Re: Mid dm
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:36 pm
Well those are simply strategies. RTS games have their own sorts of strategies, such as rush, boom, and slide, that are more comparable to what you pointed out.
1) Those are strategies, and the preferred strategies of the mentioned players. i.e. their playstyletaco wrote:in reference to ur chess to paper sissors rock.
u have 3 kinds of players:
-Positional guy. A solid player with a great positional understanding. Maneuvering, finding the right spots for his pieces, creating minor weaknesses – that is his cup of coffee. Unless he blunders something, you will most probably end up being strangled by his powerful chess grasp. Example: Kramnik.
-tactical guy. Hot, impatient, “attack-attack-attack.” He likes sacrifices, open positions with lots of tactical shots in the air, double-edged games. Always aims for the king, often succeeds, sometimes ends up in a wrecked position and down material. Example: Chigorin.
-Calculator. A universal player who is a nerveless killer trying to find the best move in every position. He sees very many moves ahead and uses this to his advantage. Traps, tricky combinations, unpredictable moves. Oops, where did your knight go? The only problem for such people is that they are not chess engines. They still make mistakes, their calculations are not always perfect. Example: Kasparov
as you can see chess does relate to paper sissors rock, and those 3 famous chess players and the way in which they do further supports this notion.
2) You seem to have omitted at least the following from your chess analogy, the defense-oriented player (i.e. Petrosian). You could also arguably say you omitted people obsessed with minor aspects of the game, like Janowski as well... Et cetera...
Plus, I'd say a lot of the distinctions in playstyle you mention really don't apply... For example, everyone good at chess, no matter what their playstyle, is thinking a lot of moves ahead before doing anything. Either way, the way playstyle is defined is pretty arbitrary--you can easily identify a bunch of different player types, and pick any number you want equal or smaller to than the number of identified types, then rationalize how it's really just n types becuase [insert types here] are really subsets of [insert other type here].
Furthermore, different playstyles existing has nothing to do with rock-paper-scissors countering, because even in games that are almost purely rock-paper-scissors those playstyles WILL emerge. For an OK example of this, imagine a Mod Dm on EE where players are only allowed to make leopard tanks, marines, and AT guns, and are not allowed to make towers or mine resources, and are all forced to use the same generic civilization. You're STILL going to see AT LEAST two different playstyles emerge... Defense-oriented ('the turtle') and offense-oriented ('the attacker'), and it's going to have NOTHING to do with the RPS balance relationship between the listed units. Furthermore, the playstyles that emerge don't necessarily mean that one person beats another although they can have bearing on it depending on the gametype (for example, imperial w/ resources to build walls at the start small islands medium map 1v1s with no reveal map or no rush... the turtle wins. ALWAYS.), they don't usually have such a strong influence in things, especially in good games, that they decide who wins.