The Ancient Art of CM.

[deanco]

I think CM is closer to backgammon than chess myself. It's a game where a really good player could theoretically lose to a novice, it has the luck factor, and it's a game where the psychological factor (doubling cube) is very important.

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco:

I think CM is closer to backgammon than chess myself. It's a game where a really good player could theoretically lose to a novice, it has the luck factor, and it's a game where the psychological factor (doubling cube) is very important.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice points. Where it resembles chess is in the spatiality. I've always thought of CM as a combination of poker and chess.

[SurlyBen]

Interesting posts here. For what it's worth, I see an analogy with chess as well, in that you can compare the openings of QB meeting engagements (and other types of battles too, I guess) to modern and not so modern chess openings. The not so modern openings tend to focus on occupying the center immediately, whereas the more modern ones delay occupying the center so that the occupation can be permanent. (Yes, I'm greatly simplifying. People write whole books on the subject ). I think this is similar to the flag rush or not flag rush tension. Both can work quite well, one seems subtler than the other. There are also similarities in the fact that there is a beginning where you make developing moves, a midgame where you try to decide the issue or at least set yourself up for the endgame, and an endgame where a lot of the pieces have been removed, and everything is simplified. The trouble with chess analogies is that they are only really useful to people who are ok at chess. And it is harder to learn how to be an adequate chess player than it is to learn to be an adequate CM player...

Regarding the luck thing, I think that luck in the game ties into the psychological aspect. Over the course of your average CM game, you are going to get lucky, and your opponent is going to get lucky. The important thing is not to become demoralised when your opponent gets lucky first. This happens about half the time (it'll be less noticable when you get lucky against a player who's better than you, though ), and it is entirely possible win by sticking it out until you luck changes. The player who doesn't panic, keeps his men cohesive, and above all avoids mistakes will still be in a position to take advantage when the luck changes.

Getting to the questions at hand, I agree with much of what has been said already. I think that a good player doesn't make mistakes as far as the basics are concerned (by basics I mean things like keeping units in command, noticing where the enemy is, tophat and lowski, general knowledge of CM units) which lets that player put most of his thought into the bigger picture. I also think that a good player is tenacious. For a good player, there is no such thing as an unbeatable battle. There are just constraints within which victory may be achieved. Not giving up may be the most important virtue. (There was a recent thread about a guy who walked when his Jumbo got killed. Regardless of his other failings, that guy was not a good player.)

There is a quote by a grandmaster chess player "No one ever won a game of chess by conceeding." (might have been alekhine... I've loaned out the book that I saw it in, so this is probably a paraphrase too ): )The quote applies to CM as well.

Surlyben

[ 09-30-2001: Message edited by: SurlyBen ]

[Scott B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SurlyBen:

There are also similarities in the fact that there is a beginning where you make developing moves, a midgame where you try to decide the issue or at least set yourself up for the endgame, and an endgame where a lot of the pieces have been removed, and everything is simplified.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. I actually think my typical CM offensive maneuver is influenced by my chess experience: I have this underlying urge to 'develop my pieces' before an attack such that all of my available forces can support my main effort, and such that my opponent's 'counterplay' is severely restricted. At least, in theory-- when it works, it works well, and I try never to allow myself to be predictable.

Once I think I have found a weakness in an enemy's position and go into exploitation/pursuit mode, I throw everything I can into it, which again may be a throwback to maintaining tempo in chess. Then again, chess is hardly the only game where seizure and maintenance of the initiative is critically important.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And it is harder to learn how to be an adequate chess player than it is to learn to be an adequate CM player...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much of Combat Mission is more intuitive to a beginner, particularly one with previous experience with wargaming or in the military. I think playing chess requires a greater degree of accountability as well, once you begin to realize that there's precious little 'fog of war' that you don't manufacture yourself on the chessboard.

I guess if there's one area that's influenced my Combat Mission style more than chess it would be readings on Operational Art, but as those are still primarily oriented on similar problems, they are in many cases more directly appropriate. A firm understanding of the basics of operational maneuver can only assist a CM player anyway - some aspects of tactical combat translate directly down from the operational level.

Scott