Just listened to the first episode of The Pylon Show. It's wonderful (though I would have called it "The Monty Pylon Show), I highly recommend it. I agree with Artosis and Incontrol's sentiment that the current SC2 community is too commercialized and that the amateurish feel of the early days of SC/SC2 are sorely missed.
What I liked most about the show is that the hosts can comment a little bit more freely on what's going on in the community and aren't bound to non-stop promoting a commercial product like they are when they cast WCS or GSL.
I already have enough corporate bullshit in my day job; when I play and watch video games, I want the "amateurish" and "dirty" look and feel, trash talk, and all...
(Having said that - and I know I digress - Artosis and Tasteless' GSL casts are far and away the best professional SC2 content out there.
OK, now to the point. Regarding the Avilo drama. Full disclosure, I don't know how this played out, all I know about the situation is what the two hosts discussed. I also have no opinion on Avilo as an SC2 personality. I'm just making a point on principle here:
It is ALWAYS a bad idea to penalize misbehavior in a current game by handing out a penalty for a future match, for the following 2 reasons:
Artosis and Incontrol discussed reason (1) but I think missed (2) which is more important
1. It gives Avilo an opportunity to game the system because he can basically choose which unimportant "next" game he'd like to lose
2. It gives an unfair and potentially tournament-distorting advantage to the opponent of that "next" game who gets an easy win without deserving it. If Avilo is penalized because he accuses his CURRENT opponent of cheating (arguably just to get under the person's skin), it's also the CURRENT opponent who should benefit from any sanctions agains Avilo. Rewarding Avilo's next opponent for no good reason could even have tournament-distorting consequences (if for example Avilo's current and next opponent are in direct competition for something, or if Avilo gets a forced loss against a player he would have beaten easily under normal circumstances).
And thanks Artosis and Incontrol - apparently their show fascinated me enough to "resurrect" this blog... well done!
Showing posts with label Incontrol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Incontrol. Show all posts
Friday, July 20, 2018
Monday, March 18, 2013
RevTiberius featured on "Inside the Game"
Recently this blog was featured on djWHEAT’s “Inside the Game”. The segment starts at roughly 37:10.
I certainly didn’t expect that so many people would take an interest in these articles, but of course I’m delighted that the SC2 community seems to find this interesting.
I’d like to take this opportunity and comment on some of the things that were said on the show. I should clarify that I am blogging about teaching chess to an SC2 Grandmaster, but I do not necessarily believe that the two games can or should be compared in each and every aspect. On the contrary, the games are quite different, and only in a few areas are comparisons permissible.
@djWHEAT
Thanks for calling my articles “fascinating” and “fucking cool”. I appreciate the compliment. And you are right. SC2 is frequently compared to chess, and these – often erroneous – comparisons are one of the reasons why I decided to start this series.
I think you hit the nail on its head when you said that SC2 skills transfer to chess only to a very limited extent. However, the “meta-skills” (not sure if that’s a word) are most certainly transferable. To take Pyre’s example. His knowledge of SC2 build orders and strategies, his APM etc. are obviously useless in chess, but the same kind of skills he needed to become an SC2 GM in the first place (dedication, hard work, aptitude for strategy games etc.) will most certainly go a long way in helping him become a better chess player. The way I explain chess to him is also a bit different from how I'd explain it to a non-SC2 player (e.g. when I compare the typical Bishop sacrifice on h7 to a baneling bust)
@EG.Idra
I agree very much with Idra’s comments that the two main differences between chess and SC2 are real time vs. turn basedand perfect vision vs. imperfect vision. However, I think the second point is often misunderstood and needs clarification:
In SC2 the fog of war prevents you from seeing what your opponent is doing. But once you scout your opponent, it is usually easy to draw conclusions. For example, if you scan your opponent, and see a robotics bay that is being chrono-boosted, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what your opponent is going to throw at you.
In chess, on the other hand, you have perfect vision of what your opponent is doing, but that does not mean you have perfect understanding of what he is up to. It is quite common to misinterpret what you are seeing. Misreading my opponent’s intentions is the reason behind many of my losses in chess.
This is also the reason why I - despite only reaching Top 8 diamond league in SC2 - can perfectly appreciate Code S SC2 games. However, despite being a very strong chess player, I do not understand many grandmaster chess games simply because perfect vision of what’s going on is not enough.
@EG.Incontrol
I very much agree with EG.Incontrol’s statement that many of the strategic concepts in chess and SC2 are best suited for comparison.
For example when I teach Pyre that in chess when you are far ahead of your opponent, you can start trading inefficiently, he immediately understands because the same concept holds true in SC2 as well.
Or the reason why many double-pronged attacks work so well in SC2 is closely related to the ideas behind the “Principle of Two Weaknesses” in chess.
@Mainstream Media
I also agree that the mainstream media doesn’t do a good job in comparing SC2 to chess. But that’s just because most journalists simply don’t know anything about SC2, and only very little about chess.
I regularly read The Economist, and once in a while they have an article about e-Sports. To me it always seems as if these articles were written by people who regurgitate second and third hand knowledge of SC2, and not by people who really know what they are talking about. The mainstream media also does a poor job at covering chess. The number of simple factual errors in their reporting never stops to amaze me.
I certainly didn’t expect that so many people would take an interest in these articles, but of course I’m delighted that the SC2 community seems to find this interesting.
I’d like to take this opportunity and comment on some of the things that were said on the show. I should clarify that I am blogging about teaching chess to an SC2 Grandmaster, but I do not necessarily believe that the two games can or should be compared in each and every aspect. On the contrary, the games are quite different, and only in a few areas are comparisons permissible.
@djWHEAT
Thanks for calling my articles “fascinating” and “fucking cool”. I appreciate the compliment. And you are right. SC2 is frequently compared to chess, and these – often erroneous – comparisons are one of the reasons why I decided to start this series.
I think you hit the nail on its head when you said that SC2 skills transfer to chess only to a very limited extent. However, the “meta-skills” (not sure if that’s a word) are most certainly transferable. To take Pyre’s example. His knowledge of SC2 build orders and strategies, his APM etc. are obviously useless in chess, but the same kind of skills he needed to become an SC2 GM in the first place (dedication, hard work, aptitude for strategy games etc.) will most certainly go a long way in helping him become a better chess player. The way I explain chess to him is also a bit different from how I'd explain it to a non-SC2 player (e.g. when I compare the typical Bishop sacrifice on h7 to a baneling bust)
@EG.Idra
I agree very much with Idra’s comments that the two main differences between chess and SC2 are real time vs. turn basedand perfect vision vs. imperfect vision. However, I think the second point is often misunderstood and needs clarification:
In SC2 the fog of war prevents you from seeing what your opponent is doing. But once you scout your opponent, it is usually easy to draw conclusions. For example, if you scan your opponent, and see a robotics bay that is being chrono-boosted, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what your opponent is going to throw at you.
In chess, on the other hand, you have perfect vision of what your opponent is doing, but that does not mean you have perfect understanding of what he is up to. It is quite common to misinterpret what you are seeing. Misreading my opponent’s intentions is the reason behind many of my losses in chess.
This is also the reason why I - despite only reaching Top 8 diamond league in SC2 - can perfectly appreciate Code S SC2 games. However, despite being a very strong chess player, I do not understand many grandmaster chess games simply because perfect vision of what’s going on is not enough.
@EG.Incontrol
I very much agree with EG.Incontrol’s statement that many of the strategic concepts in chess and SC2 are best suited for comparison.
For example when I teach Pyre that in chess when you are far ahead of your opponent, you can start trading inefficiently, he immediately understands because the same concept holds true in SC2 as well.
Or the reason why many double-pronged attacks work so well in SC2 is closely related to the ideas behind the “Principle of Two Weaknesses” in chess.
@Mainstream Media
I also agree that the mainstream media doesn’t do a good job in comparing SC2 to chess. But that’s just because most journalists simply don’t know anything about SC2, and only very little about chess.
I regularly read The Economist, and once in a while they have an article about e-Sports. To me it always seems as if these articles were written by people who regurgitate second and third hand knowledge of SC2, and not by people who really know what they are talking about. The mainstream media also does a poor job at covering chess. The number of simple factual errors in their reporting never stops to amaze me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)