The Starcraft and Chess Analogy

Photo by David Lapetina under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License

It's common for players of Starcraft to compare the game to Chess. Starcraft, after all, is a real-time strategy (RTS) game while Chess is a mainstream game (in addition to being accepted as a legitimate sport) that's synonymous with strategy. When talking to lay people, making the analogy that Starcraft is the Chess of video games is understandable, even if it's an oversimplification.

Photo by Andre Engels under the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Generic License

There are several problems with the Chess analogy, but is there a better alternative as a point of comparison? In Western culture, no. As I mentioned in my opening paragraph, it's a game that has become synonmous with strategy and tactics, at least in the Western pop culture. A common joke is that "Chess isn't a sport" but that's only drawing attention to the fact that Chess is accepted as a sport, at least by the International Olympic Committee. There are other pastimes that vie for this title (both the strategy and sport part). Perhaps the closest one is Poker which has gained a lot of media exposure in the last few years. As strategic as a game like Magic: The Gathering is, it honestly has no traction when you mention it to a random stranger (although it once aired on ESPN 2). There are also several board games such as Settlers of Catan that are worthy contenders, but countries like Germany (whose relationship with board games is similar to Belgium and comics) are the exception rather than the norm.

Photo by Andre Engels under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

Astute readers will notice my qualification: Western culture. In Korea for example, the intricacies of Starcraft is well known, so comparing Starcraft II to Starcraft: Brood War is apt and accessible. Aside from comparing Starcraft to itself (or its predecessors), a sport that's a better analogy than Chess is Weiqi (Go in Japanese and Baduk in Korean). I prefer Weiqi for several reasons:

In terms of strategy and tactics, Weiqi has more depth, at least compared to Chess. While formation and location is important in Chess, it has a significantly bigger impact in Weiqi. For example, one can have the equal number of pieces as the opponent, but where they are on the board and how they are connected significantly determines who is in the lead and who isn't. While this can be true for Chess (such as a checkmate situation), the fact that this happens on a massive scale, on a massive board, and in every situation, makes this a better comparison for Starcraft. (It's even possible to have less pieces and be in the advantageous position due to placement and territorial control.)

There is also the sense of scope. In Chess, battles are fought on an 8x8 board, with a finite number of pieces. Weiqi, on the other hand, takes place on a 19x19 grid (there are smaller grids for beginners but the official size is 19x19), and one can simultaneously win a battle in one corner while losing a different fight in a another section of the board. Because of this, determining who is in the lead and who isn't at any given point in time, can be difficult to objectively assess. Just because you seem to have lost one fight does not mean you'll lose the game in the end.

The third point in favor of Weiqi over Chess is tied to the development of AI. With the former, the number of possible moves increases as the game progresses (thus making the game more complicated) whereas in the latter, it's the reverse. It's for this reason that Chess AI can beat the chess champion, but Weiqi AI, at the very least, needs a handicap in order to beat a professional player (and even then, not the highest-ranked one). This is also affected by memorization: a Chess player (in this case, AI) can mimic strategy and aptitude relying solely on rote memorization (i.e. all the possible moves/openings).

Having said that, Weiqi still isn't a perfect analogy for Starcraft, and it boils down to five concepts: RTS, Asymmetrical Warfare, Economy, Imperfect Awareness, and Terrain.

Protoss vs. Zerg

First is that Starcraft is an RTS. I want to emphasize the "real-time" aspect. It has a huge impact on the game and has several implications. The first and most obvious is the number of actions a player can take. Chess and Weiqi are turn-based games, which means theoretically, every player has the same number of actions*. That's not the case with RTS games, as the advantage typically goes to the player who can do the most Actions Per Minute (APM). Do you focus more on macromanagement or micromanagement? Do you focus more on your forces on the north or on the south? If you have a high APM, you can, to a certain extent, do a little bit more of one and the other. It's possible for example to have an SCV repair a Thor while ordering a Marine to shoot at the opponent's Pylon. With turn-based games, it's usually a binary choice: either you command this Unit on your turn, or you don't. if you do, then your turn ends. Let's not forget the strategy part though, so just because you have high APM does not necessitate you being the better player.

Another implication is that the value of a Unit is determined by whether you micromanage it or not. A Roach, a ranged Unit, for example, if used correctly, can easily take down a Zealot, a slow melee Unit. If you simply leave the Roach unattended when fighting the Zealot, the former is significantly weakened. This rationale applies to a lot of Starcraft II Units such as Reapers, Hellions, and Stalkers. Another tangent to this is that when two identical Units, such as a group of Banelings, face off each other, the one with the advantage is the one who micromanages their Units. Clearly, this isn't the case in either Chess or Weiqi. The value of a Rook won't increase just because you devote more attention to it. Chess and Weiqi conquer Units by initiative: if the Queen can act before the opposing Rook, the former wins.

The third implication of real-time strategy are the vectors of speed and acceleration, and to a certain extent, range and the terrain. Why are Zerglings with the Metabolic Boost upgrade better than those without? Because it increases their movement speed, thus enabling them to reach their destination faster (usually for counterattacks) and surround their enemies quicker. In a turn-based game, the former might be replicated (such as Rooks moving an unlimited number of squares whereas Pawns simply move one square) but the latter impossible unless it's represented in an abstract way (such as a turn-based game might give the Zerglings +1 attack to mimic their increased effectivity). A prevalent tactic in Starcraft is kiting (i.e. Marauders shooting at Zealots and then moving away) and this would not be possible if the game wasn't occuring in real time.

3 Zealots vs. 7 Marines

The second concept is Asymmetrical Warfare. One of the reasons Starcraft is hard to balance is because you have three non-identical races to play with. There are other turn-based games which feature asymmetrical warefare but as far as Chess and Weiqi are concerned, what one player is capable of, the other player has access to. White player's Knights are identical to the black player's. The only asymmetry with such games is who goes first or who has a handicap (in the case of Weiqi). With Starcraft however, unless it's a mirror-match, there is no perfect equivalent between Units. One Zealot does not equal four Zerglings. Even the most similar of Units, a Hydralisk vs. two Marines, for example, are not identical, whether due to their stats, their costs, or the tech needed to obtain them. This is compounded by the RTS aspect (i.e. the value of a Unit increases when it is micromanaged).

The third concept is Economy. Starcraft has an interesting risk/reward system: you have more resources at your disposal if you focus on economy. However, focusing on economy might mean you have a weaker army in the present. It's also possible to have a larger army than your opponent assuming you have a better economy than they do. This tension is not present in either Chess or Weiqi: the former awards you with a finite set of Units from the very start, while the latter rewards you with exactly one more Unit every round.

Introducing economy to the game has nuances. It's a viable target for example for the opponent: instead of simply decimating a player's Units, you can get ahead of the game by diminishing your opponent's economy. But neither is it a variable that will always determine success: just because you have a larger economy does not mean you'll win the war. A larger army can decimate your forces, or you might not be able to make use of your wealthy economy in time. It also leads players to make alternative and sub-optimal choices. Some strategies, for example, revolve around focusing on Minerals, Gas, or both Minerals and Gas. Where you spend (and if you're able to) your acquired resources adds depth, but neither is the system idiot-proof as production queing is usually detrimental. The entire argument of macromanagement vs. micromanagement (although this isn't a fair comparison as you're really doing both in the game; it just matters in what degrees) also wouldn't be possible if economy in the game didn't exist.

A probe scouting the mini-map

The fourth concept is Imperfect Awareness. In Chess and Weiqi, both players know what their opponent is doing. What they don't know is what their opponent is planning. In Starcraft, not only do players not know what their opponents are planning, they also don't know what their opponents are actually doing. That's why scouting and the Fog of War become elements of one's strategy. Concealing information from your opponent can win or lose you games. it's also a mark of a very good player if they can guess what their opponent is planning based on the meager information they can glean.

The last concept is Terrain. In Chess and Weiqi, the board is an even playing field, and Units have no inherent advantages based on where they are, aside from the tactical and strategic value of holding territory. In Starcraft, that's not the case. Air, for example, is unbreachable unless you have flying Units. High ground, on the other hand, denies vision from the opponent unless they have Units on the high ground as well.

Another consequence of terrain is that it gives games variety and favors certain races more than the other. The map you play in Chess and Weiqi will always be the same. That's not the case with Starcraft. Playing on Lost Temple for example is different from Metalopolis or Steppes of War. Similarly, Terrain is tied to to other concepts: RTS (distances), asymmetrical warfare (some maps favor some strategies/tactics more), economy (the placement of resources and starting locations), and imperfect awareness (how difficult it is to scout the opponent).

It is for these various reasons that I find Chess a poor analogy to Starcraft. Sure, both Chess and Starcraft employ strategy, but clearly, the strategy (and tactics) needed to master the latter is significantly different from the former. Nor can it be encapsulated in a single statement (or even a single paragraph), hence this long essay.

*Unfortunately, the problem with turn-based games is that the players aren't on equal footing. In Weiqi, it's accepted that the player who goes first has the advantage, so bonus points are awarded to the player who goes second, at least in a non-handicapped game.