Centerfield

Very profound thoughts, Jon. I've never taken the time to consider the differences between the two games. I think chess requires a measure of technique and skill, while Civ mainly relies on human imagination. I agree with your general analysis of the medievalist influences on traditional chess, but I think your wrong about Middle Earth. I don't think things are that simple. You're dealing with dynamic characters after all. It's not that there aren't similarities, it's just that I've always seen LOTR as a fight for human freedom, and the power of individuals to overcome tyranny, and be a part of something greater than themselves.

I'm with Rafique, here. Civ, much as I love it, is mostly about producing more and more and more, faster and faster. There are valuable lessons in it, to be sure. No matter how peaceful you want to be, you've got to have a decent military force or you will be overrun. Knowledge (stronger troops) can substitute, to some extent, for sheer numbers. Good planning for growth is important.

But in the end, it too often winds up being about just growing bigger and faster than the other guys. Chess, like Middle Earth, is about making the best of what you have, not building more stuff. That's harder to do, to my mind.

So, while I think Civ definitely is a better practice for young kids wanting to learn a better understanding of modern society, I think it also promotes a potentially unhealthy attachment to materialism which chess and Middle Earth do not.

These games absolutely exercise different sets of thinking skills. I am extremely sanguine on the use of such simulations to foster "stealth learning." Civilization can teach many things about history and the interrelation of various factors in the development of governments, technology, and so on. If I were a teacher, I would absolutely prefer access to civilization-style simulations for the sake of fostering acquisition of concrete real-world insights.

Chess is a lot more abstract, and its lessons a little bit harder to apply to new situations. But here's the thing: we know the mathematical idea that there are not just an infinte number of say positive integers 1, 2, 3, ..., but also an infinite number of numbers between any two other numbers. So it's hard to make an argument that, say, Civilization is "richer." Maybe it's more expansive. But no matter how narrowly one fucuses the mind, infinite variation endures. There is no reason to think that, say, Beethoven had more room for variation in a 4 movement symphony than Stevie Ray Vaughan had in a simple 12-bar blues.

I think it would be fun if civilization allowed players (or maybe teacher-level facillitators) to tweak a games parameters to construct the world based on various philosphical judgements. Civilzation is just a model, and at various points the designers have to use numbers to quantify relationships. I remember when I played long ago, I stuck with despotism for as long as I could, and when i changed government forms, I mitigated some problems and exacerbated others. Thiose developments had to copme form the mathematical judgements within the models. So to some extent the issues Pat points out are at least theoretically tweakable. Of course, since the goal seems to be world domination, there are limits built in by the gaol. I think it's hard to motivate players when the goal is an abstract high score and not some ultimate completion goal like saving the princess or escaping the planet or conquering the globe.

Hmmm. "A better strategy game than chess"??? Civ is a good game I'll agree, but that certainly sounds like hyperbole to me. If strategy and tactics are the criteria it isn't even close. Let's wait another hundred years and see which one is still around.

Well, checkers and tic-tac-toe are "still around."

instead, over time, Let's compare how many people are playing complex simulation games a to how many continue to play chess.

The nature and subject of the simulations is bound to vary over time, but will that mean that chess is a "better" strategy game? Chess's age and the time period in which it developed make it naturally resistant to change...there's a body of scholarship built up around it, so it's very dificult for any alterations to take hold and become popular.

Chess seems like it is probably the "most studied" or at least one of the most studied of games, in terms of number of people and the amount of analysis. That locks in certain things about its status in the world, and such locked in things may have as much to do with timing and circumstance as they have to do with the intrinsic qualities of the game.

This idea holds across academic domains, BTW. Certain things become part of the canon and much of that status endures simply because a thing is part of the canon, irrespective of quality.

I'm not saying there's no merit to the idea of chcking whether something stands the test of time, though.

Rafique said:
> but I think your wrong about Middle Earth.
> You're dealing with dynamic characters after all.

Oh, absolutely. I'm just talking about the world underneath. And even that is certainly dynamic; I'm just talking about the way it changes. And I'm not criticising; the work is meant to invoke the a medievaloid era, and that style of world is right for that.

Pat grumbled:
> But in the end, it too often winds up being about just growing bigger and faster than the other guys.

And how do you do that? Well, you have to think alot. And the style of problem is more like that of a contemporary politician or businessman - how to grow and adapt while keeping your people happy and satisfying all the zllions of constraints you gotta live under.

> it also promotes a potentially unhealthy attachment to materialism

But it's a material world! :-)

Brian noted:
> I think it would be fun if civilization allowed players (or maybe
> teacher-level facillitators) to tweak a games parameters to
> construct the world based on various philosphical judgements.

Actually, you can. That's probably as big a reason as any for its huge success. Some people like to set up particular time periods or wars, other like to fiddle with the rules. I've been working a version that fiddles with the technological tree and governments a fair amount.

Oh, and, what you said. I do think Dennis is right that only the test of time will tell, and Civ is still too new to have even settled into even anything like a finished form. I think you're right that right now chess is just what we're used to thinking of being the primo strategy game. It has the mindshare.

First of all, I had to put in a word for backgammon and go. Go has dimesnsions that transcend chess.

As for Civ4, I've loved the series since it started. It would be interesting to tweak the spiritual civics for ruler-cults, as in the DPRK and Turkmenistan. Also, perhaps its just me, but it seems the labor and religion civics develop faster than the others.

I'm also reminded of geopolitical critics who argue that the world is not a chessboard like Brzezinski and Kissinger like to view it. If anything, Civ4 will educate players about political economy.