toshimelonhead
Honey Badger don't care.
I first thought this thread title was "class or pokemon: which is more intellectually stimulating?" and immediately I knew the right answer.
The analysis of the opening in the first place, however - now that is some serious thinking. Opening analysis in chess might indeed be likened to teambuilding in Pokemon. Sure, you can use someone else's team, just as you can learn a chess opening. But the top Pokemon battlers are devising their own teams, just as top chess players will come up with opening novelties.Memorization plays a huge role in competitive chess due to openings and such, which I actually consider a ruinously terrible aspect of the game that has nothing to do with critical thinking.
There is no opening move discovered so far which can guarentee white a win. There's a good quote for chess:That's a question that remains open actually. If chess is a win for white with best play, then there is at least one opening move for white that ensures the win providing white plays the best move on all subsequent turns.
just pointing out that, the quality that you pointed out alone is not enough to ensure that chess requires more thought. surely you believe that pokemon requires more thought than tic tac toeChess. Chess is purely a matter of thought, there is no element of randomness to it like in Pokemon.
ughChess. Chess is purely a matter of thought, there is no element of randomness to it like in Pokemon.
We have proof this isn't the case. The same guys keep staying at the top of the ladder and perform well elsewhere. Consequently it follows that skill is relevant and luck doesn't change that.Realistically any given game in Pokemon is mostly decided by two things
1. Team Building
2. Luck
Before some dumbass brings up prediction, that's either Luck (chance) or Psychology (which seeing as most Pokemon is played over the internet where you can't really tell what your opponent is actually doing is pretty much luck) depending on your point of view.
Because a winner and loser are virtually guaranteed in Pokemon, the element of Luck is a huge factor, and often as not the largest factor in who wins.
Says who? I know of a Pokemon AI that's rather close to implementation. There's no reason you couldn't make a Pokemon AI.it is pretty close to impossible to make a Pokemon AI.
You're right.That's a pretty crazy if.
lol you seem to like to question whatever I say. I never said it couldn't be done, but its vastly more difficult to accomplish. Just look at obi's stark thread and the problems he has encountered. Chess you are able to calculate a 'best' or 'superior' move for the situation. Pokemon has the same thing except more instances involving informed guessing.Says who? I know of a Pokemon AI that's rather close to implementation. There's no reason you couldn't make a Pokemon AI.
There is no real bluff in chess, because it's sequential-move, not simultaneous-move. Furthermore, there's no hidden information. The only thing you can do is conceal the fact you know what you are doing, but that only works if your opponent doesn't know the gambit you're using and you do. Again, this is an issue of memory, not of strategy per se. The person with superior memory and experience of chess will win, assuming noone makes an actual mistake.Chess or Pokemon.. that really made me think.
In Pokemon you choose 6 pokemon that work well together. You make your strategy and use it against others. The choice of moves you choose will decide whether you lose or win the match. There is many strategies to choose from, and also you'll be needing to be lucky enough to predict the opponent's moves accurately. If the player is truly smart the opponent could manipulate the opposing person's thinking and actually gain the upper hand.
In chess it is the same thing. You are to predict the opponent's moves and counter. There are different strategies to choose from depending on the moves players make. As to which one requires more critical thinking.. I'd say Chess.
In chess you are usually timed (in some cases,) which pressures you to think harder and quickly analyze your opponent and see what is best for you. There so many outcomes in chess, and if the player is smart he can bluff, but that depends on luck. In my opinion I am quite unsure on which one requires more critical thinking, but for now I will stick to Chess.
Like I say, it's a combination of Team Building and Luck primarily, though I've not played much since GSC so perhaps I'm missing something that got added.We have proof this isn't the case. The same guys keep staying at the top of the ladder and perform well elsewhere. Consequently it follows that skill is relevant and luck doesn't change that.