Chess and Outwitters

Alvendor · (This post was last modified: 12-13-2012 11:23 AM by Alvendor.)

(12-13-2012 10:08 AM)Alvendor Wrote:
(12-12-2012 11:10 AM)Necrocat219 Wrote:
(12-12-2012 04:07 AM)The RawkHawk Wrote: I think this link is very related to this discussion and Outwitters in general:

Perfect Imbalance

I think it's a very interesting video to watch as a competitive chess player...

If you one day get the inspiration to write a post about the differences and similarities of Outwitter and competitive chess, I for one would love that!
I imagine there could be some insights regarding how chess players practice? Do you feel your chess skills translate? Any tips how to practice thinking several moves in advance etc etc..

(12-13-2012 10:14 AM)Coolio Wrote: I used to play chess in school and won a local tournament too! So why am I not good at outwitters!! >.<

(12-13-2012 10:54 AM)Necrocat219 Wrote: To be completely honest I never directly thought about how I applied my chess knowledge to Outwitters, it's just been instinct as I've been playing it since I was 9. I theory crafted various things such as how can I guarantee I get better off from capturing a wit space and counting wits and thinking ahead. In particular I've been wanting to write about threatening to checkmate in Outwitters but never got the motivation to. Brainstorming a few things off the top of my head I can think of a few things to cover already, I'm a bit tired at the moment though so I'll do it when I have time, only done threatening checkmate so far. Also criticize me, reading back on the checkmate part it looks like I talked about chess too much:

-Planning turns ahead- Predicting opponent's spawned units, position of medic, guessing who will attack first and how your opponent could attack or defend, using what you know to guess what you don't know. Work in progress.

Mastering Opening moves Might not be worth covering as everybody learns this anyway.

How many 'useful' turns (Wits) you have and how to play when winning and losing Snipers win games, threaten anything that moves. Work in progress.

Basic piece value Why killing the medic with a 1hp runner is almost always good for you, am I losing because my opponent is using their heavy and I'm not, which of your opponents units are worth most and which are worth least (e.g. which soldier should I target?)

-Threat of checkmate- Most the time in chess you end up following the same 'rules' of making your pieces as useful as possible, making your opponents pieces as useless as possible and through making good exchanges with your opponent. However the some of the most satisfying moves in chess are not checkmates themselves but seeing and creating a threat to checkmate your opponent that stops them from having control over what exchanges they make, (e.g. taking a rook with a Queen that was defended by a bishop and the bishop not being able to take back as it moving allows a checkmate to happen) Suddenly you break free from the mindset of the game and flip the game upside down, setting yourself up to gain a massive advantage over your opponent.

In Outwitters I feel that this even more crucial for top level play as you can not only threaten the base but threatening to capture an opponents wit space, block the spawn and threatening to get that scrambler bombshell or sniper in that perfect place. The perfect example is threatening to slip your soldier behind the base. What would usually be a wasteful move moving your soldier away from battle now becomes a threat of checkmate. Are you going to deal with my army or my one soldier that will end the game if you don't attack it?

(12-13-2012 10:57 AM)alexjiang1 Wrote: I too, play competitive chess, (currently an expert and top200 in TX). Yes I do feel outwitters and chess do correlate, my chess hasn't taken a hit w Outwitters and if anything benefited it. For chess, a way to study is by analyzing world champion games and try to based on reasoning, predict the next move, I assume it could be done in Outwitters if you know the wit count. In chess your opponent can only make a move at a time so it is relatively easier to calculate variations (though that 1 move is extremely crucial so you have to think longer and calculate the best move for your opponent also). Also in chess, everything has the same "hp" and do the same damage and you can't spawn another (except for promoting pawns) so you have to be wise in exchanges just like Outwitters. In chess though, there are hundreds of good openings whereas in Outwitters there are several for each map. In chess though, your opponent can respond in just as many ways and you have to know pretty much every way and get the gist of the idea or else you'll be in a crap position come middlegame/endgame.
In outwitters there are opening that are stronger, some weaker and rarely used. Most players use the strong ones in ST replay thread while in chess, most openings are equally as strong.
Outwitters is less predictable especially when it comes to the wit count whereas in chess, you know your opponent only can make one move.
Chess, it's easier to calculate tactics and have plans because of this "1 move" and often times can calculate 8-20 moves in advance but in outwitters, it's so much harder because of wit.
Chess, you have to have a good memory, you have to recognize tactical motifs, openings, endgame methods, and so many more because while playing, you can't use outside sources but in Outwitters, though memory is good, you can always go and check out ST replays for openings or tricks.
I feel one of the best ways is like I stated earlier, go out and put games on CodePenguin, see how many wits the player has, check how many the opponent has and from there try to predict the moves.
Well then, got semininjad

(12-13-2012 11:15 AM)alexjiang1 Wrote:
(12-13-2012 11:10 AM)Necrocat219 Wrote: Ahaha, well you seem to overall be better at chess than me but I completely understand everything you say. I would like to put together some sort of mini-guide though. In terms of thinking ahead the fog of war does restrict this, especially with massive armies but especially on one spawn maps you can count how many units your opponent has left, and figure out if your positioning is good enough to attempt to make a good trade. It does seem quite different yet similar in many ways.

Yes but you are ranked higher than me in Outwitter , (starting my grind). Ya I meant to put one together, but damn I have so little time. The Fog and wits are the main differences between chess and Outwitters. They're different but both of them are great.
P.S. what's your rating (Mr. Banger's is higher than mine)

Sorry for hijacking the thread

Necrocat219 · 12-13-2012, 11:26 AM

(12-13-2012 11:24 AM)Necrocat219 Wrote: Well umm... to tell the truth I only got back into it 2 months ago after a 2 year hiatus and I have to play one more game before I can get an elo even then I still have to wait until the British chess fed update players elo's (I think?). Thats why I've got a poor understanding of the system. I've played in many national tournaments when I was growing up up until 16 and although I was headhunted for my club now at the time I felt like I wasn't anywhere near the best players my age (and I wasn't) so I got frustrated and gave up. Really getting back into it now though
oops okay!

**TheQwertiest** · (This post was last modified: 12-13-2012 11:39 AM by TheQwertiest.)

(12-13-2012 09:16 AM)TheQwertiest Wrote: quotes..
uhmm.. i played chess in highschool! i was the champion in the tournament xD
2 wins and 4 defaults haha.
im not sure i followed the topic right but i cant really compare outwitters and chess.
its very different mainly because of spawning and the fog.
i think the only skills that you need in both would be advance thinking (trying to read a few moves ahead) and positioning

Alvendor · 12-13-2012, 11:32 AM

I always thought of valuing units in wits in the same way a bishop is worth approx 3 pawns in chess. That is until the recent update, I haven't got my head around a good way of valuing units in wits. Now it seems to be a lot more dependent on the situation. A runner you move out is usually worth 2 wits. But if opponent can move and kill it without consequences, it might only be worth 1 wit as it removes 1 wit from the opponent. These type of situations seems a lot more common with the wit for kill rule.

Some exchanges are still straightforward to calculate by thinking if your wit investment is less than the opponents though.

Necrocat219 · 12-13-2012, 11:40 AM

(12-13-2012 11:32 AM)Alvendor Wrote: I always thought of valuing units in wits in the same way a bishop is worth approx 3 pawns in chess. That is until the recent update, I haven't got my head around a good way of valuing units in wits. Now it seems to be a lot more dependent on the situation. A runner you move out is usually worth 2 wits. But if opponent can move and kill it without consequences, it might only be worth 1 wit as it removes 1 wit from the opponent. These type of situations seems a lot more common with the wit for kill rule.

Some exchanges are still straightforward to calculate by thinking if your wit investment is less than the opponents though.

I usually take the basic cost of the unit and add one onto it for an approximate cost (3hp soldier = 3 wits, 4hp soldier = 4 wits) I'm not actually sure that the runner is the best example as with it's high movement it can reach anywhere on the map for 3 wits, while a soldier on your opponents side of the map is worth more than one on your side of the map.

**TheQwertiest** · 12-13-2012, 11:40 AM

(12-13-2012 11:32 AM)Alvendor Wrote: I always thought of valuing units in wits in the same way a bishop is worth approx 3 pawns in chess. That is until the recent update, I haven't got my head around a good way of valuing units in wits. Now it seems to be a lot more dependent on the situation. A runner you move out is usually worth 2 wits. But if opponent can move and kill it without consequences, it might only be worth 1 wit as it removes 1 wit from the opponent. These type of situations seems a lot more common with the wit for kill rule.

Some exchanges are still straightforward to calculate by thinking if your wit investment is less than the opponents though.

i think the officers are invaluable and their worth cannot be approximated with pawns.

Necrocat219 · (06-09-2014 02:14 PM)

Quote:I always thought of valuing units in wits in the same way a bishop is worth approx 3 pawns in chess.

I've never done that, I've always made the direct comparison of turns + Position compared to wits. In an equal game of chess until someone blunders or gets outplayed nicely they both generally have the same material, give or take a pawn. However turns of each player affect the other right off the bat, and each player can play to make each piece's position worth less e.g. pinning the knight to the king early. In Outwitters my favorite moves by opponents is forcing them to move back because for each unit moved back that is 1 wit in favor of me.

game_taker · 12-13-2012, 11:47 AM

(12-13-2012 11:40 AM)TheQwertiest Wrote:
(12-13-2012 11:32 AM)Alvendor Wrote: I always thought of valuing units in wits in the same way a bishop is worth approx 3 pawns in chess. That is until the recent update, I haven't got my head around a good way of valuing units in wits. Now it seems to be a lot more dependent on the situation. A runner you move out is usually worth 2 wits. But if opponent can move and kill it without consequences, it might only be worth 1 wit as it removes 1 wit from the opponent. These type of situations seems a lot more common with the wit for kill rule.

Some exchanges are still straightforward to calculate by thinking if your wit investment is less than the opponents though.

i think the officers are invaluable and their worth cannot be approximated with pawns.

I'm not a professional chess player but I always value every piece in chess including pawns. Unless I have some bigger plan I wouldn't let my opponent just kill a pawn without him losing another pawn or some other peice

alexjiang1 · (This post was last modified: 12-13-2012 11:54 AM by alexjiang1.)

But in chess, the value of each unit shifts based on the position. For example, a dark squared bishop locked behind some dark squared bishop isn't worth nearly as much as your opponents dark squared bishop. Another example is sacrificing a rook to ensure the promotion of a pawn, he might be temporarily up a rook but that pawn is worth loads more

(12-13-2012 11:47 AM)game_taker Wrote:
(12-13-2012 11:40 AM)TheQwertiest Wrote:
(12-13-2012 11:32 AM)Alvendor Wrote: I always thought of valuing units in wits in the same way a bishop is worth approx 3 pawns in chess. That is until the recent update, I haven't got my head around a good way of valuing units in wits. Now it seems to be a lot more dependent on the situation. A runner you move out is usually worth 2 wits. But if opponent can move and kill it without consequences, it might only be worth 1 wit as it removes 1 wit from the opponent. These type of situations seems a lot more common with the wit for kill rule.

Some exchanges are still straightforward to calculate by thinking if your wit investment is less than the opponents though.

i think the officers are invaluable and their worth cannot be approximated with pawns.

I'm not a professional chess player but I always value every piece in chess including pawns. Unless I have some bigger plan I wouldn't let my opponent just kill a pawn without him losing another pawn or some other peice

You're correct, being up a pawn and having no positional disadvantage results in a easy win

poweewee · 12-13-2012, 11:54 PM

It was interesting to read that a lot of us here actually play competitive chess. I myself was a player until college, after which my work took my time from playing.

I do agree that some basic principles are the same, such as:
1. Thinking and planning several moves ahead.
2. Looking for multi-purpose moves, such as spawning a soldier to move to a hex to kill a runner with 2 life. (You spawned, moved and killed in a matter of 3 wits)
3. Trying to prevent your opponent's plans.
4. Controlling the initiative