|
On October 04 2009 04:14 Klive5ive wrote: Kasparov is one of the greatest geniuses of the 21st century. Jaedong... is a Starcraft player. Let's not lose too much perspective here please. yup this is a ridiculous comparison.
|
On October 05 2009 01:08 IMlemon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2009 14:51 DamageControL wrote:On October 04 2009 13:44 ssj114 wrote:On October 04 2009 13:34 jfazz wrote:Interesting read, but the two can't be compared. Kasparov was on top for so ridiculously long, and he was so far ahead of the competition it's not even comparable to Jaedong Dont forget about karpov during the formative years, and Kramnik during the later. Anand as well had a good record (not positive though) against Kasparov. While he was dominant, nothing was ever certain, and he had many tough rivals throughout his whole career. I think the real question is who cares about the players less out of KESPA and FIDE? Dude, Kasparov had 2800+ ELO consistently - perhaps the equivalent of ELO 2300+ in TLPD. When I say "consistently", I mean he maintained that ELO for years. Not for a few weeks, not for a few months, not for a couple of years...but several years! Kasparov dominated chess for so long, and maintained his world no.1 status for 20 years or so. Let's see Jaedong try to do that LOL! The fact that Starcraft 1 will die soon just makes this comparison very silly (but it's still rather entertaining LOL). Starcraft has been played for 11 years. Chess has been played for 1100 years (more actually LOL). Kasparov is too good. LOL Chess in its current incarnation has not been played for that long. LOL. But that's a technicality. Obviously it is a game with much more history, and a greater capacity for longevity. However, LOL, Kasparov's reign should be held with those standards in mind. That is, we must consider that it is easier to reign that long in chess than it is in Starcraft. The entire scene of starcraft LOL moves at a quicker pace due to an incredibly high rate of games being played between top players and a larger gap between the current game and perfect play. Easier to dominate in chess? Honestly? You can win in starcraft by just moving faster, you don't have to out-think your opponent. Chess is a game of pure mental strugle between two players however, and that alone makes it more competetive. And really, do you have ANY idea how much effort it takes to become a grandmaster?A whole - fucking - lot. A top one? I'd rather not think about it. Do you take me for an idiot? Well you obviously do. I agree dominating in chess is difficult. I agree reaching the top is nigh impossible. But staying at the top for a truly long time is easier than it is in Starcraft because of the pace of the world. The chess world does not move as quickly as the starcraft one.
"Chess is a game of pure mental strugle between two players however, and that alone makes it more competetive." Why? Explain this point.
By the way, I'm not saying it's easier to dominate in chess. I actually think it's harder. I'm merely saying that do not be fooled by the look-at-how-long-Kasparov-dominated argument.
|
On October 05 2009 01:49 Mobius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2009 04:14 Klive5ive wrote: Kasparov is one of the greatest geniuses of the 21st century. Jaedong... is a Starcraft player. Let's not lose too much perspective here please. yup this is a ridiculous comparison. Rofl at the people calling Kasparov one of the great geniuses of the 21st century ~~ He was really good at playing a game, nothing more. Good for him though (and the people who got to watch him) Personally I am perfectly happy with comparing jaedongs talent for starcraft with kasparovs talent for chess. Kasparov probably coming out ahead though.
|
Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was.
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
|
|
Russian Federation1208 Posts
Starcraft is a real-time strategy and chess is a turn-based game, how can you compare them?
|
On October 05 2009 02:01 DamageControL wrote:Do you take me for an idiot? Well you obviously do. I agree dominating in chess is difficult. I agree reaching the top is nigh impossible. But staying at the top for a truly long time is easier than it is in Starcraft because of the pace of the world. The chess world does not move as quickly as the starcraft one.
"Chess is a game of pure mental strugle between two players however, and that alone makes it more competetive." Why? Explain this point.
By the way, I'm not saying it's easier to dominate in chess. I actually think it's harder. I'm merely saying that do not be fooled by the look-at-how-long-Kasparov-dominated argument.
Cool down mate.
The comparison between Starcraft and Chess already doesn't quite make sense. Firstly, we must look at the context.
How many people in the world play Starcraft professionally? Let's say it's "5000". Possibly 90% of these 5000 people are all in South Korea. That's already a problem in itself when you want to start comparing Starcraft to Chess. How many chess schools/training dorms are there? I'd bet over 90% of these are also only found in South Korea.
Now lets look at Chess. How many play Chess professionally? I'd say there are many more than "5000", perhaps even "50,000". And they come from all parts of the world.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? Chess is more of an international "game" than Starcraft, and there are far more people playing Chess than Starcraft. This statistically makes it much harder to dominate in Chess than Starcraft.
The fact is that Kasparov held his no.1 ranking (based on ELO) for 20 years or so. He managed to maintain it despite new computer technology bringing about new ways to learn. He adapted so well, it's not even funny. He managed to defeat several generations of top chess players. Sure, he lost to Kramnik in one match (he only lost 2 games by the way), but how many BO3s and BO5s has Jaedong lost himself?
As you can see, it's a bit ridiculous to make the comparison. However, as I stated before, it doesn't make it any less fun!
EDIT: by the way, Kasparov was no.1 in ELO for a duration of 20 years, which is longer than Jaedong has been alive. LOL.
|
On October 05 2009 06:39 jfazz wrote: Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was. why is it MORE genius than starcraft though?
|
|
On October 05 2009 07:53 Surrealistic wrote: i could take kasparov
I beat him in his prime.
|
lol Kasparov doesn't have Lomo to give him a pat in the back whenever he loses a game so ya, Jaedong wins.
|
Seriously? Having played wacraft3 as a semi-pro, and playing chess at near master level I suppose I can offer a limited explanation, with the first antecedent that yes, SC is harder to master than WC3. With that as a given, it is simply easier to pick up and learn RTS games as a child, than it is to learn chess. Why? The amount of calculation required.
Having recently learned SC to C level (in under 2 months), my approach basically focussed upon reading liquipedia then playing the game. Every game I lose, I take notes on, identifying the causitive reasons for the loss, and do my best to remove them. Sometimes, I need to scout more, other times I need to stop droning earlier etc etc. But really, with another 6 months, I can probably make B level if I keep trying, by simply appling the same process. Lets say after a year of playing, im a B level player - not too difficult a stretch of the imagination. This makes me a very strong player overall, ridiculously strong. While I cannot compete with professionals, who are all super-GM equivalents, since we are making comparisons to chess, I would at least be a strong master, maybe even an international master. All within a year... When playing SC, I dont need to think very far ahead at all. Infact, my comitting good mechanics to memory, most of my thinking is done before the game (eg; if I scout an early gas vs T, build a sunken at 17, put down a hydra den before lairtech) and ingame by decisions are more about how heavily to go macro. If I can get an advantage, I know what needs to be done; secure an expo, scout for hidden enemy expos, and counter potential comeback attempts. Basically, I dont have to think much, because well, playing at 250+APM, I dont have much time to think. SC, and RTS in general, at least the good ones, is about being prepared and able to perform functions at high speed. It is for a reason that JD is the most dominant player (he has the best mechanics), yet he often, indeed regularly falls down when presented with a problem outside his pregame prep (fantasy at the 08/09 PL finals). SC is a game of mechanics.
Comparing my chess life, we I have played casually since I was 6. I was never one for heavy study or practice at a young age, I have only ever played for fun. Same was with computer games really. Now, 15 years later, I play just below master level. So im a great player, but just not against serious opposition (same as been top of bnet in SC really). To get to this point, I have spent thousands of hours playing, reading and talking about chess. Its hard work. I have written thesis length notes of my favourite openenings and defences (im a 1.d4 into catalan, queen's gambit or french defence player as white, and a staunch nimzo/queen's indian + caro-kann player as black...yes, I do like Karpov and Kramnik a lot). Despite this massive amount of work, I havent even reached the lowest level of mastery of the game, something players like Kramnik managed at like 11 years of age. Super-GM by 17...to be a great chess player, you need th epregame stuff just liek you do in SC. However, unlike SC, chess doesnt reward you for simply being faster than your opponent (at least, not nearly as noticably, especially given the frequency of GM draws). You must out think them. Often involves this thinking 5+ moves ahead, as well as accurately assessing the form of the pawn structure, where the energy of the pieces lies, what squares are weak and strong, whether or knights or bishops are more favorable in the current terrain, perhaps an exchange sacrifice might be ideal, as well as a whole range of sacrifices for the initiative, attacking opportunities or even mating threats. This all needs to be constantly calculated, which is not only incredibly difficult to do with any degree of accuracy, but it is also extremely fatiguing. A 4 hour game of chess (under standard, classical time controls) is brutal. The mental effort required to play chess at the highest level is simply ridiculous.
My point about genius is thus equally simple. As a game of mechanics, SC is more accessible to younger kids. They might not readily understand the concepts, but if they are shown the way, shown the reasons and effects, they can readily appreciate it. I have taught the younger siblings of friends to win at WC3 (they wanted to beat their school friends), and it is amazing how quickly non-gifted children can pick up an RTS. While SC is clearly harder, the same logic applies. They are games of economy, a concept everyone is exposed to and appreciates every day.
Chess on the other hand, due to the huge requirements for calculation and preparedness, is not accessible to children at all. Thats what makes child chess prodigies truly magical, they have a greater than even adult level to process information at high speed, with alarming accuracy. Its something the simply should not be able to do, because their child minds are not yet fully developed, and hence should not be able to function at that capacity. They dont grasp everything, and you only need to play in a youth vs experience tournament to see that (sadly, these days, im on the experience side as an aging 21 year old playing against upcoming 10 year olds) the higher level concepts are beyond them. But the capacity for calculation makes up for that - they only need to round out their skillset and they will soon be GMs.
Its simply not like that in SC, where the closest example, Flash, while more creative than the norm, is mostly a mechanical player. Boxer is the most chess like in his approach to SC, but his mechanics are weak compared to modern players and thus he loses. SC's emphasis on speed over the mind is why chess is more genius, because in chess, you have to be a genius to be the best, but in SC you can get by just being fast (and there are too many examples I can give here, just choose your favourite high mechanics, low creativity player).
And yes, this means for me, SC is closer to being an actual sport than chess is, due to that physical requirement for speed and stamina.
|
On October 04 2009 08:23 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2009 07:38 0neder wrote:On October 04 2009 04:14 Klive5ive wrote: Kasparov is one of the greatest geniuses of the 21st century. Jaedong... is a Starcraft player. Let's not lose too much perspective here please. Kasparov was a great critical thinker who was great at a game. Jaedong is a great critical thinker who is great at a game. Let's not lose too much perspective here please. what perspective is being lost? kasparov's mastery of chess much more akin to genius than jaedong's ability to play a computer game.
I'm not disputing the degree of dominance here. Kasparov obviously wins in that category. I'm saying that they play both play games of critical thinking and strategy and are very successful. One thing to consider is that Starcraft requires much faster-paced decision making than chess.
I'd still take Boxer as a general of my army any day, though.
|
On October 05 2009 08:19 nayumi wrote: lol Kasparov doesn't have Lomo to give him a pat in the back whenever he loses a game so ya, Jaedong wins. LOL haha
|
I does not believing you is compraing CHEST PLAYER with SC PLAYERS. This be not good for anybooy but yourselfs. Why is you doing these things. So disgustings!!!!!
|
On October 05 2009 07:09 ssj114 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 02:01 DamageControL wrote:Do you take me for an idiot? Well you obviously do. I agree dominating in chess is difficult. I agree reaching the top is nigh impossible. But staying at the top for a truly long time is easier than it is in Starcraft because of the pace of the world. The chess world does not move as quickly as the starcraft one.
"Chess is a game of pure mental strugle between two players however, and that alone makes it more competetive." Why? Explain this point.
By the way, I'm not saying it's easier to dominate in chess. I actually think it's harder. I'm merely saying that do not be fooled by the look-at-how-long-Kasparov-dominated argument. Cool down mate. The comparison between Starcraft and Chess already doesn't quite make sense. Firstly, we must look at the context. How many people in the world play Starcraft professionally? Let's say it's "5000". Possibly 90% of these 5000 people are all in South Korea. That's already a problem in itself when you want to start comparing Starcraft to Chess. How many chess schools/training dorms are there? I'd bet over 90% of these are also only found in South Korea. Now lets look at Chess. How many play Chess professionally? I'd say there are many more than "5000", perhaps even "50,000". And they come from all parts of the world. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Chess is more of an international "game" than Starcraft, and there are far more people playing Chess than Starcraft. This statistically makes it much harder to dominate in Chess than Starcraft. The fact is that Kasparov held his no.1 ranking (based on ELO) for 20 years or so. He managed to maintain it despite new computer technology bringing about new ways to learn. He adapted so well, it's not even funny. He managed to defeat several generations of top chess players. Sure, he lost to Kramnik in one match (he only lost 2 games by the way), but how many BO3s and BO5s has Jaedong lost himself? As you can see, it's a bit ridiculous to make the comparison. However, as I stated before, it doesn't make it any less fun! EDIT: by the way, Kasparov was no.1 in ELO for a duration of 20 years, which is longer than Jaedong has been alive. LOL. Sorry if I lost my cool.
My point is length is less impressive than it sounds comparatively. Of course its harder to get to the top but it's easier to last a long time. One year is a reasonably quite a long time to be good in SC. Two or three puts you among the greatest ever. But in chess those are relatively brief reigns.
I'm actually think that Kasparov is the greater champion. Of course he is. And I think chess is a game that is more difficult to be the best in. Again, of course. My argument is that Chess reigns will naturally by longer than SC reigns, even ones with "comparable" (or as comparable as the two get, anyways) dominant periods.
|
|
@jfazz: really well written, and thanks for that. I agree that Starcraft is more of a sport than Chess is. On the other hand, Chess is more of a science than Starcraft is.
@Wr3k: You may find Chess boring, but I bet Kasparov himself finds Starcraft boring too LOL. I bet every single one of us here know at least 10 people (that they can name instantly) that find Starcraft boring etc.
|
On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me
Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch...
|
|
|
|