Even if you can’t play SC2 any “better”, you can always play “faster”. In chess, if you want to play BETTER, you need to play BETTER.
I think one of the reasons why chess is so fascinating to Pyre is that it must be so much easier for him to improve his chess compared to SC2. He already plays SC2 at a very high level, and for him it must be much harder to get the joy of getting better in SC2 compared to chess. In my experience though I enjoy being good at a game very much, I enjoy getting better at a game even more.
Pyre recently already started showing initial success at offline/over-the-board tournaments. In my next article I’ll probably showcase one of this recent games to highlight some of his improvements. And I’m gonna make sure he’ll always be better than Kim Kardashian…
Pattern-Recognition: The ability to recognize recurring patterns is an important skill of strong chess players. A significant part of my decision making in a chess game is based on intuition and experience rather than calculation and analysis.
For example, in one of my recent games I reached the following position:
I had just played Rook f8-h8 to counter White’s lethal threat Queen e3-h6. Generally speaking my position is a mess, White has a very strong attack and his Knights have two excellent squares on f6 and g5. Whether White’s position is objectively winning is unclear, but from a practical point of view his position is much easier to play than mine. Now White committed a terrible blunder and played King e1-e2??, undoubtedly to activate his rook on a1. However, after my devastating response Bishop b7-a6 check the game is quickly over because to counter the check White has to either sacrifice his Queen on d3, or move his back on to the 1st rank, which disconnects the rooks again, and after I take on h1 it’s checkmate.
A few days later, I reached the following position in another game:
My opponent’s position is clearly better than mine: he has launched a very strong attack against my King. His Bishops and his Queen are targeting my king side, I was already forced to weaken my pawn shield by playing Pawn g2-g3. Black has just played Pawn h7-h5 with the intention to play h5-h4 to undermine my pawn shield even further and to open the h-file for his Rook. To counter these very serious threats I had just played Rook a1-c1 to open the c-file, maybe in conjunction with Knight c3-b5 in order to force Black’s Queen off the critical diagonal b8-h2. MY opponent completely mishandled the position and a few moves later we reached the following position:
I don’t need to analyze this position in great detail for you. Suffice it to say that my next very strong move Bishop b2-a3 prompted Black to erroneously sacrifice his Queen to counter the check. Of course he lost the game soon after.
The lesson from these two examples is that I immediately recognized an important pattern in both positions: I had a fianchettoed queen side Bishop, and my opponent’s King was forced to come forward to e2 (or e7). In these kinds of position I know that the Bishop check on a3 or a6 is usually lethal or at least very unpleasant.
I know this pattern, and when it occurs, I don’t have to calculate much because I’m already familiar with the implications. This also means that I never “overlook” a move like Bishop a3: while beginners have to “find” moves like Bishop a3, I already “know” it’s there and can immediately analyze its consequences when this pattern occurs in a game.
This also distinguishes a chess Grandmaster from a strong amateur player like me. A Grandmaster’s knowledge of typical patters greatly exceeds mine, and in many positions a Grandmaster simply “knows” what to do while I have to think about it.
Retroanalysis:
I want to finish this article with a little retroanalytical problem. Typical chess problems ask you to solve questions like “Find Mate in 3” or “How does White win a piece?” Retroanalysis seeks to answer questions about previous events of a chess game. To solve such problems, you don’t have to be a strong player. Basic logic is all you need. For example, in the diagram below the question is
Has at any point a pawn been promoted in this game? The answer to this seemingly impossible question is surprisingly simple. I’ll post it here in my next article. Enjoy~
This is the third in a series of articles about my efforts to teach chess to Pyre, a high-ranking North-American SC2 Grandmaster If you missed the previous parts of this series, you can find them here:
On February 05 2013 00:20 nucLeaRTV wrote: I don't want to be a prick, but why is it called "teach chess to Pyre", because you mainly show us your games and analyze them.
I don't want to be a prick either but you don't seem to be a very careful reader. I am mostly discussing the kind of material that Pyre (and other learners at his level) need to know, and illustrate it with examples from my own games.
I also wrote in "Episode III" that in my next article I would analyze one of Pyre's games, so in about 2 weeks you'll get what you're looking for.
There has been a promotion. Given that white's e and g pawns haven't been moved, white's light-squared bishop couldn't have gotten out. Therefore the white light-squared bishop on the board used to be a pawn. Maybe not the most strategic decision to promote to a bishop, but there you go.
It was only 2 months ago that I started teaching chess to SC2 Grandmaster Pyre. Therefore I was very surprised when he emailed me the following picture:
Pyre won his first trophy at a local high school chess event. Though I realized his talent very quickly, I did not expect him to score so well at over-the-board tournaments so soon. Of course most of the credit belongs to Pyre, but it is very gratifying to see that as his coach I seem to be doing something right, too. I'd like to take this opportunity and take a closer look at the current state of Pyre's game:
Current State of Pyre's Game:
I regularly go through the games Pyre plays on chess.com to look for things that spark my interest. The following six positions I think exemplify Pyre’s recent progress very well, and also indicate where more work needs to be done. Pyre’s account on chess.com is 3hitu. What I find most significant about the following examples is that they show that Pyre has begun transitioning from simply making moves to formulating and executing plans. The very fact that he is already making short-term and long-term plans is significant progress indeed even if some of his plans are ill-advised or tactically flawed. . This kind of progress is far more important than fluctuations in his rating. I really don't care much whether Pyre's rating is 1100, 1200, 1400 or something like that. What I care about is improvements in his game.
In this position Pyre “saw” the hanging rook on d6 and took it. He won the game soon after, but 34. Qg8 checkmate would have been better instead. This is a good – though extreme – illustration of Emanuel Lasker’s recommendation “when you see a good move, look for a better one”. However, this is not just a problem for beginners. I’m very familiar with this kind of mistake, too. I frequently overlook excellent moves after finding a good one. In this example, Pyre’s move didn’t change the outcome of the game. It’s really quite frustrating when it does.
This position is a good example of how Pyre’s ability to formulate and execute plans has increased since the beginning of the year. In this position, he is a pawn down, but has a very strong attack against Black’s king. Pyre played 20.Ng4 which is a move that I am certain he could not have made 2 months ago. The idea behind it is to distract the knight on f6, which is the only defender of h7, where Pyre is threatening mate. I was very pleased indeed when I saw him play 20.Ng4.
In this position, Pyre’s bishop is under attack, and I’m sure that until recently he would have simply retreated it to maybe d4 or f6. In the game however, Pyre played 23.Qh6, threatening mate on c1. An interesting choice I find. I’m not sure if he simply overlooked 23. … Qxh2 or whether he didn’t like the response 24.Qh3. In any case, I was impressed by the fact the he put some thinking into the position and came up with something other than an obvious move with the bishop.
In this position, Pyre got really lucky. Black had sacrificed a knight on g4, and Pyre was imprudent enough to take it. Note to Pyre: In these kinds of positions taking a knight on g4 is almost never a good idea if Black gets an open h-file in return. Mate is usually inevitable. In this case, too. However, Black was too impatient and went for 10. … Qh2+, a useless check that allowed Pyre’s king to slip away via f2. Had Black played 10. … g3! first to block White’s escape route, there’s nothing Pyre could have done to prevent mate on h1. As the great Bobby Fischer said: “Patzer sees a check, patzer plays a check”.
In this position, Pyre has a nice bishop/queen battery on the diagonal b1-h7, and he eventually managed to win the game through an attack on the kingside. This position, however, is significant because both Pyre and his opponent overlooked a great defensive resource for Black. Pyre now played 11.e5, which is the right idea at the wrong time, because it allows Black to play 11. … Nb4!, forking Pyre’s queen and bishop and thereby trading Pyre’s important bishop on d3. So when you line up your pieces on that diagonal, it is important to make a prophylactic move like a3 first to make sure no knight shows up on b4.
This position is from the same game. Pyre now chose to play 19.Kh1 in order to play Ng1 to open the d1-h5 diagonal for the queen, a plan that ultimately resulted in Black’s resignation. Of course this was not a forced sequence. Black could have done several things to prevent this, and Pyre could have found a better way to activate his queen – one without moving the knight in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, I was very pleased when I saw this maneuver because it shows that Pyre is really developing the skills to formulate sensible plans. This is because while one should always look for the best move, from a practical point of view it is equally if not more important to have a realizable plan even if that includes moves that are - objectively speaking - not the best
Bad Manner
Thankfully there is not nearly as much BM in online chess as there is in SC2. However, I noticed there’s a special kind of BM that I frequently encounter when I play someone who's much weaker than me. Here are a few examples:
I'd be curious to know how much BM other chess players have to put up with. In top level chess tournaments rules around BM are very strict and players forfeit their games if they even just refuse to shake hands. This is a clip of the famous handshake incident at the Corus 2008 grandmaster tournament between Nigel Short and Ivan Cheparinov
In my next article in this series I'll take a look at typical salaries of SC2 professionals compared to chess grandmasters. Any SC2 GMs willing to offer their thoughts on this are welcome to contact me. I will also talk a little bit more about the theory behind formulating plans in any given position
This is the fourth in a series of articles about my efforts to teach chess to Pyre, a high-ranking North-American SC2 Grandmaster. If you missed the previous parts of this series, you can find them here:
Really cool. love following this. Now I am really bad at chess and never played it seriously or even in the correct way I guess. What would you (ar any chess player) recommend if I wanted to get started with chess. Best place to start online?
@EG.Idra I agree very much with Idra’s comments that the two main differences between chess and SC2 are real time vs. turn based and perfect vision vs. imperfect vision. However, I think the second point is often misunderstood and needs clarification: In SC2 the fog of war prevents you from seeing what your opponent is doing. But once you scout your opponent, it is usually easy to draw conclusions. For example, if you scan your opponent, and see a robotics bay that is being chrono-boosted, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what your opponent is going to throw at you. In chess, on the other hand, you have perfect vision of what your opponent is doing, but that does not mean you have perfect understanding of what he is up to. It is quite common to misinterpret what you are seeing. Misreading my opponent’s intentions is the reason behind many of my losses in chess.
This is also the reason why I - despite only reaching Top 8 diamond league in SC2 - can perfectly appreciate Code S SC2 games. However, despite being a very strong chess player, I do not understand many grandmaster chess games simply because perfect vision of what’s going on is not enough.
This is very interesting.
I remember Peter Svidler being asked in an interview if chess made him more clever in real life. Most chess player (*cough* Kasparov *cough*) love to explain how life is like a big chess game (and therefore why they should be so badass at it). Svidler, who is really humble and really smart, answered that life is a game of imperfect and uncomplete information, and therefore that the diamond solid logic that one used in chess couldn't be applied in eveyday's life whatsoever.
You mentionned Sherlock Holmes, and that's interesting, because Sherlock Holmes lives in a life of complete and perfect information, which is why it's borderline fantastic (I talk of Conan Doyle's novels, not the atrocious recent movies). "This and this and this means that and that" and everything is in front of your eyes if you are skilled enough to really look. Of course real life is not like that. Nobody could be Sherlock Holmes, not because nobody is smart enough, but because elements of information in life are not univocal and don't have a one string of causality leading at all time to one conclusion.
Starcraft is like real life. You do not have all the informations. It's not even only the fog of war. You do not know the millimetric details of where your units stand and how they are going to fire and you do not know exactly all your timings and exactly what is happening where and how. Just because the game is way too complex.
Let's say that in chess, a pawn is on e4. Well, that's it. It controls d5 and f5 and it can move to e5. Period. The information you get from the board is complete, total, and perfect. Then, you go make the deductions and follow long lines and try to understand what this information means (maybe it means it's time to resign ) Just like Sherlock Holmes. You have all the elements, make the best of it.
In Starcraft, you don't even know where units are standing at all time. You have to assess uncomplete information and deal with the uncompletness. Ok, your opponent probably has 6 zergling and they probably are running around his base and his timing for roaches should be in a minute or so. And your marines, you don't even know either where exactly they are standing unless you stare at them at all time, but hey, you also have to manage your mules, your medivac drop and your supply depots... It's much more like real life where the causality is not always perfectly established between things and event, where you have to judge, and rely a lot on your sheer intuition to really know what is going on. Even Flash, who really was the Carlsen of BW, never played twice the same build. The timings were always a tiny bit different, his unit behaved a little bit differently too. Slight details you don't even notice about, he doesn't even notice about but they are there and will make a difference.
Sorry for the novel, but being a former BW player and a chess maniac, I thought a lot about it. My conclusion ended up being that chess was so much better than Starcraft (no offense, SC is an amazing game and I love it), because this little straightforward material gave a depth that no RTS will ever have. Starcraft is a beautiful, amazing, enjoyable pond. Chess is the ocean.
Good to agree with Idra once in my life. He is a smart kid I believe, even though I never liked his personality.
Episode V: How much money does a chess grandmaster make?
Before I give you guys an update on Pyre’s progress, I want to take a look at salary levels in chess compared to SC2.
First a quick comparison of my chess earnings and Pyre’s SC2 income. Pyre was at some point ranked #1 on the North American grandmaster ladder. I used to be a 2200 ELO chess player. This means that relatively speaking Pyre is much better at SC2 than I am at chess.
I used to play chess semi-competitively for about 10 years until I stopped when I went to university. In those 10 years, I won about $2,500 in prizes. Mostly cash prizes at open tournaments, rapid, blitz or bughouse tournaments. But also many (worthless) chess books, and a digital chess clock. Not bad for a kid in high school, but of course not nearly enough to consider myself a chess “professional”. In fact I am glad that it was always clear to me that my chess wasn’t nearly good enough to pursue a “professional” career.
Pyre has made about $1,000 in SC2 so far. Approximately $800 in prizes (local LANs and WCS) and $200 from coaching. Considering that SC2 only came out in mid-2010, he’s made his money a lot quicker.
Now lets take a look at what’s happening at the very top. The following two screenshots are from SC2earnings.com. I’m sure the numbers are inaccurate but they should still serve as a rough indication of where these people stand financially. According to the site, the figures are the combined earnings of the players from 2010-2013. Click on the images to enlarge.
It is clear that a handful of Korean pro gamers is doing very well. At the same time though, the difference between Korea and North America is quite significant. I think there are a lot of people in the community who will disagree with me here, but I think that in order to consider yourself a “professional” SC2 (or chess for that matter) player, you need to a) play SC2 full-time, and b) make enough money doing it to support yourself financially. So if for example someone makes $12,000/year playing SC2 but still lives at home with his parents, I wouldn’t consider that person a “professional” SC2 player, even though $12,000 is certainly quite a bit of money.
Chess professionals also complain that their sport is underfunded, and FIDE, the world chess federation, is certainly not doing a great job at attracting sponsors.
In her excellent article “Making Money in Chess”, Russian Grandmaster Natalia Pogonina gives the following ballpark figures for chess grandmasters’ earnings:
Global Top 3: >$1 million / year Global Top 10: > $200,000 / year Global Top 50: > $100,000 / year Global Top 100: ~ $50,000 - $70,000 / year
This of course also varies by year because the prize funds available to top players very much depend on the tournament schedule. For example, the prize fund at the 2012 world championship match between Viswanathan Anand and Boris Gelfand (one of the weakest matches in recent history) was $2.55 million, shared something like 65%-35% between winner and loser. Earlier this week, the FIDE candidates tournament kicked off in London to determine a challenger for Viswanathan Anand for the 2013 World Championship later this year. The candidates tournament is an 8 player double round robin tournament with a total prize fund of 510,000 Euro, with 115,000 Euro for first place (and much more at the coming world championship match) and 21,000 Euro for last place.
For winning the World Blitz Championship (a 2-day event), Alexander Grischuk received $40,000.
So at the highest level, chess players make good money. It’s not so easy when you aren’t part of the global top 50 or so. Grandmasters who have to travel the world to play in open tournaments – because they don’t get invited to the prestigious round robin tourneys – have a hard time supporting a family.
This, however, is an exception and most open tournaments offer far less money to the winner. Therefore it isn’t surprising that many chess GMs are forced out of their careers sooner or later. There have been many (mostly second-rate) chess grandmasters over the years who quit their professional chess careers or abandoned the game altogether in favor of other more financially secure activities. Most recently, poker has attracted the attention of quite a few chess GMs, but there are other examples as well:
After several years as one of Western Europe’s strongest chess players, German GM Dr. Helmut Pfleger stopped playing competitive chess in the 1980s to pursue his medical career. The funny thing about Dr. Pfleger (whom I lost to in a simultan exhibition many years ago) is that he looks very much like my dad, dresses like my dad, shares almost the same birthday as my dad, and has the same medical degree. Currently, British GM “Lucky” Luke McShane (just over 2700 ELO) works as a foreign exchange trader in London and plays chess tournaments only when time allows. They call him “Lucky” Luke because in his career he’s had many important games where his opponents overlooked simple wins.
Current State of Pyre’s Game:
Earlier this week Pyre managed to get a 1500 rating on chess.com for the first time! He started playing chess seriously only in January, so this is clearly a pretty impressive result indeed. Congrats, Pyre! And again I must say I’m very satisfied that as his coach I seem to be doing a few things right, too. He’s now set his sights on 1700, and as I argued in one of my previous articles, this is where the real work begins. Since the beginning of the year, Pyre has learned the basics of chess strategy, and he started ridding his game of some fundamental tactical errors. Now we can actually start playing some “real” chess, which is something I am very much looking forward to. In particular, we will be looking at some positional games by Capablanca, Karpov, Steinitz and Lasker.
We’ve also started looking at pawn endings. Knowing just a few principles about basic pawn endings is a good way to noticeably improve one's results. In his seminal work “Beyond Good and Evil” Friedrich Nietzsche warned us that “when you gaze into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you”. I’m always reminded of this when I study pawn endings. Complex pawn endings are incredibly difficult and very often when I sit down to analyze them I realize that the more I look into them, the less certain I become about my judgment until at the very end I seem to doubt even my most basic conclusions. I’ll most certainly devote a future article to pawn endings.
Scene from the 2008 World Championship between Vladimir Kramnik and Viswanathan Anand
Here are a few positions from Pyre’s recent games that allow some interesting observations:
The avid reader of this blog will remember that Pyre's account on chess.com is 3hitu
I noticed that sometimes Pyre is shell-shocked and throws away games when things don’t go as planned and the opponent suddenly plays some tactical shocker. For example:
In position 1, Black has just captured a knight on g3. Pyre probably thought that the knight was protected, but realized too late that due to the pin and Black’s bishop on c5 the pawn on f2 can’t recapture on g3. Therefore, Pyre resigned, probably frustrated over this “blunder”. However, he overlooked that White can simply play d3-d4. This breaks the pin and attacks the bishop on c5 so that White is going to get the piece back. In position 2, Black has just played Nc2, and at first glance it appears as if White’s going to lose an exchange. Pyre seemed to think so too because he lost his head and took on a7 in desperate search for some sort of compensation. However, he could have easily salvaged the situation by playing Nd4 instead, forking Black’s queen and knight, thereby forcing the exchange of the two knights. This would have allowed Pyre to continue the game. Up to this point he’d held his ground against a much stronger opponent pretty well. The lesson from these two examples is that one shouldn’t give up too easily when something unexpected happens, for example overlooking some sort of tactical threat. It’s tempting to just give in to shock and frustration and simply resign the game, but with a cool head it is sometimes possible to save seemingly lost positions.
In this position we have a pawn race on our hands. Pyre’s problem is that White’s pawn is one tempo ahead. In this position Pyre played the very dangerous move Kd5 to support the advance of his pawn. It’s the right idea, however, unless it is absolutely necessary (and here it is not) one should NEVER put one’s king on a square that allows the opponent to promote a pawn with check. It didn’t matter in this particular case, but it is advisable to avoid this risk altogether. In this position for example by playing Kc5-d4 etc.
This is one of my favorite games of Pyre so far. In position 1, he’s clearly lost. There’s nothing he can do to stop Black’s distant passed pawns on the queenside. However, in this position Pyre tried a final trick and played Nf6!, inviting Black to take the knight. If Black simply ignores the knight on f6 and plays a5-a4-a3 etc., Pyre’s position is hopeless. However, Black took the knight and in doing so gave Pyre two dangerous passed pawns. A few moves later they reached Position 2 which was Black’s last chance to draw the game. After … Ng4+! Pyre played Kh8, threatening g7+. Black found the only move … Nf7+!, but after Pyre’s response Kh7 he played … d2?? and resigned after g7+. If Black plays the knight back to g5 with check instead, he’d draw by perpetual check because White is forced to move his King between h7 and h7. If White takes the knight on f7, his pawns are blocked and Black can promote his d-pawn. If White plays Kh6 in response to Nf7+, Black wins a tempo to play d2 because g7+ is no longer a threat. Obviously both players didn’t fully understand this position, but nevertheless Pyre’s move Nf6! was very clever and for that move alone I think he deserved to win the game. I was very impressed when I saw this game.
And one example from my own games:
This probably won’t come as a surprise to a StarCraft 2 audience, but in chess it is typically favorable to have the initiative. In many cases, it is even recommended to sacrifice material in order to (re)-gain it. As an illustration look at position 1 below: My position is clearly worse. I’m a pawn down, my queenside is falling apart, and I’m not sure how much longer I can hold on to the d2-pawn. On the other hand, the position of Black’s king has been compromised, and my knight would be very strong on f5 indeed. Therefore, instead of defending a hopeless position, I decided to launch a counter-attack and much to my surprise after moves like Nh4 and Qg4+ we reached Position 2 rather quickly, with Black’s king spectacularly mated in the middle of the board.
In all seriousness though, teaching chess to Pyre has clearly shown me how lacking my chess has become over the years. I know I'm still a pretty good player, but not being as good as I once was is pretty frustrating. I’m not sure if I’ll ever achieve it, but I would like to take a shot at 2300 ELO at some point. At the very least though, teaching chess to Pyre has rekindled my interest in the game, and I haven't felt this excited about chess in a long time.
This is the fifth in an ongoing series of articles about my efforts to teach chess to Pyre, a high-ranking North-American SC2 Grandmaster. If you missed the previous parts of this series, you can find the links here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=12559188
@EG.Idra I agree very much with Idra’s comments that the two main differences between chess and SC2 are real time vs. turn based and perfect vision vs. imperfect vision. However, I think the second point is often misunderstood and needs clarification: In SC2 the fog of war prevents you from seeing what your opponent is doing. But once you scout your opponent, it is usually easy to draw conclusions. For example, if you scan your opponent, and see a robotics bay that is being chrono-boosted, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what your opponent is going to throw at you. In chess, on the other hand, you have perfect vision of what your opponent is doing, but that does not mean you have perfect understanding of what he is up to. It is quite common to misinterpret what you are seeing. Misreading my opponent’s intentions is the reason behind many of my losses in chess.
This is also the reason why I - despite only reaching Top 8 diamond league in SC2 - can perfectly appreciate Code S SC2 games. However, despite being a very strong chess player, I do not understand many grandmaster chess games simply because perfect vision of what’s going on is not enough.
This is very interesting.
I remember Peter Svidler being asked in an interview if chess made him more clever in real life. Most chess player (*cough* Kasparov *cough*) love to explain how life is like a big chess game (and therefore why they should be so badass at it). Svidler, who is really humble and really smart, answered that life is a game of imperfect and uncomplete information, and therefore that the diamond solid logic that one used in chess couldn't be applied in eveyday's life whatsoever.
You mentionned Sherlock Holmes, and that's interesting, because Sherlock Holmes lives in a life of complete and perfect information, which is why it's borderline fantastic (I talk of Conan Doyle's novels, not the atrocious recent movies). "This and this and this means that and that" and everything is in front of your eyes if you are skilled enough to really look. Of course real life is not like that. Nobody could be Sherlock Holmes, not because nobody is smart enough, but because elements of information in life are not univocal and don't have a one string of causality leading at all time to one conclusion.
Starcraft is like real life. You do not have all the informations. It's not even only the fog of war. You do not know the millimetric details of where your units stand and how they are going to fire and you do not know exactly all your timings and exactly what is happening where and how. Just because the game is way too complex.
Let's say that in chess, a pawn is on e4. Well, that's it. It controls d5 and f5 and it can move to e5. Period. The information you get from the board is complete, total, and perfect. Then, you go make the deductions and follow long lines and try to understand what this information means (maybe it means it's time to resign ) Just like Sherlock Holmes. You have all the elements, make the best of it.
In Starcraft, you don't even know where units are standing at all time. You have to assess uncomplete information and deal with the uncompletness. Ok, your opponent probably has 6 zergling and they probably are running around his base and his timing for roaches should be in a minute or so. And your marines, you don't even know either where exactly they are standing unless you stare at them at all time, but hey, you also have to manage your mules, your medivac drop and your supply depots... It's much more like real life where the causality is not always perfectly established between things and event, where you have to judge, and rely a lot on your sheer intuition to really know what is going on. Even Flash, who really was the Carlsen of BW, never played twice the same build. The timings were always a tiny bit different, his unit behaved a little bit differently too. Slight details you don't even notice about, he doesn't even notice about but they are there and will make a difference.
Sorry for the novel, but being a former BW player and a chess maniac, I thought a lot about it. My conclusion ended up being that chess was so much better than Starcraft (no offense, SC is an amazing game and I love it), because this little straightforward material gave a depth that no RTS will ever have. Starcraft is a beautiful, amazing, enjoyable pond. Chess is the ocean.
Good to agree with Idra once in my life. He is a smart kid I believe, even though I never liked his personality.
@ aintthatfunny, Musicus, pedrlz: Thanks! I appreciate the feedback! I'm glad you like the articles, I'll keep them coming.
@ Biff the Understudy: I very much agree with you that all these claims that chess is like life are really stupid. For example, Kasparov's famous book "How Life Imitates Chess" is nonsense. The comparisons he makes in the book are so general that they could easily be made about any other game as well. In fact most of Kasparov's books that aren't about the actual game of chess are kind of weak.
Regarding your comments about Sherlock Holmes (I've read all short stories and novels many times because they're just wonderful; my favorite is the Hound of the Baskervilles) I'd say that Sherlock Holmes does not have perfect information when he solves the crimes. He's just extremely good at drawing conclusions from the very limited data he has.
Episode VI - How to Analyze a Position and Formulate a Plan:
A critical skill for any chess player to have is the ability to accurately and systematically analyze positions. During a chess game it is very tempting to just look at "interesting" moves or randomly start calculating variations. This approach however, will almost always neglect the deeper positional characteristics of a position. And unless you're playing blitz, this will also make it hard to make good use of the time allotted to you.
Therefore, now that we have covered some of the basic tactical elements in chess, in our last lesson I taught Pyre a more systematic way to analyze a position, and form a plan based on the results of the analysis.
There are many good books about this topic. I think eventually I'll post a list of useful resources for beginners and novices. The approach I was taught many years ago by my first chess coach is based on Karpov and Mazukevich's recommendations in their book "Find the Right Plan". By the way I think this is a book that does not get the attention it deserves.
The basic idea is that in order to choose the right course of action, a chess player must first have a good understanding of the current position. This will not only make it easier to select a good plan, it will also help identifying candidate moves.
According to Karpov and Mazukevich, to get a good understanding of any given position, a player must look at each of the following 7 evaluation criteria:
1. Material Balance 2. Immediate Threats 3. King Safety 4. Open Files 5. Pawn Structure, Strong and Weak Squares 6. Center and Space 7. Development and Coordination among minor and major pieces
This analysis does not need to be performed after every move, but it has to be done regularly. For example, a player could form the habit of doing this after move 10, 20, 30, 40 etc. This analysis should also be done whenever the position on the board changes dramatically, for example after a player sacrifices material.
After discussing these principles in general terms, Pyre and I looked at an example to practice this approach. We analyzed the game between Boris Gelfand and Vassily Ivanchuk from the 2013 Canadidates Tournament in London, which had been played earlier the same day. The players reached the following position after Gelfand's 17th move Ng5:
Gelfand-Ivanchuk at the 2013 FIDE Candidates Tournament in London 2013; position after 17. Ng5
We tried to to come up with a good plan for Black. As the first step, we analyzed the position through the lens of the 7 evaluation criteria:
1. Material Balance: the material balance is even. The only difference is that White has the bishop pair and a knight while Black has two knights an a bishop. 2. Immediate Threats: neither side has any immediate tactical or positional threats. 3. King Safety: Both kings are fairly safe. Black and White have castled queenside which means that neither side can easily launch a pawn storm on the opponent. Due to the missing c-pawn, White's king is a little bit more exposed, but this will probably not have a significant impact on the game. 4. Open Files: There are no open files in this position. White has the half-open c- and g-files available to him and could potentially double up rooks on either of them. Black currently controls the half-open d-file. 5. Pawn Structure, Strong and Weak Squares: Despite the double pawn on the f-file, White has the better pawn structure. He doesn't have any potentially weak pawns. At the same time his pawns control many important central squares. White has strong squares on e5 and g5, and possibly c5 even though Black can control that square with a pawn if necessary. F3 is a weak square though it is currently not easy for Black to place a piece there. White's pawn structure also does not have any real weaknesses. Black on the other hand has (somewhat) strong squares on e4 and d5, but also several weak squares: e5, g5 and g6 are permanently weak, and c5 can only be controlled if Black is willing to compromise his queenside pawn structure. The backward pawn on g7 is weak and in an endgame the pawns on e6 and h4 are potential weaknesses as well. 6. Center and Space: The center is closed. White has a slightly more solid pawn mass in the center while Black's minor pieces better control the central squares. Neither side has an obvious space advantage. Both Black and White have more mobility on the queen side than the king side. 7. Development and Coordination among minor and major pieces: Both sides have completed their development. The white knight on the strong square g5 looks impressive, but it is unclear what role it serves there. This in fact may be a good example that a "strong" square isn't necessarily also a "useful" square. White also has the bishop pair. The bishop on c4 is very strong indeed, indirectly targeting the Black's weak pawn on e6. The bishop could also pin Black's knight on c6, which could be very unpleasant for Black indeed, especially if White doubles up in the half-open c-file. However, White's main problem and in fact the defining characteristic of this position is the bad bishop on h2. The bishop doesn't contribute anything to White's game, and activating or exchanging it will require a lot of time.
Formulating a Plan: After this in-depth analysis of the position, we started formulating a plan for Black. In my opinion assessing the 7 evaluation criteria is the easier part. It is more difficult to come to the right conclusion what the analysis of these criteria means, and which of the criteria are more important than others in any given position. For example, is it more important that White has the better pawn structure in this position, or that Black has two knights, which in a closed position such as this one should be favorable? It takes a lot of skill and experience to draw the right conclusions from the analysis. However, for Pyre's purposes it isn't important to get it right 100% all the time. In fact, even grandmasters regularly get this kind of analysis wrong. The point is that if Pyre learns to do this analysis regularly and systematically, he'll be able to take his chess to the next level. In this example the critical point is to realize that White's bad bishop on h2 is the single most important characteristic of the position. Basic chess strategy recommends that when one of your opponent's pieces is - temporarily or permanently - locked out of the game, the right course of action is typically opening up the game on the other side of the board because that is where in essence your opponent will be a piece down. In this position Black can achieve that by playing c7-c5, ideally after bringing the rooks over to the c-file. The thrust c7-c5 opens the position without exposing Black's king too much.
The game ended in a draw because as so often Ivanchuk ended up in time trouble and couldn't convert the very promising position he achieved after opening the game on the queenside. However, for the purpose of this exercise it isn't necessary to analyze the remainder of the game. The important point was to do an in-depth analysis of a given position with Pyre, which is something we'll keep doing going forward.
A Word about Vassily Ivanchuk:
To me, Vassily Ivanchuk is the MarineKingPrime of the chess world. "Chucky" as he's called is one of the most brilliant players on the chess circuit, and has been a dominant force at the top level for many years. However, his inability to keep his nerves under control has prevented him from ever being a serious contender for the world championship title, or win more top level tournaments. In the 2013 Candidates tournament alone he's already lost 3 games on time.
Despite his volatile performance, Ivanchuk is one of the very few players who, on a good day, can beat anybody, including Carlsen, Anand, and the rock-solid Kramnik.
All of this is very reminiscent of MarineKingPrime who clearly has the skills to win MLGs but rarely does so because - among other things - it seems he is a little too emotional and nervous.
The following clip is from a chess olympiad match between Ivanchuk and Kramnik:
I'd be nervous too if I was playing Vladimir Kramnik, though 2700 ELO Super GMs typically play their moves a little more confidently than Ivanchuk does here.
Nevertheless, Ivanchuk is a fan favorite, and I have great admiration and respect for his creative chess, too!
Here's the latest article in my "Teaching Chess to a Starcraft 2 Grandmaster" series. In the article, I compare BM in SC2 and online chess, there are some surprising differences.
Based on feedback I have already received I'll publish a slightly updated version of the article here on TL soon.
There are two big tournaments that I am currently following with great interest: the IEM World Championship in Katowice, the culmination of the Starcraft 2 Intel Extreme Masters Season VIII; and the FIDE Candidates Tournament 2014, the winner of which gets the right to challenge world chess champion Magnus Carlsen to a match for the title later this year.
One thing I noticed is that the distribution of the prize money differs greatly between the two tournaments. At IEM Katowice, the winner gets $100,000 while all other 15 players including 2nd and 3rd place get nothing. The Fide Candidates Tournament distributes the prize fund of 600,000 EUROs (~ $832,000) more evenly. The winner gets 135,000 Euros, and last place still receives 25,000 Euros. The tournament is a 3-week commitment though. The winner, of course, also gets the right to challenge Magnus Carlsen for the world chess championship. The loser of that match is going to receive at least another $500,000. In other words, winning the FIDE Candidates Tournament is worth $675,000 easily. So in a sense the tournament is pretty top-heavy, too. However, even 25,000 Euros for last place is not bad at all for 3 weeks worth of work. And participation in this tournament most certainly increases a player's market value. I am not sure if that's true to the same extent for the SC2 tournament.
I just googled "SC2 dying" and got 422,000 hits. I have always thought that this "bullshit" about "SC2 dying" is largely just people bashing the game, trying to turn this into a self-fulfilling prophecy. At the same time though I don't understand the reason behind this extremely top-heavy prize fund. It seems to me that a vibrant professional SC2 community is in the best interest of Blizzard and all sponsors (like Intel) that try to make money by selling products and services to the community. The more buzz there is in the professional community, the more exciting the big tournaments are to watch for fans like me, and the more exposure sponsors get for their products. But by making these tournaments so extremely top-heavy in their prize money distribution, the organizers make it very difficult for almost all SC2 professionals to continue staying in the game. I check teamliquid.net about once a week, and whenever I do, there seems to be a new story about a pro gamer retiring, usually citing a combination of lack of interest and financial reasons.
Another - slightly less important reason - why I think the distribution of the prize money in Katowice is wrong is that there is such a big element of chance involved in winning a major SC2 tournament. Luck of the draw, a constantly changing map pool, patches, technical difficulties such as lag are just some of the factors beyond the skill of the players that have a huge impact on the outcome of the tournament, and that turn the whole event into a lottery to some extent. If skill is just one of many factors (though arguably still the most important), it doesn't make sense to me to reward only one player for getting through all the "randomness" of the tournament. If the IEM tournament was to be held again in 4 weeks, the winner could very well be someone else. If the FIDE Candidates Tourney was to be played again, the winner would most likely be the same.
And I'm not convinced that any player is going to try harder in a winner-takes-all format, no matter how much the casters hype this tournament.