Chess or Pokemon: Which requires more critical thinking?

[OmegaLucifer]

Which is more intellectually stimulating?

[BlakBlastoise]

Are you comparing a classic game, that's been around for like thousands of years, which has been used by some of the greatest minds of all time, to chess?
No, but seriously. Chess. Period. Pokemon has thinking, but chess is... chess.

[THE_IRON_KENYAN]

Originally Posted by Fat Aeolus

Smogon Tour Semifinals!

1. Bluewind vs. 13. Bad Ass
3. Delta 2777 vs. 7. Folgorio

I dont know, you tell me

[cim]

Considering chess is a game of pure strategy and Pokemon is a game of probability management, strategy and metagaming, I don't really think they are directly comparable nor can you say one is "more" stimulating than the other.

It's worth noting that chess is a solvable game but Pokemon is not, because Pokemon has multiple options and metagaming.

[Accent]

The only reason why Pokemon isn't solvable is because there is a random factor, multiple options and metagaming have nothing to do with it.

edit: however like CIM said the two aren't really comparable, Chess is more about analyzing a game's current and possible future states while Pokemon is about calculating probabilities and bluffing. If you want to compare it to a classic game, it should be poker.

[JRank]

Chess proves who is the smartest/better strategist, while Pokemon proves who has better luck and who can adapt to different team match-ups and hax.

Just my opinion.

[mtr]

Chess is pure in-game strategy. Most of the strategy in Pokemon revolves around designing a team, which is actually out-of-game strategy.

[cim]

Originally Posted by Fat Accent

The only reason why Pokemon isn't solvable is because there is a random factor, multiple options and metagaming have nothing to do with it.

Rock Paper Scissors has no random factor whatsoever. Why isn't it solvable?

[Accent]

It is. The solution is that every option is equally likely to make you win.

[lmitchell0012]

Pokemon is definitely more intellectually stimulating than chess in my opinion. In chess, you have only six pieces, and they can all only move in certain ways. Pokemon, on the other hand, has more than 500 pieces, I can't even count the number of moves that are in the game, each pokemon gets several different abilities to choose from. There's just so much more to think about in pokemon. So, in my mind, it's pretty obvious which game stimulates your brain more.

[Flip09]

Chess

[Mailman]

The best Chess player in the world is cobsidered to be a genius, the best Pokemon player is considered a nerd.

[Faladran]

Yeah, the luck aspect of Pokemon detracts somewhat from its competitiveness, as does the possibility of poor team match-ups. However, these disadvantages do make for some interesting challenges to play around.

btw Pokemon is cuter

[Morm]

pokemon has luck, so at face value no.

However, luck management on your team as well as acceptable risk scenarios (to me) make it a more volatile and therefore more strategic game. You must manage the hundreds of other pokemon on the opposing team with multiple strategies while moderating luck as best you can while countering it.

[FlareBlitz]

Definitely Chess.

I used to be pretty good at chess (1900+ USCF ELO) and I am pretty good at Pokemon in the tier I choose to play in (UU) so I feel like I have somewhat of a qualified opinion on this.

In Pokemon, every team has a set strategy that they will try to employ with minimal variation (i.e. set up tspikes and stall, set up lucario for a sweep, use multiple bulky sweepers to overwhelm defenders and outlast attackers, etc), with critical thinking only coming into play during the teambuilding process (and a lot of people just copy teams these days), during hax, and during "predictions". Essentially, then, the critical thinking aspects of Pokemon all relate to information/risk management. Chess has this aspect, although not as much of it, but it also has a level of strategic and tactical volatility during the midgame that Pokemon simply lacks, primarily due to the aforementioned "set strategies" every team has. A hyper-offense team can never stall, for example, while a grandmaster can play offensively, defensively, with a closed center, and open center, or any other number of combinations/permutations. Therefore, even though chess might seem more "limited", any given game actually has far more tactical considerations and possibilities than a game of Pokemon.

Very interesting question, though; the fact that the games are so difficult to compare is what makes it worth thinking about.

[lati0s]

My experience in chess is rather limited but I think that flareblitz really nailed this one. When I play pokemon I find that most of the time all I have to do is 'go with the flow' I never really have to think about my moves, I'm just executing my strategy, whereas in chess there are a lot more things to consider with each move.

[TheCalmSnivy]

I think you have to remember more things in Pokemon, like the different sets various Pokemon have, but definitely chess requires more critical thinking.

[min min]

I can't deny there is strategy in both. However, as lati0s said, chess has multiple options every turn, several of which are actually viable. In pokemon however, you can only have a small number of resists for a particular type, a small number of safe switch-ins to powerful attacks, and a small number of ways to ensure a win condition is met. Therefore everything just sort of "flows", if you know what I mean.

However you have the parts about double-switching, pivoting and predicting. That gives us quite a bit of thinking to do, so yeah. But really, it's more of Rock Paper Scissors than anything,

...

---

except that there are 17 different kinds of rock, the chance of winning is based on the size of your hand compared to your opponent's, and you can grab random passers'-by hands to use. And every time before you strike you have to roll a 20-sided dice. Also, new hands are added to the game every 2-3 years or so.

[Chou Toshio]

Whenever I get haxed out really bad I log out of PO in frustration, and log onto KGS Go Server and play a few games of Go until I chill out . . . luck . . . ugh

[cim]

Originally Posted by Fat Accent

It is. The solution is that every option is equally likely to make you win.

I mean solvable in the sense that you can execute a chokehold strategy. Chess is solvable because one can find an ideal move every / any turn to guarantee a win or stalemate. Pokemon cannot.

[Accent]

Chess is solvable because each turn you can indeed calculate all the possible following moves and pick the best of all the options you have (it's actually the aim of the game); however, as should be quite obvious, this doesn't mean that you can find a move in turn 1 that will guarantee a win.

It's the same thing for RPS: you can calculate all the possible outcomes and pick the move that's the most likely to make you win, except in this case all your options are equally viable.

And as we both said, Pokemon is indeed not solvable, because one option in a given turn can sometimes make you lose, sometimes make you win, even if all the following moves are identical.

Now as for which game is more intellectually stimulating, I'd say Chess, but that doesn't mean it is superior to Pokemon in every aspect. Pokemon has a greater social component, for example.

[cantab]

Originally Posted by Fat Accent

as should be quite obvious, this doesn't mean that you can find a move in turn 1 that will guarantee a win.

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.

[Nozizaki]

Pokemon requires much more thought process.

[Kristoph]

Originally Posted by Fat TheCalmSnivy

I think you have to remember more things in Pokemon, like the different sets various Pokemon have, but definitely chess requires more critical thinking.

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.

[Curtains]

I am an expert at chess and i can say chess is the better game and it requires more critical thinking.Pokemon is basically 80% luck.20% actual skill (guessing)

In chess you can basically control what your opponent does in the opening. Say if you play 1.c4 your opponent only has a few good options like 1..e5 1..g6 1..nf6 or 1..d5 or even 1..f5 all which you can easily study.However if you play a much more wide opening scheme such as 1.e4 you have many more lines in which you have to study such as all the Sicilian variations, 1.e4,e5 caro khan , french and all its lines. In the middle game its far more complicated because you have to predict the plan your opponent is going to do and make your own attack.Each move you have to predict what your opponents response is.Its far less luck and more skill than pokemon because basically you have to be right every move and can only manage to be wrong maybe 1 or 2 times in serious tournament play. Any more and your completely crushed by a decent player.

In pokemon the rule is that the person with the most crits win.One tournament battle i got crited 5 times even though my team was far superior than his and i lost.

Additionally pokemon is a very easy game to master.Any 9 year old can go on pokemon online make a stall team or some team and rape everyone. I was very good at this game when i made my first wifi team.My first team had an alakazam because i knew that it had good special attack and speed.And a bronzong because of its defenses.I was a beast even before i learned about a metagame or tiers.

Chess on the other hand is like putting together a puzzle . Opening + tactics+ middle game+ endgame + other stuff = your player strength.Far more skill and experienced involved. Hard concepts to grasp.Anyone that isnt over 1200 should'nt be commenting in this thread.

Pokemon is basically advanced rock paper scissors with sprites.And seriously shouldnt be taken seriously as an intellectual game.