I was told there was a correlation. But look at my GM worthy 2376 WL rating compared to my meekly 1250 chess rating :P

I wonder if there is a stronger correlation between WL skill and chess skill or WL skill and poker skill.

Pulsey you are a nub at chess and warlight.

The players in your new nub clan are nubber than i'll ever be.

The only correlation i see between Poker and WL are probabilities. Whereas Chess and WL are both puzzles.

Edited 6/1/2014 08:06:42

Which ones? Sze, luxis, timi or qi?

In a funny way I think warilght did improve my chess skill since some of the ideas are applicable to both games. For example attacking your opponent, technique used in both games, to sustain a stable advantage in a part of the board you concentrate on, is helpful in both cases. There are many other ideas, like prophylactic thinking and limiting your opponents counterplay. In poker I have far less experience than in chess or warlight, however I think game-theory wise those 2 are quite close.

To some extent (i'd say upper intermediate or lower advanced tier) both games require memorizing patterns. Learning to pick and basic strategy here is more or less similar to learning chess openings and it's basic strategy however i'm worthless at chess. The game bores me..

In chess the patterns are well documented and you can get good without any original work at all. In warlight you have to decide on the patterns yourself.

Warlight also has more variables that are not fixed. Also the fog of war eliminates your ability to see everything your opponent is doing. This lends to fuzzy logic whereas chess lends more to binary sets. That being said the two games share a lot of overlap as mentioned above. There is a reason though that ai's can be incredibly good at chess but not so much at Risk type games such as warlight.

"Reports that say there's -- that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."

the unknown unknowns is where war light is won =D

2376 isn't worthy of a GM; you'd be lucky to get the extra 24 points to reach your first IM norm ;)

Yes.
if you checkmate someone that means that they are dead
checkmate means the king is dead ...
just like eliminating someone

A good chess (2000+) player is probably a good/decent Warligth player. However a good Warlight player is not necessarily a good Chess player.

I disagree Tbest. Both game utilize different sets of skills. It is an apples and oranges comparison. There is no evidence beyond your anecdotal opinion that "A good chess (2000+) player is probably a good/decent Warligth player. However a good Warlight player is not necessarily a good Chess player."

Also good is rather subjective. Is good winning at 50% against average opponents? or is good winning at 40% to advanced or elite opponents?

What are your qualifications for good is it a 2000+ rated ladder player? as your chess qualification is?

Correlation? Yes, but not a very strong one. Mediocre maybe.

There is a set of mental attributes that are good for both chess and warlight. The ability to learn effectively and analyze helps tremendously in both games.

Still, chess is more about detail and about memorizing concrete moves and patterns. Warlight is not so much about detail but about the big picture.

@Gentelman "There is no evidence" is something I agree with and the reason i said "Probably". I was merely stating my opinion.

When it comes to what good means this is in chess considered to be over 2000 FIDE elo (often refereed to as master. Based on the chess puzzle thread the majority of chess players in Warligth is below this rating). In Warligth there is currently no way to define good (as we have FFAs, Team Games, 1v1. and various different settings.) So to simplify massively lets refer to a good/decent Warlight player as 50% or more in 1v1. (on the Ladder)

So I belive that a 2000+ chess player will achieve more then 50% wins in 1v1. I do not believe that a skilled(Say been on top 100 in the 1v1 ladder) Warligth player has greater potential in chess then the average Warligth player.

Edited 6/1/2014 15:35:45

talk to my 1250 rating :'(

I think their might be correlation between skills in warlight and chess on certain templates (strat 1v1 etc), but warlight have so many other templates. I'd argue that you can find correlation between chess and certain templates, but you can't really compere it to warlight as a whole.

I agree with odion on: "Correlation? Yes, but not a very strong one. Mediocre maybe.

There is a set of mental attributes that are good for both chess and warlight. The ability to learn effectively and analyze helps tremendously in both games."
(the 2nd part "Still, chess is more about detail and about memorizing concrete moves and patterns. Warlight is not so much about detail but about the big picture" is wrong imo, but that's a different discussion).

It depends how much time you spend playing. I've never really bothered much with chess, hence, I normally last a few turns until my opponent wins. In WarLight, I've spent the time tying to get good at it, I'm better at WarLight than I am at chess, but that's not saying much.

In my mind Warlight is much about empathy to have the edge in these stone-paper-scissors situations and guess your opponent's next move correctly by sitting in his mind. That's an element unique to WarLight: Achieving best possible outcome in contact.

And then, of course, there is the fog. A nice puzzle putting together glimps of information which make you the winner, if solved well enough. Another unique trait.

I like both. What I do not like, is picking.

We could figure this out by the numbers: take our ratings in chess and the Warlight ladder and graph it all, and see if there's a true 'correlation' . . .

Then again, I'm not willing to disclose my current FIDE/USCF rating. You can probably find it on Wikipedia, but other than that . . . ;)

Edited 6/2/2014 00:42:36

I think chess takes way more experience and memorization than Warlight. Warlight is strategic and by the numbers and then playing your opponent more akin to poker as someone suggested. Playing the odds and the players.