Micheloxx
Smash Ace
nobody should live for this game man, thats truth, but this game ruuules, and i can use a lot of my time in it XD
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Has the Smash community gotten "too good?"
- Thread starter Lesheik
- Start date
I cannot believe the conversation I'm hearing here. Looking at the replies, it is clear to me who has understanding and who does not.
Some of you do not understand. Some of you understand partially but not completely. Still others, I assume, understand completely but either can not explain it or choose not to.
This is how it is.
In a game, ANY game, if you have to think in order to play, there IS a mind game.
Note that the Mind Game is always there, whether you CHOOSE to play it or not, and whether you are AWARE of it or not.
If you choose to never look at anything above the horizon, and thus never see the sky, then does that mean the sky is not there? Even if your brother does not look, does that stop it from being there? No! Because the sun still rises and sets, and the moon still shines and stars still twinkle whether YOU see them do it or not. Neither then does the Mind Game vanish simply because you aren't aware of it, or choose not to play it.
Imagine that the game itself is one "game board", and that the Mind Game is another invisible "game board". And also imagine that if you do well in the Mind Game then it will give you an advantage in the Real Game. Therefore those who play the Mind Game AS WELL as the Real Game will always have certain advantages over those who simply play the Real Game.
If you KNOW that your opponent is thinking, and you attempt to decieve him into a trap or hide your intentions from him, then you are said to be "Playing mindgames."
If you KNOW that your opponent is thinking, and you attempt to percieve his thoughts and intentions through viewing his actions, then you are said to be "Playing mindgames."
Any time when you attempt to percieve or manipulate the inner workings of a person's mind, it is called a mindgame. This definition is not limited to videogames, or even board games or card games. This is how wars are fought and won, and how one company rises up over another. When Sun Tzu says, "The art of war is deception," he is talking about playing mind games.
There are mindgames in Chess, because you have to THINK in order to play. Even the very act of looking "X moves ahead" is thought, and when you do this you will think to yourself "Which moves will my opponent most likely take? Which is the most dangerous, and what kind of player is he?" At least, you will if you are a good player. Certainly, the bad player or so-so player may try to play the odds, but he will fail against a player who understands Mind Games because "playing the odds" is an obvious strategy.
There are mindgames in Poker, because you have to THINK in order to play. Sure, you could play the odds. Many Pokerbots will do exactly that: play the odds. But then it's just so easy to figure out how to beat a Pokerbot like that since you KNOW what they have because you SEE how they act, and so you adjust accordingly.
Even when playing against real players, there are things that they do that can tell you what they have, but you only get this advantage IF you can handle the Mind Game that is involved in it.
Fold when they have the upper hand, raise when they don't, and mindgame when you're not sure, OR mindgame even if you're sure but you want to decieve them ("Bluffing" as it's called). Things like that are the true key to winning poker. Quite frankly, it's not just about the individual hand that you have at that moment. It's about the game as a whole and the people you play against.
There are mindgames in SSB:M, because you have to THINK in order to play. Even if you only mash buttons, it still takes a tiny bit of thought to decide that "mashing buttons" is your best bet to win. But if the expert knows that you are simply a button masher, then he knows that he can safe play while waiting for you to make a horrible mistake. And when you DO make this mistake, the expert will know exactly when (because he was waiting for the opportunity) and he'll know exactly how to punish you (because he's the expert, naturally.)
To say that Chess has no "Mind Game" is to tell everyone who knows better that you're just a bad chess player. If you know every strategy in the game, and every rule, but you do not understand mindgames, then you will fail to someone who does understand mindgames even if they might not know as much as you.
Some of you do not understand. Some of you understand partially but not completely. Still others, I assume, understand completely but either can not explain it or choose not to.
This is how it is.
In a game, ANY game, if you have to think in order to play, there IS a mind game.
Note that the Mind Game is always there, whether you CHOOSE to play it or not, and whether you are AWARE of it or not.
If you choose to never look at anything above the horizon, and thus never see the sky, then does that mean the sky is not there? Even if your brother does not look, does that stop it from being there? No! Because the sun still rises and sets, and the moon still shines and stars still twinkle whether YOU see them do it or not. Neither then does the Mind Game vanish simply because you aren't aware of it, or choose not to play it.
Imagine that the game itself is one "game board", and that the Mind Game is another invisible "game board". And also imagine that if you do well in the Mind Game then it will give you an advantage in the Real Game. Therefore those who play the Mind Game AS WELL as the Real Game will always have certain advantages over those who simply play the Real Game.
If you KNOW that your opponent is thinking, and you attempt to decieve him into a trap or hide your intentions from him, then you are said to be "Playing mindgames."
If you KNOW that your opponent is thinking, and you attempt to percieve his thoughts and intentions through viewing his actions, then you are said to be "Playing mindgames."
Any time when you attempt to percieve or manipulate the inner workings of a person's mind, it is called a mindgame. This definition is not limited to videogames, or even board games or card games. This is how wars are fought and won, and how one company rises up over another. When Sun Tzu says, "The art of war is deception," he is talking about playing mind games.
There are mindgames in Chess, because you have to THINK in order to play. Even the very act of looking "X moves ahead" is thought, and when you do this you will think to yourself "Which moves will my opponent most likely take? Which is the most dangerous, and what kind of player is he?" At least, you will if you are a good player. Certainly, the bad player or so-so player may try to play the odds, but he will fail against a player who understands Mind Games because "playing the odds" is an obvious strategy.
There are mindgames in Poker, because you have to THINK in order to play. Sure, you could play the odds. Many Pokerbots will do exactly that: play the odds. But then it's just so easy to figure out how to beat a Pokerbot like that since you KNOW what they have because you SEE how they act, and so you adjust accordingly.
Even when playing against real players, there are things that they do that can tell you what they have, but you only get this advantage IF you can handle the Mind Game that is involved in it.
Fold when they have the upper hand, raise when they don't, and mindgame when you're not sure, OR mindgame even if you're sure but you want to decieve them ("Bluffing" as it's called). Things like that are the true key to winning poker. Quite frankly, it's not just about the individual hand that you have at that moment. It's about the game as a whole and the people you play against.
There are mindgames in SSB:M, because you have to THINK in order to play. Even if you only mash buttons, it still takes a tiny bit of thought to decide that "mashing buttons" is your best bet to win. But if the expert knows that you are simply a button masher, then he knows that he can safe play while waiting for you to make a horrible mistake. And when you DO make this mistake, the expert will know exactly when (because he was waiting for the opportunity) and he'll know exactly how to punish you (because he's the expert, naturally.)
To say that Chess has no "Mind Game" is to tell everyone who knows better that you're just a bad chess player. If you know every strategy in the game, and every rule, but you do not understand mindgames, then you will fail to someone who does understand mindgames even if they might not know as much as you.
Crashmania
Smash Journeyman
It seems like you didn't even read wobble's post. as he pointed out you can not deceive someone in chess. there are no feints, no guessing is required. if thats not no mindgames i don't know what is
I know you don't. That's why I told you. Class dismissed.
Ryuker
Smash Lord
Depends on how you play chess. Most chess tournaments have a time limit per move and if you think about it so does smash just a lot shorter one. If you made short move like a dash you still need time to do a attack if you wanted to and your opponent can catch you on that or prepare hit shield just when you do the move. In some way in both games you can have time limits but cause smash is a moving game and not turnbased it doesn't always give you the same time limit before you can do something or your opponent can't and they even overlap sometimes. Chess is also alot about control of the field and if you place your pieces well your opponent while looking like he has a lot of ways to manouvre actually can be completely stuck sometimes. Saying chess is just memorisation and knowing when to do what could very much apply too smash as well it's just the amount of possibilities is soooo much in smash in terms of placement ( eventhough the same possibilities happen most of the time although slightly different.)
That's really it. You COULD, with enough time, think of ALL of the possibilities in Chess AND decide which choices are preferable with which other choices.
My AI professor recently went over this subject. My numbers may be a bit off, but this is the general idea of what his lecture was.
In order to calculate EVERY move in chess, you'd have to consider about 10 to the power of 128 possible situations.
To put this into perspective, there are roughly 10 to the power of 98 known elemental particles in the universe.
So if you had every elemental particle in the universe acting as a single computer and used this computer to calculate every possible state, you MIGHT (if you were lucky) be able to finish this calculation before the thermodynamic heat death of the universe.
And this is a computer. Computers are good with calculations. They're fast with them. You give the average human a formula like "5 + 3 / 2 * 9 -(6 raised to 48)" and they'll take a few seconds to calculate it by hand, but put it into a computer and it'll spit it right out.
So if a supercomputer cannot calculate every single state of the game board (NOT every single move, mind you) before the end of the universe, then how could the average player can do it in the 10 minute time limit that is placed on a tournament chess game? Even if it's an hour, do you still think it can be done?
People just don't have that amount of time to think things through. That's why there's mind games. That's why putting pressure on a weaker player is a good tactic. You don't know. You have to guess.
And to support your point about SSB:M having more possiblities than Chess, here's some numbers to think about:
Chess has 32 pieces with 64 spaces that they can be on.
SSB:M Has 2-4 pieces with maybe a few billion different 'spaces' they can be on. (the real number is probably a little different, but I'm not sure how the coordinates are kept in smash. I'm just going with the fact that the maximum value held by an unsigned integer in C++ is roughly 4 billion)
Half of your Chess pieces have only 1 or 2 moves at most. 4 others have 4 directions they can move, and 4 others have 8 directions, with various restrictions based upon their positioning. You get the same number of pieces at the start of each game, on top of it.
Each piece in SSB:M is one of 25 characters and these characters can be repicked, and each of these characters has roughly 30 possible moves they can use at almost any time (cept for when they're stunned, asleep, stuff like that) AND there's items they can grab and stage hazards they have to look out for.
So yes, it's safe to say that SSB:M has more possible states than Chess. Now if anyone would like to disprove that, then feel free to spend until the end of time calculating an inconcievable number of possible matches in either game.
(EDIT: edited for clarity)
My AI professor recently went over this subject. My numbers may be a bit off, but this is the general idea of what his lecture was.
In order to calculate EVERY move in chess, you'd have to consider about 10 to the power of 128 possible situations.
To put this into perspective, there are roughly 10 to the power of 98 known elemental particles in the universe.
So if you had every elemental particle in the universe acting as a single computer and used this computer to calculate every possible state, you MIGHT (if you were lucky) be able to finish this calculation before the thermodynamic heat death of the universe.
And this is a computer. Computers are good with calculations. They're fast with them. You give the average human a formula like "5 + 3 / 2 * 9 -(6 raised to 48)" and they'll take a few seconds to calculate it by hand, but put it into a computer and it'll spit it right out.
So if a supercomputer cannot calculate every single state of the game board (NOT every single move, mind you) before the end of the universe, then how could the average player can do it in the 10 minute time limit that is placed on a tournament chess game? Even if it's an hour, do you still think it can be done?
People just don't have that amount of time to think things through. That's why there's mind games. That's why putting pressure on a weaker player is a good tactic. You don't know. You have to guess.
And to support your point about SSB:M having more possiblities than Chess, here's some numbers to think about:
Chess has 32 pieces with 64 spaces that they can be on.
SSB:M Has 2-4 pieces with maybe a few billion different 'spaces' they can be on. (the real number is probably a little different, but I'm not sure how the coordinates are kept in smash. I'm just going with the fact that the maximum value held by an unsigned integer in C++ is roughly 4 billion)
Half of your Chess pieces have only 1 or 2 moves at most. 4 others have 4 directions they can move, and 4 others have 8 directions, with various restrictions based upon their positioning. You get the same number of pieces at the start of each game, on top of it.
Each piece in SSB:M is one of 25 characters and these characters can be repicked, and each of these characters has roughly 30 possible moves they can use at almost any time (cept for when they're stunned, asleep, stuff like that) AND there's items they can grab and stage hazards they have to look out for.
So yes, it's safe to say that SSB:M has more possible states than Chess. Now if anyone would like to disprove that, then feel free to spend until the end of time calculating an inconcievable number of possible matches in either game.
(EDIT: edited for clarity)
Really? Another CompSci person? There's not too many on the boards. Welcome.
I don't think I agree with your statement that Chess doesn't have mindgames though Wobbles. They're just not as clearly defined as in other games, and only really appear at very high levels of play.
Certain formations counter other formations in chess, and it is not always clear which formation it is that you're going toward. It is quite common to make moves that are in close proximity with two, three, or more well known formations in the early game but not precisely following any one. This way your opponent has to try and predict what you will do and counter appropriately.
It is a Rock Paper Scissors game, but considerably more elaborate and obscure. And white has the advantage of course, lol. So there are differences, but I wouldn;t go so far as to say that there aren't any mindgames in chess.
EDIT:
Paingel, finding the total number of chess positions isn't nearly as hard as finding the total number of legal positions. Now that's a tough nut to crack. But in principle you could just brute force enumerate them.
It's not a hard math problem, It just deals with impossibly large numbers for modern computers. But you already knew that.
Hi all
Welcome to the cheapest discount cigarettes store ever. You can find here all the brands at a low price. Online cigarettes, cheap smokes. http://www.all-cigarettes-brands.com , http://www.cheap-cigarettes-brands.com , http://www.smoker-heaven.com http://www.the-cheapest-cigarettes.com , http://www.best-buy-cigarettes.com , http://www.smoke-discount-cigarettes.com
Cheap Drugs Online, the best online drug store with high quality products. Visit our online shop and you will not be disappointed. http://www.all-drugs-online.com , http://www.viagra-vitamins.com , http://www.medoutlet.net http://www.pharmawholesaler.com
Our online cigarettes shop is the best choice for smokers.. You can find here Marlboro, Camel, Kent and other brands at a lowest price. Online discount cigarettes. http://www.cigbrand.com ,
http://www.cigarettes-market.com , http://www.smoke4sale.com , http://www.topcigshop.com
You can buy best cigarettes online now!!! Discount Marlboro, Davidoff, Parliament and other premium and generic brands from Europe at our Eshop only. Cheap cigarettes prices. http://www.topcigarettesonline.com , http://www.salecigarettesonline.com , http://www.shop-smoke.com , http://www.shop-cigarette.com
Cheap cigarettes from Europe!!! Visit our online cigarettes shop to order all the famous brands: Marlboro, Camel, Chesterfield, Kent at discount. Cheap prices, best quality you always imagined. Buy now and you will win!!!
http://www.cigarettes-blog.com , http://www.buy-euro-cigarettes.com , http://www.discount-euro-cigarettes.com
Buy the best cheapest cigarettes online. You can purchase all the famous European brands at discount: Marlboro, Camel, Chesterfield, Kent. Make your choice to buy the best: http://www.all4smokers.net , http://www.smokingbrands4sale.com, http://www.marlboro4sale.net http://www.on-line-cigarettes.com
Cheap best Steroids Online, the best online store offers all the medicines for bodybuilding. Be nice and healthy with high quality products. Visit our online shop and you will not be disappointed. http://www.medoutlet.net , http://www.fitnessmed.net http://www.pharmasport.org
Welcome to the cheapest discount cigarettes store ever. You can find here all the brands at a low price. Online cigarettes, cheap smokes. http://www.all-cigarettes-brands.com , http://www.cheap-cigarettes-brands.com , http://www.smoker-heaven.com http://www.the-cheapest-cigarettes.com , http://www.best-buy-cigarettes.com , http://www.smoke-discount-cigarettes.com
Cheap Drugs Online, the best online drug store with high quality products. Visit our online shop and you will not be disappointed. http://www.all-drugs-online.com , http://www.viagra-vitamins.com , http://www.medoutlet.net http://www.pharmawholesaler.com
Our online cigarettes shop is the best choice for smokers.. You can find here Marlboro, Camel, Kent and other brands at a lowest price. Online discount cigarettes. http://www.cigbrand.com ,
http://www.cigarettes-market.com , http://www.smoke4sale.com , http://www.topcigshop.com
You can buy best cigarettes online now!!! Discount Marlboro, Davidoff, Parliament and other premium and generic brands from Europe at our Eshop only. Cheap cigarettes prices. http://www.topcigarettesonline.com , http://www.salecigarettesonline.com , http://www.shop-smoke.com , http://www.shop-cigarette.com
Cheap cigarettes from Europe!!! Visit our online cigarettes shop to order all the famous brands: Marlboro, Camel, Chesterfield, Kent at discount. Cheap prices, best quality you always imagined. Buy now and you will win!!!
http://www.cigarettes-blog.com , http://www.buy-euro-cigarettes.com , http://www.discount-euro-cigarettes.com
Buy the best cheapest cigarettes online. You can purchase all the famous European brands at discount: Marlboro, Camel, Chesterfield, Kent. Make your choice to buy the best: http://www.all4smokers.net , http://www.smokingbrands4sale.com, http://www.marlboro4sale.net http://www.on-line-cigarettes.com
Cheap best Steroids Online, the best online store offers all the medicines for bodybuilding. Be nice and healthy with high quality products. Visit our online shop and you will not be disappointed. http://www.medoutlet.net , http://www.fitnessmed.net http://www.pharmasport.org
Mars-
Smash Champion
I am guessing that Paingel is 5150? too lazy to read your post, but I'm sure it is a good one.
Here's the issue with mindgames in Chess that *I* have.
Let's say we come to a defining fork in a formation, and your pieces say, "I can go one of two ways here."
I look at your pieces and decide, "He's going for formation A." I respond accordingly.
You think, "Oh no, I was planning for formation A and not formation B." You don't have to continue with formation A because you can stop to re-plan everything out. My counter doesn't matter because you just pick the opposing option.
If my move only counters one of two formations, it doesn't matter which one you picked to do in advance. You don't even have to think moves in advance in Chess unless you have very stringent time limits. Different situations have different advantages for the person playing.
Imagine trying to play RPS by taking turns. I'll go first.
I pick Rock.
Okay, what do you pick?
See the problem here.
If you try to trick somebody in Chess, you're essentially playing moves, hoping that they don't notice and interrupt your plan. This isn't mindgames. This is bad Chess.
If you have to act simultaneously, and there is a system of counters and hidden information, then mindgames exist.
Edit: Also, good Chess players don't have to calculate every position. This is because once you're reasonably good at Chess, you quickly see the ones that give you advantages. Skip over the illegal, the implausible, the impractical, and the painfully stupid. I COULD trade my Queen for your Pawn and in doing so sacrifice my option to castle on the King-side. But I won't. I don't even need to look moves ahead to know it's a terrible idea. Good players skip straight to the better options and pick between those instead.
Well, ideally. Everybody makes mistakes, and sometimes people blind themselves to the strictures of the position, but that's hardly the skill of the player on the other end of the table. You could probably deceive or intimidate or distract somebody outside the game, but that's not what we're talking about.
Let's say we come to a defining fork in a formation, and your pieces say, "I can go one of two ways here."
I look at your pieces and decide, "He's going for formation A." I respond accordingly.
You think, "Oh no, I was planning for formation A and not formation B." You don't have to continue with formation A because you can stop to re-plan everything out. My counter doesn't matter because you just pick the opposing option.
If my move only counters one of two formations, it doesn't matter which one you picked to do in advance. You don't even have to think moves in advance in Chess unless you have very stringent time limits. Different situations have different advantages for the person playing.
Imagine trying to play RPS by taking turns. I'll go first.
I pick Rock.
Okay, what do you pick?
See the problem here.
If you try to trick somebody in Chess, you're essentially playing moves, hoping that they don't notice and interrupt your plan. This isn't mindgames. This is bad Chess.
If you have to act simultaneously, and there is a system of counters and hidden information, then mindgames exist.
Edit: Also, good Chess players don't have to calculate every position. This is because once you're reasonably good at Chess, you quickly see the ones that give you advantages. Skip over the illegal, the implausible, the impractical, and the painfully stupid. I COULD trade my Queen for your Pawn and in doing so sacrifice my option to castle on the King-side. But I won't. I don't even need to look moves ahead to know it's a terrible idea. Good players skip straight to the better options and pick between those instead.
Well, ideally. Everybody makes mistakes, and sometimes people blind themselves to the strictures of the position, but that's hardly the skill of the player on the other end of the table. You could probably deceive or intimidate or distract somebody outside the game, but that's not what we're talking about.
Ryuker
Smash Lord
It's the same with smash though. So many people still pick a option in certain situations that they if they actually looked at what they did wouldn't have said it was the best choice. How is it mindgames in smash if you run towards someone then dash back again causing them to miss but not mindgames if you create a pressuring situation in chess. In both cases you could say it is your opponent's stupidity that he went for the bait there,but if I would put my poin in front of a queen baiting here in attacking so I can take the queen that actually is the same situation as if you were to dash toward someone baiting them to attack and dashing back again so they miss. Both are mindgames. The real difference is the time inbetween stuff you can do and that it isn't turnbased like chess so you are given lag time (or just have to wait for animations to finish) before you can act again or can chose not to act.
I get what your getting at though.
I get what your getting at though.
Basically you're saying that Chess has no mindgames simply because it doesn't take place in real time.
Seriously, you're basically saying that black will ALWAYS win because there is always a correct move to use; so obviously there's always a proper counter to that.
Well guess what, you can memorize every opening and defense and gambit and feint in every recorded game with all the grandmasters. But many of the best chess players never once learned from someone else's work.
You see, technical skill is in chess is not mashing buttons or frame traps; it's not a high low grab mixup. It's knowledge of the game. There's many set openings that are established as good, but selecting the right one is tricky and often depends on the personality of the person. Say for instance you took one of the grandmasters and had him play his clone; they'd both prefer the same opening but one would have to start first, and according to your argument that simple coin toss would determine the outcome of the game.
Sorry.
But chess is not ****ing tic tac toe. Smash is a ****ing infant, it's not even a decade old; Chess is older than the technology used to make Smash. Chess is as much a psychological game as it is a knowledge game, if you play strictly by piece value (point system for chess pieces) and the technically good setups and counters then you're missing a big chunk of your game Human imperfection is part of what makes mindgames.
However, I'd like to concede the fact that yes. Chess is not a psychological game to those who don't respect it. There's always a proper move so clearly there's no "thinking." WHich is why those players will lose when they get forked and they have to make a critical decision; why they always will fall for the Gambit.
Anyways, I don't think the Smash community is too good. I think that it is naive and is just now reaching a state of decent maturity. Shared knowledge puts the top of the game at anyone's fingertips, just like stated; all it takes is some good competition and time and you can be pretty good.
Seriously, you're basically saying that black will ALWAYS win because there is always a correct move to use; so obviously there's always a proper counter to that.
Well guess what, you can memorize every opening and defense and gambit and feint in every recorded game with all the grandmasters. But many of the best chess players never once learned from someone else's work.
You see, technical skill is in chess is not mashing buttons or frame traps; it's not a high low grab mixup. It's knowledge of the game. There's many set openings that are established as good, but selecting the right one is tricky and often depends on the personality of the person. Say for instance you took one of the grandmasters and had him play his clone; they'd both prefer the same opening but one would have to start first, and according to your argument that simple coin toss would determine the outcome of the game.
Sorry.
But chess is not ****ing tic tac toe. Smash is a ****ing infant, it's not even a decade old; Chess is older than the technology used to make Smash. Chess is as much a psychological game as it is a knowledge game, if you play strictly by piece value (point system for chess pieces) and the technically good setups and counters then you're missing a big chunk of your game Human imperfection is part of what makes mindgames.
However, I'd like to concede the fact that yes. Chess is not a psychological game to those who don't respect it. There's always a proper move so clearly there's no "thinking." WHich is why those players will lose when they get forked and they have to make a critical decision; why they always will fall for the Gambit.
Anyways, I don't think the Smash community is too good. I think that it is naive and is just now reaching a state of decent maturity. Shared knowledge puts the top of the game at anyone's fingertips, just like stated; all it takes is some good competition and time and you can be pretty good.
Doggalina
Smash Lord
Every fighting game has mindgames. I fighting game without mindgames is like toast without the bread. Heck, even Mario Strikers Charged has mindgames.
gnosis
Smash Lord
This makes chess sound suspiciously monotonous. It seems as though between two competent players, chess has only one progression and one outcome... well, as modified by the first move.
So all chess is is the first move, and from there you know the winner between two competent players? :|
MVPaintballer
the lil d that could
If chess had mind games the computers wouldn't win.
o wait for those of u arguing...
COMPUTERS DO HAVE MINDGAMES LOLOLOLOL?
o wait for those of u arguing...
COMPUTERS DO HAVE MINDGAMES LOLOLOLOL?
Crashmania
Smash Journeyman
the reason smash has mindgames in the same situation chess doesn't is because unlike chess, you don't have time to see that they're trying to put you in a trap. when you decide to fsmash them running at you it seems like the best idea because you think they're just gonna dash attack, and by the time you realize they wavedashed back, its too late, you've already committed to a laggy move and you get combo'd 90%.
where as in chess they move to a position where they can hurt you(A), unless you counter with a certain move in which case you'll hurt them(B), unless they know you're gonna do your counter and counter your counter(C). in which case i should just do nothing so he can't do that(D). its yami layers, D beats C beats B beats A beats D, rock paper scissors, the basis of all mindgames.
so lets see how it plays out. ok, they move to their offensive position, and i think they're gonna try to mindgame me and try to counter my counter(option C), which is the counter to my counter. so i have to not do nothing to counter them (option D). now my opponent wanted to do C, he was pretty sure i was gonna just take the bait and do b, but i didn't. well hes not fretting at all, he can still just go right in and get his free fork(option A). all of player 2's "mindgames" were for naught, reading the player meant absolutely nothing.
Its the same situation, but mindgames clearly don't work in chess where as they were super effective!!! in smash
Crashmania
Smash Journeyman
ok, so you're not expect5ing me to just run at you, *dash attack*
mindgamed
You're taking an example where it's a lose-lose situation for Player 2. Allow me to illustrate how with what it'd be like in Smash.
You got grabbed by Ness and you're at 160%, on Battlefield. He's probably going to bthrow you for the KO. You can DI up or down, and the Ness player expects upward DI which won't help you because you'll die anyway. You break his expectations and DI down, but that's fine because you go rocketing off at a very horizontal trajectory and die. All of your "mindgames" were for naught, reading the Ness player meant absolutely nothing.
Crashmania
Smash Journeyman
no its really the same situation, the situation in smash would have happened the same way if it had been at chess speed and taking turns.
player 1 is running at opponent, player two thinks player one is gonna wavedash back so he just stands there. player one did plan on wavedashing back, but now that he sees player two just stood there he realizes he might as well just dash attack. winner player 1
exactly the same situation when at chess speeds, the only thing making it different is smash happens in real time and you can't react fast enough to just counter the moves.
player 1 is running at opponent, player two thinks player one is gonna wavedash back so he just stands there. player one did plan on wavedashing back, but now that he sees player two just stood there he realizes he might as well just dash attack. winner player 1
exactly the same situation when at chess speeds, the only thing making it different is smash happens in real time and you can't react fast enough to just counter the moves.
No, it's just that people tend to be less offensive than that, the key is not to expect anything, and just play by reacting, but not reacting in a way that would hamper your ability to stay safe. You can't just put the game into such broad terms as approach, or not approach, however, the game has developed to the point that not approaching with a dash attack is a better option than doing so, in most situations. So the goal is to leave yourself enough space to protect against an advance while also being ready to advance safely on your own.
You really can't define situations like the one in your previous post. The shield only takes a few frames to come out, why can't the player who is just standing their shield, and then shield grab the dash attacking noob?
It's best not to try and discuss "Mind games" since they are really only situational decisions. It's like in war, the general who makes a very risky decision and attains victory for it is praised as a hero, while another general who may make an equally risky decision in another battle and face heavy losses will be forever known as a fool.
"Mind games" LERRRRRR
Crashmania
Smash Journeyman
i left out shielding for the sake of simplicity, if i added shielding i also would hvae had to add grabbing and just running past their shield. obviously mindgames are usually more complex than 2 options for each player, a lot of times there are options that cover multiple of the opponents options, and a lot of outs where no player will come out ahead, but when teaching a concept you're supposed to keep it as simple as possible and 2 options each is as simple as mindgames gets.
When I said shielding I didn't mean the other player would be sitting in their shield, and should that be the case the first player would only need to grab, or wavedash back and wait for a side step or roll, or anything else you could possibly think of, that's why it's really just a waste of time to discus "mind games".
When "Teaching" a subject as complex as strategy you want to introduce simple examples, such as dash dancing, or wavedashing backwards. However, it's important you make sure to explain that the action running forward and wavedashing backwards is not inherently a "mind game" and that "mind games" is an ever changing and evolving idea that is put into use in every match, whether conciously or subconciously.
However, you aren't teaching the idea of strategy to anyone here, we're discussing, but discussing such ideas as strategy hypothetically is futile, and shouldn't even be bothered with.
When "Teaching" a subject as complex as strategy you want to introduce simple examples, such as dash dancing, or wavedashing backwards. However, it's important you make sure to explain that the action running forward and wavedashing backwards is not inherently a "mind game" and that "mind games" is an ever changing and evolving idea that is put into use in every match, whether conciously or subconciously.
However, you aren't teaching the idea of strategy to anyone here, we're discussing, but discussing such ideas as strategy hypothetically is futile, and shouldn't even be bothered with.
Crashmania
Smash Journeyman
i'm not trying to teach or discuss strategy at all, i'm trying to prove chess doesn't have mindgames like in smash by giving some examples of what would be considered mindgames in smash and showing they don't translate to chess.
chess is the opposite of melee.
At low levels in melee there are no mind games, but at high levels that's what wins you the match (in combination of technical mastery, of course). While a 'mind game' in chess I guess would be considered sacrificing a piece to create an opening or anything of that sort, but no good players would be so careless as to fall for these traps, and that's the difference. You have time to think.
Tricks probably do exist in higher levels of chess, but they don't revolve around actually tricking your opponent, it's really just about gaining advantageous positions through positioning and all that good stuff.
There's plenty of strategy involved, it's just that both players don't act simultaneously, so it's a completely different concept than the "mind games" of melee.
If someone more educated in high level chess competition would like to correct me go ahead. I'm really just guessing.
as for not trying to teach or whatever:
???
At low levels in melee there are no mind games, but at high levels that's what wins you the match (in combination of technical mastery, of course). While a 'mind game' in chess I guess would be considered sacrificing a piece to create an opening or anything of that sort, but no good players would be so careless as to fall for these traps, and that's the difference. You have time to think.
Tricks probably do exist in higher levels of chess, but they don't revolve around actually tricking your opponent, it's really just about gaining advantageous positions through positioning and all that good stuff.
There's plenty of strategy involved, it's just that both players don't act simultaneously, so it's a completely different concept than the "mind games" of melee.
If someone more educated in high level chess competition would like to correct me go ahead. I'm really just guessing.
as for not trying to teach or whatever:
???Cra$hman
Smash Lord
i said i'm not trying to teach stratagy, i'm trying to teach the concept of mindgames, learn to read
BigRick
Smash Master
Well, I once read something about world class chess players and their playing styles and only a handful of them try to use mindgames or tricks in order to defeat their opponents.
Yea, I figured. I mean, the thing about chess is that there are only so many moves you can do while holding a strong position and not endangering yourself down the road. So it really comes down to expectations. Then, even if those expectations are broken you have got a chance to recalculate and adjust your strategy accordingly.
I figure that anything that would break expectations would be a risky/stupid move, and result in putting yourself at a disadvantage immediately, or within a few more turns. So yadda yadda yadda.
I'm confusing myself?
MarsFool!
Smash Lord
I think that its the balls to the wall risk taking factor that seperates the good from the great though. Well in smash anyway; a good C. Falcon would knee and kill you at 77% (Given fitting circumstance), whereas a great Falcon would get you off the edge and ran out there and stomp/other risky maneuver. But thats just my opinionI figure that anything that would break expectations would be a risky/stupid move, and result in putting yourself at a disadvantage immediately, or within a few more turns. So yadda yadda yadda.
And what makes the truly great players is the ability to know when you should and shouldn't jump off the stage, which for falcon is definitely one of the highest risk maneuvers he could undertake. Especially if it's to use his stomp. I prefer weak knee into anything.I think that its the balls to the wall risk taking factor that seperates the good from the great though. Well in smash anyway; a good C. Falcon would knee and kill you at 77% (Given fitting circumstance), whereas a great Falcon would get you off the edge and ran out there and stomp/other risky maneuver. But thats just my opinion
Ryuker
Smash Lord
Funny though that in the examples you have given you actually showing the similiarity between the two. You say the dash attack seemed the best thing to do and you weren't able to see that on time but obviously that's not true. Just like in chess you can see what is gonna happen or is happening. You can see moves coming cause they become obvious. If you do the f-smash when I dash towards you it's cause you think you can hit me while infact the best thing to do was stay still and run after me when you see me turn. Otherwise do the other things you could do if it doesn't go the same way. In chess you attack my poin cause you think it is open while in fact it is a trap and you should not have gone for the bait. In both examples you should not have responded with a attack, in both examples you can see it. But it's not like you can see everything coming in chess. There are a lot of pieces and a lot of combinations and you could have the complete wrong idea about what somebody's plan is.
I would actually recommend smashers to play chess so they start paying more attention to there gameplan and their offense or defence. Still so many people doing the same stupid obvious attacks cause they think they are playing smart while fact there not at all.
Note I don't wanna start another mindgames discussion or anything. I'm just pointing out the similarities between the two and was responding to wobbles cause he said it's just a mather or memorisation and chosing the right thing to do out ot the options you have and I think that's a laber that in theory apply's to smash as well.
Peaches:
To your first question, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. When two decisions have to be made simultaneously, with one of those decisions being the victor, then you have to try and read your opponent and pick. If your decision is made first, and then mine is based on your decision, prediction, the essence of mindgames, is ELIMINATED. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PREDICT IF YOU CAN SIMPLY WAIT AND SEE WHAT I WILL DO. You then respond by what you think is the strongest. That essentially means no mindgames.
Like I said, go to rock paper scissors. There are only mindgames and guessing games involved because we play simultaneously. If RPS was turn-based, nobody would play.
What I'm saying is that Chess is turn-based RPS taken to an exponentially absurd extreme where only a perfect brain could consistently see the correct counters. Chess is a game of exploiting mistakes.
To your second question: in a theoretical sense, yes. The best Chess player in the history of the game looked at each situation as a problem to be solved. He believed there was always a “best move.” He was so far ahead of his contemporaries that I'm inclined to take his word for it. Especially since I logically can come to the same conclusion.
Consider the end-game, which is basically the dumbed down version of the opening and middle game. There are very few pieces, and it is assumed that in most situations, if the player with a material advantage plays perfectly, he will win. Computers can easily “solve” those situations because there aren't nearly as many combinations of pieces, legal moves, and positions as there are in the other parts of the game.
Even the Knight+Bishop+King versus King endgame is solvable, although it's considered delicate, complicated, and infuriating. But computers have been able to solve that one as well.
Unfortunately for computers, they do not search and compute based on patterns, so the more pieces you add, the more and more combinations they have to sort through, even though some of them are, by anybody with experience at the game, recognizably awful.
And what do you know, the best players are skilled at seeing those patterns, the “awful” moves even in complicated positions. And it's HARD. I know it's hard. I played Chess, studying books, openings, endgames, professional games, and even having a professional Chess player in college tutor me—I did it for five years before I stopped having fun with it. I'm not saying it's not difficult, complicated, rewarding, intellectually taxing, or competitive. But there isn't an element of prediction. It's a game of positional analysis.
I'm saying that the opponent's move carries meaning because of what it does to the board, not because of what the opponent “intends” with it. Maybe you set up an attack against my King, and I neatly deflect it. But in so doing, I allow you to trade a knight for my rook. There were no mindgames involved; the move you played was just THAT good that I had to choose between losing the game and suffering material disadvantage.
But go back a bit. How did you create that position for the move in the first place? Probably because I didn't see you trying to secure the spaces that gave you that attack. I didn't understand the importance of your earlier pawn trades that left the center open, making the aforementioned spaces available to you. Is that because YOU tricked me? No, it's because I failed to see the advantages of your position and neutralize them. There was a better way to play the situation and I didn't see it. It's as simple as that.
In Chess, you play for advantages of different kinds; positioning, space control, and material gain. Somebody might sacrifice a pawn to create a double pawn in the opponent's position: why? Because he believes that the positional advantage of this situation is more advantageous than the extra pawn the opponent gains. Is he right? Maybe. Kind of depends what else is happening on the board.
You could argue that you play your opponent rather than the game, in a case like this. You know your opponent has a good ability for seeing through to the end of a long exchange, but he has a shaky grasp of space control. So you play to control squares while he tries to initiate trades, and he doesn't realize you're constricting his piece development. Playing against a player's imperfections and inadequacies MIGHT count for mindgames. Maybe. I'd argue that it's simply a failure of the other player to play “smarter” moves.
Human imperfection decides the games. You can't play an advantage unless your opponent gives it to you... but guess what? Some of those advantages are so intangible and theoretical that only the best players see them. Traps and tricks are only “mindgames” inasmuch as the opponent lacks the ability to objectively assess a situation. That's why people who analyze professional matches see “better” moves in retrospect. They see that there are moves that shut off more options and lead to stronger advantages. They only see it because they are examining the moves in the vacuum, away from pressure, away from mental fatigue, and away from self-influencing assumptions.
If mindgames exist in Chess, it is only because people mindgame themselves.
And... why does Chess being older mean it has more mindgames? When did I say it was tic-tac-toe? When did I ever imply that Smash's RPS elements make it superior to Chess? You became oddly abrasive and violent halfway through your post for no reason. It's just a debate, so please calm down.
Gnosis:
Competent players still don't see the “best” move. Grandmasters don't even see the “best” move with any kind of regularity; like I said, analysts spend a lot of time looking at individual moves, turning points, and finding options that are more advantageous than the one played. And because you have all the time in the world, with enough time and skill you could theoretically find it during the game. But because people are imperfect, they make mistakes that make it possible for a game to be won or lost.
Ryuker: Because you have plenty of time analyze a given situation. If your opponent puts a piece somewhere, he can't take the piece out of the way as you're moving your bishop over to take it. In your example, it's pretty obvious; just don't take the pawn with the Queen. The “wavedash back” is sitting right there, fresh for me to analyze. Especially if it's a situation as painfully obvious as me attacking a guarded piece with my Queen.
In Smash, I have to guess whether you're about to grab or dash attack or whatever and respond. Not to the action itself, but to the guess of it. This is because my action has to coincide with yours for there to be a positive outcome for me. And to make it harder, I have to guess well in advance because of the additional factor of reflexes.
To your first question, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. When two decisions have to be made simultaneously, with one of those decisions being the victor, then you have to try and read your opponent and pick. If your decision is made first, and then mine is based on your decision, prediction, the essence of mindgames, is ELIMINATED. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PREDICT IF YOU CAN SIMPLY WAIT AND SEE WHAT I WILL DO. You then respond by what you think is the strongest. That essentially means no mindgames.
Like I said, go to rock paper scissors. There are only mindgames and guessing games involved because we play simultaneously. If RPS was turn-based, nobody would play.
What I'm saying is that Chess is turn-based RPS taken to an exponentially absurd extreme where only a perfect brain could consistently see the correct counters. Chess is a game of exploiting mistakes.
To your second question: in a theoretical sense, yes. The best Chess player in the history of the game looked at each situation as a problem to be solved. He believed there was always a “best move.” He was so far ahead of his contemporaries that I'm inclined to take his word for it. Especially since I logically can come to the same conclusion.
Consider the end-game, which is basically the dumbed down version of the opening and middle game. There are very few pieces, and it is assumed that in most situations, if the player with a material advantage plays perfectly, he will win. Computers can easily “solve” those situations because there aren't nearly as many combinations of pieces, legal moves, and positions as there are in the other parts of the game.
Even the Knight+Bishop+King versus King endgame is solvable, although it's considered delicate, complicated, and infuriating. But computers have been able to solve that one as well.
Unfortunately for computers, they do not search and compute based on patterns, so the more pieces you add, the more and more combinations they have to sort through, even though some of them are, by anybody with experience at the game, recognizably awful.
And what do you know, the best players are skilled at seeing those patterns, the “awful” moves even in complicated positions. And it's HARD. I know it's hard. I played Chess, studying books, openings, endgames, professional games, and even having a professional Chess player in college tutor me—I did it for five years before I stopped having fun with it. I'm not saying it's not difficult, complicated, rewarding, intellectually taxing, or competitive. But there isn't an element of prediction. It's a game of positional analysis.
I'm saying that the opponent's move carries meaning because of what it does to the board, not because of what the opponent “intends” with it. Maybe you set up an attack against my King, and I neatly deflect it. But in so doing, I allow you to trade a knight for my rook. There were no mindgames involved; the move you played was just THAT good that I had to choose between losing the game and suffering material disadvantage.
But go back a bit. How did you create that position for the move in the first place? Probably because I didn't see you trying to secure the spaces that gave you that attack. I didn't understand the importance of your earlier pawn trades that left the center open, making the aforementioned spaces available to you. Is that because YOU tricked me? No, it's because I failed to see the advantages of your position and neutralize them. There was a better way to play the situation and I didn't see it. It's as simple as that.
In Chess, you play for advantages of different kinds; positioning, space control, and material gain. Somebody might sacrifice a pawn to create a double pawn in the opponent's position: why? Because he believes that the positional advantage of this situation is more advantageous than the extra pawn the opponent gains. Is he right? Maybe. Kind of depends what else is happening on the board.
You could argue that you play your opponent rather than the game, in a case like this. You know your opponent has a good ability for seeing through to the end of a long exchange, but he has a shaky grasp of space control. So you play to control squares while he tries to initiate trades, and he doesn't realize you're constricting his piece development. Playing against a player's imperfections and inadequacies MIGHT count for mindgames. Maybe. I'd argue that it's simply a failure of the other player to play “smarter” moves.
Human imperfection decides the games. You can't play an advantage unless your opponent gives it to you... but guess what? Some of those advantages are so intangible and theoretical that only the best players see them. Traps and tricks are only “mindgames” inasmuch as the opponent lacks the ability to objectively assess a situation. That's why people who analyze professional matches see “better” moves in retrospect. They see that there are moves that shut off more options and lead to stronger advantages. They only see it because they are examining the moves in the vacuum, away from pressure, away from mental fatigue, and away from self-influencing assumptions.
If mindgames exist in Chess, it is only because people mindgame themselves.
And... why does Chess being older mean it has more mindgames? When did I say it was tic-tac-toe? When did I ever imply that Smash's RPS elements make it superior to Chess? You became oddly abrasive and violent halfway through your post for no reason. It's just a debate, so please calm down.
Gnosis:
Competent players still don't see the “best” move. Grandmasters don't even see the “best” move with any kind of regularity; like I said, analysts spend a lot of time looking at individual moves, turning points, and finding options that are more advantageous than the one played. And because you have all the time in the world, with enough time and skill you could theoretically find it during the game. But because people are imperfect, they make mistakes that make it possible for a game to be won or lost.
Ryuker: Because you have plenty of time analyze a given situation. If your opponent puts a piece somewhere, he can't take the piece out of the way as you're moving your bishop over to take it. In your example, it's pretty obvious; just don't take the pawn with the Queen. The “wavedash back” is sitting right there, fresh for me to analyze. Especially if it's a situation as painfully obvious as me attacking a guarded piece with my Queen.
In Smash, I have to guess whether you're about to grab or dash attack or whatever and respond. Not to the action itself, but to the guess of it. This is because my action has to coincide with yours for there to be a positive outcome for me. And to make it harder, I have to guess well in advance because of the additional factor of reflexes.
Jeremy Feifer
Jeremy Feifer
I +rep you sir... we are entirelly different... especially to the halo community atmosphere.
Devrethman
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2006
- Messages
- 7
Supreme Commander has all of the above (minus STD's, obviously).
Fair enough, but I still believe that Chess is completely psychological; which only goes to show what a great game it is to be able to be seen from so many different angles.
However, I give johns in the fact that the post was at 5 in the morning, and I was very pissed at the topic creator for being an idiot which is overlapped by being pissed at the general smash community for being so close minded about what makes a competitive game.
Tic tac toe is the most one sided game ever, 2nd player can never win. He can only tie or lose. That was just an exaggerated model of your rock paper scissors by turns.
Anyways, all you other people. Go play some chess nao. It's the most rewarding game at a low level I've ever found and it doesn't lose any of that fun when you get better. No, I'm not a tournament player, but who cares. It's a game you can sort of treat like a conversation with your opponent. >_>
Cra$hman
Smash Lord
totally agree with tic tac toe bieng a terrible game, i broke it in 15 minutes, when i was 10
gnosis
Smash Lord
This is what I figured it came down to, but you seemed much more experienced with chess than I, so I left it to you to confirm it.
That sounds like I'm ragging on the game, but I'm not. Promise :D.
This, however, I don't agree with:
I'm pretty sure only one of those elements needs to be present for mindgames to be present. In trading card games, say, Magic, you don't act simultaneously, but there is hidden information.
Since you don't know all your opponents options (what his deck/hand is composed of), you do have to predict what they're attempting to do; and they could be entirely feinting, acting as though they have a strong hand when their hand is weak.
In chess, you do know all your opponents pieces and options; it's (I'm guessing) hard to surprise a genuinely good player, outside of doing something really dumb. In Magic, they could play that counter when, from the way they were playing, it seemed like their deck had run dry. Or they simply leave the two mana untapped (am I saying this correctly? It's something like that) and scare you away from playing a counter-worthy card, when their deck actually is run out. I don't know Magic well -at all-, but I think that example was legitimate? Either way, mind games at least similar to that definitely exist in the game and others like it.
And it's arguable that in Smash, you could know all your opponents options; outside of new exploits/tricks/glitches (like when wavedashing first came along), there's not hidden information. But since the action is simultaneous, you have to predict, since you don't have enough time to just plan your best moves based off of reaction to theirs (like chess???).
Well, I guess the hidden information in Smash is not knowing what your opponent knows. Sirlin gave a good example of how overestimating your opponent can be dangerous in an article about Yomi layers in Virtua Fighter... but I think this is an element between good players and worse players, and less present in high-end play.
Never really thought about this before...