How High would your Int and Wis Scores have to be to always win at Chess?

[BlueWitch]

title

So about how high do you think someones Intelligence and Wisdom Scores would have to be, in order to ALWAYS win at a game of Chess in the Real World?

And I mean against the Pros at International Tournaments and whatnot.

Or would this be more like a Profession or Perform Skill?

[Hellpyre]

I think it's more an opposed roll kind of deal, so it depends heavily on the opponent. It also depends on what the eventual solved state of chess is, if you get to a high enough INT to literally know every possible move. At which point winning or not may well depend on which color you play.

[AnonymousPepper]

If it's an opposed roll, then you need a net modifier 20 higher than your opponent. That's it. If the skill checks are otherwise even, then that means an ability score at least 40 higher. These numbers are halved if you're allowed to take 10.

At some very, very high point, however, chess does eventually become a solved game, at which point the color becomes more important. Where that point lies is dependent on GM fiat, however.

[Kurald Galain]

So about how high do you think someones Intelligence and Wisdom Scores would have to be, in order to ALWAYS win at a game of Chess in the Real World?

And I mean against the Pros at International Tournaments and whatnot.

Or would this be more like a Profession or Perform Skill?

It has nothing to do with Wisdom or Perform. The obvious thing to do is create a skill called "tactics" or "gameplay", based on intelligence. If you insist on using the existing skills, file it under Craft or Knowledge.

A world-class chess player would have something like 22 int, skill focus, and about ten levels of Expert. That adds up to +22 (up to +27 in PF), which should be enough to beat almost everyone who's not a high-ranking wizard or elder dragon.

[Bohandas]

I think there is a slight distinction to be made. Always winning cannot be guaranteed, HOWEVER it IS theoretically possible to never lose (but sometimes draw/stalemate)

[RatElemental]

It has nothing to do with Wisdom or Perform. The obvious thing to do is create a skill called "tactics" or "gameplay", based on intelligence. If you insist on using the existing skills, file it under Craft or Knowledge.

A world-class chess player would have something like 22 int, skill focus, and about ten levels of Expert. That adds up to +22 (up to +27 in PF), which should be enough to beat almost everyone who's not a high-ranking wizard or elder dragon.

One DND setting has rules for playing a game that is similar to chess called Conqueror. It's an opposed Knowledge(History) roll that for only this specific purpose got synergy bonuses from bluff and sense motive.

[smetzger]

Higher than the person you are playing.

[Biggus]

It has nothing to do with Wisdom or Perform. The obvious thing to do is create a skill called "tactics" or "gameplay", based on intelligence. If you insist on using the existing skills, file it under Craft or Knowledge.

A world-class chess player would have something like 22 int, skill focus, and about ten levels of Expert. That adds up to +22 (up to +27 in PF), which should be enough to beat almost everyone who's not a high-ranking wizard or elder dragon.

Agreed that it should be a skill roll along the lines you suggest, but 10 levels of expert is pretty generous. I'd say more like 5 or 6, which would give a total of about +17/18. You might allow a +2/+2 feat or two as well though.

Wisdom does come into it, as knowing your opponent can provide an advantage, and that's as much a Wisdom thing as an Intelligence one. It certainly has nothing to do with Perform though.

[Hellpyre]

I think there is a slight distinction to be made. Always winning cannot be guaranteed, HOWEVER it IS theoretically possible to never lose (but sometimes draw/stalemate)

Not quite true. There are several solved games in which a player can force a win (ex. Connect Four, Pentago). And since chess is not yet fully solved, we don't know what true perfect play will force.

[ben-zayb]

I think there is a slight distinction to be made. Always winning cannot be guaranteed, HOWEVER it IS theoretically possible to never lose (but sometimes draw/stalemate)This. IIRC chess is a solvable game, so no amount of INT can guarantee your win 100% of the time, especially against a well-programmed chess AI (zombie-made computers are a thing in D&D)

[King of Nowhere]

it's still argued whether it is possible to force a victory with white, or a perfect game would be a draw.
regardless, at the current level, it is probably impossible to always win with black against the world champion. the rules of chess have some hard limits.

as for how big a bonus current world champions have, I'm not sure a number can be produced. certainly not by reasoning how many expert levels they should have; I read that article about einstein being level 6th, but i fouind it very unconvincing, full of dubious assumptions. d&d is simply not an accurate enough simulation of reality.
But I can give some numbers, thanks to elo rating. elo rating in chess is a logaritmic scale such that 350 points of difference mean a 90% expected score.

So, current world champions are around 2800 elo. they can expect a 90% score against the weaker grandmasters, at 2450. those, in turn, can expect a 90% score against a 2100, which is the strongest player you are likely to find in a large town. this guy, in turn, can expect a 90% score against a 1750, which is a middle ranking club player. and this mid ranking club player scores 90% against a 1400, which is a rather weak player, but still one with at least one year or two worth of experience. people who never had a formal training at a chess club, and who are our baseline for a +0, never earn an elo score, but it would be below 1000. so our power scale is

- world champion scores 90% against
- low-end grandmaster scores 90% against
- strongest player in town scores 90% against
- mid ranking club player scores 90% against
- weak club player scores 90% against
- untrained dude scores 90% against
- total noob. (who probably has a penalty for lack of proficiency)

the lowest elo rankings are around 600. interestingly, there are several internet sites where you can play chess, and each one has its own ranking, but all have a similar difference between the strongest and weakest players: 6 or 7 times "scores 90% against". so this divide between strongest and weaker probably an actual property of the human brain and/or the game.

now, it's clear that if we reduce chess to a single toss of the dice, in order to keep those probabilities consistent we'd need the world champion to have at least +50. which is a fairly ridiculous modifier by how they are defined.

I had devised a more complex method to simulate a chess game with d20, where each player would have a total of 5 points representing how good is their position, and they would make a sequence of opposed rolls.
- if the difference between the rolls is 5 or less, then nobody has gained any advantage. the player who scored more can choose to have both players lose 1 point or not.
- if one player scores more than 5 above the opponent, the opponent loses 1 point. 2 points on a natural 1 (representing a more serious blunder). on a natural 20, you cannot lose points (by skill or luck, you played the best possible moves)
- losing points means having a worse position, so it's more difficult to play: every lost point gives a cumulative -2 penalty. (between weak players, a point represents a material advantage. among stronger players, it represents a concrete positional advantage; the more skilled the players, the smaller the advantage that is represented by that 1 point)
- the game ends in a victory if one player reaches 0 and the other player still has at least 2 points. otherwise the game is a draw (1-0 may represent, for example, a situation of king and bishop against king, where one player has a clear advantage but there's no way to win. at higher levels it may represent an endgame of opposite bishops with one pawn of difference, or perhaps a fortress configuration. at lower levels it may represent a situation where checkmating would be possible, but the players lack the skill to reach it).

this should probably equalize the situation and make for more reasonable modifiers, but i have no idea what kind of probability distribution would result from it.

by the way, modern computers are a tad stronger than human champions (they are estimated to be rated around 3000). At least until a few years ago, play-by-mail champions (using a computer for assistance) were even stronger than computers, because a human is better at long-term planning. I'm not sure how that would compare to normal games, but the difference is probably small enough, because at this point mistakes are so few that it may be impossible to force a victory. so, let's call it 3100 to 3300, and very close to the limit of perfect game.
someone estimated that god should be around 3500, but there's no way to verify it.
if that is true, it means the difference between someone playing so bad they're basically random, and someone always playing the very best move, is roughly 9 times "scores 90% against the weaker player".

[Biggus]

as for how big a bonus current world champions have, I'm not sure a number can be produced. certainly not by reasoning how many expert levels they should have; I read that article about einstein being level 6th, but i fouind it very unconvincing, full of dubious assumptions. d&d is simply not an accurate enough simulation of reality.

While the Einstein article made some good points, I agree it's far from conclusive. However, looking at the challenge ratings of some real-world animals strongly suggests no actual human has a level much above 5 or 6:

Polar Bear CR4
Tiger CR4
Giant Constrictor Snake CR5
Humpback Whale (Baleen Whale) CR6
Sperm Whale (Cachalot Whale) CR7
T-Rex CR8
Giant Squid CR9
Blue Whale (Baleen Whale advanced to 20HD/ colossal size) CR9



But I can give some numbers, thanks to elo rating. elo rating in chess is a logaritmic scale such that 350 points of difference mean a 90% expected score.

So, current world champions are around 2800 elo. they can expect a 90% score against the weaker grandmasters, at 2450. those, in turn, can expect a 90% score against a 2100, which is the strongest player you are likely to find in a large town. this guy, in turn, can expect a 90% score against a 1750, which is a middle ranking club player. and this mid ranking club player scores 90% against a 1400, which is a rather weak player, but still one with at least one year or two worth of experience. people who never had a formal training at a chess club, and who are our baseline for a +0, never earn an elo score, but it would be below 1000.

Thanks for explaining that, I knew what Elo ratings were but not how they work.



by the way, modern computers are a tad stronger than human champions (they are estimated to be rated around 3000). At least until a few years ago, play-by-mail champions (using a computer for assistance) were even stronger than computers, because a human is better at long-term planning. I'm not sure how that would compare to normal games, but the difference is probably small enough, because at this point mistakes are so few that it may be impossible to force a victory. so, let's call it 3100 to 3300, and very close to the limit of perfect game.
someone estimated that god should be around 3500, but there's no way to verify it.


Those numbers seem surprisingly low, where do they come from?

[Segev]

It’s interesting to examine the numbers from a purely D&D side, too. For our purposes, let us assume there is a int-based skill directly applicable to Chess. We can also assume that Bluff and Sense Motive are useful.

But let’s just focus on the int-based skill check.

At first level, is we use Pathfinder, the smartest human possible has a 20 Int. 18 in 3.5. For simplicity, I will assume no 3.PF, and that the 3.5 version takes Human Paragon 2 to catch up by level 2.

So, at first level, either 1 rank with +3 for training in a class skill, or 4 ranks. In both cases, let’s assume skill focus. So PF gets a +11 and 3.5 a +10.

By level two, both are up to +12.

If we assume there’s a “+2 to two skills” feat that’s applicable, that’s +14 by level two. (He’d have taken both feats at level 1.)

If he’s Venerable-aged, that’s another net +1, for +15 at level two.

While we can argue about up to +4 more for achieving four more levels, I think it’s fair to say that a person who is as smart as a human can be, who has devoted everything humanly possible to mastering Chess, is going to be the pinnacle of chess players.

So a +14 to +19 is probably the range that grand-masters have to the core “chess skill.”

If your average “best player in your high school chess club” has 14 Int and +4 from the skill, he has a +6 at level 1 and +7 at level two. My assumption here is that he’s good and devoting effort to it, but isn’t putting everything about his life into it.

If it’s a straight roll, he’ll beat the +14 19.5% of the time.

He’ll beat the +19 only 7% of the time.

Make it a series of contested rolls, and his odds drop fast.

[Kurald Galain]

Wisdom does come into it, as knowing your opponent can provide an advantage, and that's as much a Wisdom thing as an Intelligence one. It certainly has nothing to do with Perform though.Sure, and the way 3E models that is by giving a synergy bonus for five ranks in a wisdom-based skill, e.g. Sense Motive.


as for how big a bonus current world champions have, I'm not sure a number can be produced. certainly not by reasoning how many expert levels they should have; I read that article about einstein being level 6th, but i fouind it very unconvincing, full of dubious assumptions. d&d is simply not an accurate enough simulation of reality.Yes. In particular, the author is not aware that "creating a new theory in physics" is not something unique to Einstein, but the prerequisite to a Masters degree. So if that article is otherwise correct, anybody with a MSc or similar degree is at least level 5.

More to the point, WOTC posted an article pegging Olympic-level athletes around level 7, with potential ability scores up to 23.


It’s interesting to examine the numbers from a purely D&D side, too.
...and your numbers are based on precisely that erroneous assumption that regular humans go up to level five. This assumption has no basis in the rulebooks and does not match up to reality.

Aside from that, there's PF traits; masterwork items (refluffed as training); Tome of Clear Thought; performance-boosting drugs; and Inspire Competence.

[The Insanity]

Higher than the other guy's.

[King of Nowhere]

While the Einstein article made some good points, I agree it's far from conclusive. However, looking at the challenge ratings of some real-world animals strongly suggests no actual human has a level much above 5 or 6:

Polar Bear CR4
Tiger CR4
Giant Constrictor Snake CR5
Humpback Whale (Baleen Whale) CR6
Sperm Whale (Cachalot Whale) CR7
T-Rex CR8
Giant Squid CR9
Blue Whale (Baleen Whale advanced to 20HD/ colossal size) CR9


those challenge ratings are actually way higher than they should be, as a caveman with a spear was more than a fair match for a lion.
ancient romans often hosted a man against a lion in gladiatorial games, and the men won the vast majority of times.
the danger of animals is overstated in the manuals because they need to be credible dangers until the mid-low levels. but in truth, as soon as humans discovered the fire-hardened spear, they jumped to the top of the food chain.




Those numbers seem surprisingly low, where do they come from?
they are not really that low, when you consider that 350 points means scoring 90% against the weaker opponent. so the difference between 2800 and 3500 is still huge.

as for the source of those numbers, it's mostly stuff i hear from other chess players. the 3000 rating from computers comes from tournaments where they host chess programs, but i don't know how it is compared to human rating. there is also anecdotal evidence based on matches between human champions and computers that pegs the 3000 rating as roughly right.
as for play-by-mail, there's again anecdotal evidence from players.
so, it's all guesstimates.



Yes. In particular, the author is not aware that "creating a new theory in physics" is not something unique to Einstein, but the prerequisite to a Masters degree. So if that article is otherwise correct, anybody with a MSc or similar degree is at least level 5.

More to the point, WOTC posted an article pegging Olympic-level athletes around level 7, with potential ability scores up to 23.


the master degree argument is another one i heard and didn't found convincing; in a master thesis, the professor is the one doing most of the work. the graduate is probably the one helping him for a +2 helper bonus. or perhaps he's doing the more mechanical part of running experiments to provide data that the professor will then explain.
regardless, "revolutionizing the field" with relativistic theory should definitely count as something more than "discovering something new".
and there's also the way knowledge accumulates: newton and einstein are both top level physicists for their times, and they should then have similar modifiers, but einstein knew so much more than newton, who had to work hard to discover the stuff that's now common knowledge for anyone with an interest in science. d&d also cannot model that in any way that I know.

as for olimpic athletes, there's always the matter that despite being athletic people (high CON, high hit dice) they still can die to a single stab wound. on the other hand, going by the numbers it would be impossible to run a marathon in two hours short of epic levels. and i read that the record of speed shooting with a bow is 10 arrows in 6 seconds, which again you cannot do short of epic levels.
hence why i say that all attempts to model real people woith levels are arbitrary

[Kurald Galain]

in a master thesis, the professor is the one doing most of the work.Not in a good university, he's not. This ain't high school :smallamused:


as for olimpic athletes, there's always the matter that despite being athletic people (high CON, high hit dice) they still can die to a single stab wound.I assume you're referring to Denis Ten? He was attacked by two thieves, so that may well have been multiple hits (or crits), plus sneak attack and Craven feat.

Let's see, 7th level expert gets 6+6d6+21 hit points = 48, two third-level rogues deal (1d4+2) x2 +2d6+3 = 19 average / 27 max damage. Yeah, he can credibly go down in two stabs; or easily in three. Sure, the rogues were lucky; but then it's not exactly common for athletes to be stabbed to death.

[Segev]

...and your numbers are based on precisely that erroneous assumption that regular humans go up to level five. This assumption has no basis in the rulebooks and does not match up to reality.

Aside from that, there's PF traits; masterwork items (refluffed as training); Tome of Clear Thought; performance-boosting drugs; and Inspire Competence.

I don’t see the relevance of your dismissal. If you want to go to level 20, the calculation becomes only closer for the guy who is passingly interested and the guy who devotes everything to it.

The PF version of the dedicated master has +3 or +7 more additional by level 10, when the frats double up on their bonuses for having 10 ranks in the relevant skill.

After level 10, unless we make up classes for chess masters, they stay relatively on par.

At most, then, the difference becomes 14. Pretty significant!

The “interested but not super-dedicated” one only wins 3.75% of the time.

Or are you suggesting comparing level 1 chess playing amateurs to level 20 chess grand masters who dedicated everything they could to it?

[Morty]

D&D 3E has rules for many things it absolutely doesn't need to and probably shouldn't, but strategic boardgames aren't among them, nor is there any need for them. There's certainly no amount of attributes that would guarantee victory.

[Khedrac]

Another thing is that the top level chess players do so well by memorising loads upon loads of options. They don't simply work out n moves in advance, the already know what most of the possibilities lead to. These days they do their analysis with a lot of support from other players and computers, but it remains all about knowing more about the options of the current position than their opponent.
(There was one chess grandmaster who discovered that his next opponent had an eidetic memory - so he found an opening not covered in any book and thus one his opponent knew nothing about to use against him.)

So, unless someone has the intelligence to solve chess at a glance, or possibly the wisdom to be able to read his opponent's intentions (which is harder than it sounds - it's easy to know that one's oppoenent is happy or unhappy with your move, but if they were happy with it you cannot take it back) then no matter how clever, somone new to the game will lose to a grandmaster as they know less about the game than the grandmaster.

[Batcathat]

(There was one chess grandmaster who discovered that his next opponent had an eidetic memory - so he found an opening not covered in any book and thus one his opponent knew nothing about to use against him.)

That grandmaster is my new hero. Finding someone's greatest strenght and then using it to defeat them (he won, right? Please tell me he won :smalleek:) is a pretty awesome way of winning.

[Gnaeus]

Another thing is that the top level chess players do so well by memorising loads upon loads of options. They don't simply work out n moves in advance, the already know what most of the possibilities lead to. These days they do their analysis with a lot of support from other players and computers, but it remains all about knowing more about the options of the current position than their opponent.
(There was one chess grandmaster who discovered that his next opponent had an eidetic memory - so he found an opening not covered in any book and thus one his opponent knew nothing about to use against him.)

So, unless someone has the intelligence to solve chess at a glance, or possibly the wisdom to be able to read his opponent's intentions (which is harder than it sounds - it's easy to know that one's oppoenent is happy or unhappy with your move, but if they were happy with it you cannot take it back) then no matter how clever, somone new to the game will lose to a grandmaster as they know less about the game than the grandmaster.

Also worth noting in this context is that there have been good studies that show that that memory work in general has almost nothing to do with intrinsic memory (int), and almost everything to do with learned pattern recognition (skill ranks).

A normal person can easily store like 6 pieces of information. If you show a random person with no experience a chess board for a few seconds they will be able to remember where a handful of pieces are. Show that same board to a grandmaster and he will be able to recreate the entire board. But only if it is a position derived from play. Scatter the pieces randomly and most GMs won’t do better than guy off the street.

[Biggus]

More to the point, WOTC posted an article pegging Olympic-level athletes around level 7, with potential ability scores up to 23.


I'd be interested to read that article, do you have a link?

If that's true, it suggests the world chess champion is probably level 7 or 8.


those challenge ratings are actually way higher than they should be, as a caveman with a spear was more than a fair match for a lion.
ancient romans often hosted a man against a lion in gladiatorial games, and the men won the vast majority of times.
the danger of animals is overstated in the manuals because they need to be credible dangers until the mid-low levels. but in truth, as soon as humans discovered the fire-hardened spear, they jumped to the top of the food chain.


Cavemen, gladiators and other who have to fight for survival on a daily basis would level up a lot faster than the average medieval farmer or modern office worker, so the successful (ie still alive) ones would probably get to level 2 or 3 pretty quickly.

While a single warrior might win fairly reliably against a CR3 lion, I don't see many people winning reliably against a CR8 T-Rex. And Blue Whales weren't hunted until the 1860s when improvements in technology made it easier to kill them.

So overall, while I can see an argument for the highest-level real-world humans being maybe level 8, I don't see any reason to think they get to level 10+.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd be interested to read that article, do you have a link?

If that's true, it suggests the world chess champion is probably level 7 or 8.

Yep. Surprisingly, it's still up after more than a decade.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a

According to WOTC, the best Olympic archers are 7th-level rangers, based on their accuracy against a Fine, stationary target 230 feet away and some reasonable assumptions about feat choices.

[Biggus]

Yep. Surprisingly, it's still up after more than a decade.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a

According to WOTC, the best Olympic archers are 7th-level rangers, based on their accuracy against a Fine, stationary target 230 feet away and some reasonable assumptions about feat choices.

Thank you! Very interesting. Given the thing about the 6th-level Monk with the Dash feat being able to hit the world marathon record, presumably a 9th-level Monk with a further 10ft speed bvonus would be able to beat it by a fairly large margin. Fits with the idea that the highest-level real humans are level 7-8.

[Willie the Duck]

I am going to make the assumption that D&D 3e characters are still somewhat similar to real-world people, and not supercomputers. Thus more like Kasparov, Anand, Botvinnik, and Fischer than Deep Blue or whatever the latest chess supercomputer is*. At this level Chess isn't approaching a solved game (for the characters' purposes) and it is still a skill, rather than raw computation. In that world, this question...
*In no small part because the question of "so what Int score does a mono-focused supercomputer who 'solves' the game of chess through some insane combination of brute computational force and having been fed every recorded chess move their opponent has ever made" is a well of D&D-rules speculation from which I feel there is no escape.


So about how high do you think someones Intelligence and Wisdom Scores would have to be, in order to ALWAYS win at a game of Chess in the Real World?

has an answer of 'unknowable.' No one has gotten that high. In high level chess, no one ALWAY wins. That's one of the reasons that tournaments are usually 'best, three out of five,' or the like (as the victor of a single game simply isn't representative enough of a test of overall skill to be considered a worthy title-earning metric). It becomes more pronounced at speed chess, where all of the best occasionally get beaten by people well below their caliber. One of the reasons that chess is still a popular game is that, despite there not being a dice/random aspect to it, it still does not end up with the better player always winning.

[D+1]

IMO the issue would be that X stat does not directly equate to a comparable Y result in the real world. An 18 strength does not mean that in the real world you are guaranteed to win over someone with a 15 strength. There are too many other variables and RANDOMNESS of a d20 or other die roll is almost always a factor. A 20 intelligence similarly wouldn't guarantee victory in a chess game over someone with 19 or less. Heck, you can write a dozen different takes on HOW winning a chess game would be represented within D&D mechanics and they don't even have to include intelligence, much less make it the overwhelming indicator for winning. In fact, it's better if it isn't the sole or overwhelming indicator for winning because doing so means that you're eliminating other factors as even being possible to incorporate.

PC sits down to a chess match against EvilOverlord. Outcome of the game decides whether the PC's live or die. EvilOverlord has a 20 intelligence. PC has only 17 intelligence. Does that mean that each of them makes an intelligence check until someone fails? Does losing require three failed checks? Can a 20 "remove" a failed check from counting against a participant? Can EvilOverlord be distracted to lose concentration? Can PC get assistance in deciding their moves? Is the PLAYER required to actually play a game of chess versus the DM with die rolls somehow assisting? Can either of them CHEAT? Does the PC have chess playing SKILL having played it all his life where EvilOverlord doesn't because they've never even heard of the game? How does any of that factor in? Why should it NOT factor in and simply be a random contest between X intelligence and Y intelligence.

You're actually asking the wrong question. The right question would be something like:
Given that chess playing is going to be a thing in this adventure or in this campaign, what rules do I want to use to control who wins/loses at playing chess and what do I want to allow to influence that outcome for WHATEVER reason?

[Chronos]

Kurald Galain has already beat me to my point about "Einstein was level 5" (except that that level more accurately represents a PhD than a Master's), so I won't go there. But a couple of points about chess:

First, what we know is that chess falls into one of three categories. Either:
A: White can always force a win, with perfect play.
B: It's always possible for either side to force a draw, with perfect play.
C: Black can always force a win, with perfect play.

Now, C is almost certainly not the case. We don't have any examples of perfect play to work from (or equivalently, if we do, we don't know it), but in all of the imperfect play we know of, White consistently and significantly has an advantage over Black. But still... we can't actually mathematically prove that C isn't the case.

Between A and B, we don't know. High-end play has so many draws that I think that most experts suspect B to be the case (it's always possible to force a draw, and a win can only happen when someone makes a mistake), but that's still very much a point of contention.

Finally, high-end chess players most emphatically do not play simply by memorizing large numbers of moves. It's not possible to memorize enough to get that good. You would literally need a brain much larger than the entire Universe to memorize that much. It is possible to achieve a modest level of success at openings by memorizing some of the more common lines, but even at best, that'll only get you a small fraction of the way through the game. And absolutely any grandmaster at all will be able to outperform you in the opening (and thus, probably plant the seeds for a win) by going "off-book" (that is, along a line that isn't one of the common ones you might have memorized). Because grandmasters don't rely on memorizing particular opening lines (they probably do anyway, just by playing so much and seeing them so often, but it isn't a particular goal); they instead learn to understand how openings work, and why some lines are better than others, a skill which will serve them equally well in unfamiliar board positions.

[Khosan]

I'm gonna get weird for a second.

I think you'd have an easier time modelling chess in D&D if you treated it as combat instead of as a skill check. Base everything off of mental stats, like using Int for your 'hit chance'/odds of creating effective short term strategies and Wis as your 'AC'/long term planning and ability to avoid losses. Take turns (each one representing multiple turns of actual chess) until someone runs out of points.

As an example, say you have 16 'chess points,' you roll 1d20 + your Int versus 10 + their Wis, dealing 1d4 chess points of damage on a success. I'd leave it at that unless there's some real demand for abstracted chess.

[Morty]

No matter how you handle it, playing chess is a skill that the game has no way of representing. Saying that high Intelligence should help you doesn't make a lot of sense - there's no such thing as as an "Intelligence score" in real life. And either way, a smart and clever person who has never played chess is still going to stand no chance against an experienced player.

A more useful question to ask is "why are we getting chess involved in a game?". Did someone challenge a player character to a game of chess? Did it happen the other way around? Is it a riddle, like in Harry Potter? Or is it just something largely inconsequential but adding color to a game - a character just likes to play chess? But if the outcome is really important, I really don't know how it could be mechanically resolved without just having players play chess against the GM.

[King of Nowhere]

Cavemen, gladiators and other who have to fight for survival on a daily basis would level up a lot faster than the average medieval farmer or modern office worker, so the successful (ie still alive) ones would probably get to level 2 or 3 pretty quickly.

While a single warrior might win fairly reliably against a CR3 lion, I don't see many people winning reliably against a CR8 T-Rex. And Blue Whales weren't hunted until the 1860s when improvements in technology made it easier to kill them.

So overall, while I can see an argument for the highest-level real-world humans being maybe level 8, I don't see any reason to think they get to level 10+.

on the other hand, they had no magic or even masterwork items. in fact, most of them had poor-quality weapons (which entail a penalty) and no armor.
and while there were no CR 8 t-rex to compare, cavemen did frequently hunt mammuths. which are CR 7.

but i'm not arguing for cavemen being high level. i'm arguing for real animals being less dangerous than their d&d stats.




Finally, high-end chess players most emphatically do not play simply by memorizing large numbers of moves. It's not possible to memorize enough to get that good. You would literally need a brain much larger than the entire Universe to memorize that much. It is possible to achieve a modest level of success at openings by memorizing some of the more common lines, but even at best, that'll only get you a small fraction of the way through the game. And absolutely any grandmaster at all will be able to outperform you in the opening (and thus, probably plant the seeds for a win) by going "off-book" (that is, along a line that isn't one of the common ones you might have memorized). Because grandmasters don't rely on memorizing particular opening lines (they probably do anyway, just by playing so much and seeing them so often, but it isn't a particular goal); they instead learn to understand how openings work, and why some lines are better than others, a skill which will serve them equally well in unfamiliar board positions.

i'd upvote this if i could, because it explains it really well.

and to expand, high level chess is mostly pattern recognition, and skill at reading it.
for example, you recognize that a certain structure of the pawns make knights better than bishops, so you decide to exchange a bishop for a knight. your opponent recognizes that he can change the pawn structure in a way that would make his bishop superior again, and he does so.
pawn structure is the primary factor, as pawns are relatively immobile, and while weak they can capture any piece at a gain, and so they control terrain. A weak pawn is a fixed point to attack. where there is no weak point, there are ways to make one. a weak piece can always be moved. however, poorly placed pieces take time to get back into the action, and this time can be used to advance one's goals.
So, it's all the interplay between all those factors. A good bishop is attacking a weak pawn. A mediocre bishop is blocked by an opponent's strong pawn. a bad bishop is blocked by your own pawns. you can manuever the bishop to a better position, but in the meanwhile how could the opponent change the position? pieces attacking in concert, and pieces defending. pieces cooperating, and pieces getting in each other's way. strong pawns, weak pawns, pawns that are strong but can become weak, pawns that are both weak and strong at the same time.
it's all patterns, and their interactions, and how they can be changed by moving, and the new interactions.
play-by-mail world champion Hans Berliner called them configurations.

[Gnaeus]

on the other hand, they had no magic or even masterwork items. in fact, most of them had poor-quality weapons (which entail a penalty) and no armor.
and while there were no CR 8 t-rex to compare, cavemen did frequently hunt mammuths. which are CR 7.

In big groups. I feel reasonably confident that no human ever intentionally soloed a mammoth with a spear. If a tribe of cavemen matched up against a mammoth, and still only generally killed it by using environmental factors and its animal intelligence, like herding it off a cliff, that goes a long way toward convincing me that they didn’t top level 4.

[Bartmanhomer]

I love this thread. I have a similar thread about this topic a long time ago. Also, the Grandmaster (The Chess Gods) have the Intelligence and Wisdom score of 18+.

[King of Nowhere]

Not in a good university, he's not. This ain't high school :smallamused:



i don't know about your thesis, my own was about using a new form of spectroscopy to investigate the threedimensional structure of a nanoparticle coated in organic molecules. and while i was a skilled student and went on to do well in my phd, there's no way i could have figured it out without my professor figuring out the difficult bits. I would rate myself as having acquired the skill to actually discover something new on my own around the third year of my phd.
so, still an achievement more common than einstein, but not as common as having a degree




I assume you're referring to Denis Ten? He was attacked by two thieves, so that may well have been multiple hits (or crits), plus sneak attack and Craven feat.

never heard of him. just referring to how any real person can easily die to a stab wound or an arrow that a d&d character can shrug off even at low level.



In big groups. I feel reasonably confident that no human ever intentionally soloed a mammoth with a spear. If a tribe of cavemen matched up against a mammoth, and still only generally killed it by using environmental factors and its animal intelligence, like herding it off a cliff, that goes a long way toward convincing me that they didn’t top level 4.

I already answered that



but i'm not arguing for cavemen being high level. i'm arguing for real animals being less dangerous than their d&d stats.



if this need clarification: in d&d a lion has 32 hit points. it charges you, you hit it with a spear (maybe, he has AC 15) dealing roughly 5 damage (10 if you prepared the action), then the lion full attacks you with pounce and you are dead.
in real life you can always attack the lion earlier because the spear gives reach (even just the reach of a sword over a knife is a huge advantage, something thagt d&d, working in 5-foot increments, misses entirely), hitting a charging lion is no big deal, and then the lion is mortally wounded, because it doesn't have 32 hit points. and a spear can reach its vitals easily enough.

[Kurald Galain]

never heard of him. just referring to how any real person can easily die to a stab wound or an arrow that a d&d character can shrug off even at low level.
So where are you getting this ridiculous notion that all manner of real people commonly die from stab wounds?

[Gnaeus]

if this need clarification: in d&d a lion has 32 hit points. it charges you, you hit it with a spear (maybe, he has AC 15) dealing roughly 5 damage (10 if you prepared the action), then the lion full attacks you with pounce and you are dead.
in real life you can always attack the lion earlier because the spear gives reach (even just the reach of a sword over a knife is a huge advantage, something thagt d&d, working in 5-foot increments, misses entirely), hitting a charging lion is no big deal, and then the lion is mortally wounded, because it doesn't have 32 hit points. and a spear can reach its vitals easily enough.

Analysis...

https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/03/can-an-untrained-man-armed-with-a-primitive-spear-kill-a-lion-tiger-or-bear.html

So a highly trained human with specific training in killing lions with spears has a good chance but not 100% to kill a single lion with a spear. That seems reasonable for CR3.

[Bartmanhomer]

And what does physical and magical combat have to do with the OP question? :confused:

[Asmotherion]

Theoretically, your total bonus should be at least 20 higher than your opponent. Let's say a level 8 build, with 22 int, skill focus (chess), and a masterwork tool (a chessboard) would have 11 skill ranks+3(sf)+2(masterwork)+6(int)=+22. contested against an average int humanoid with no ranks in chess, only a natural 20 could beat our guy.

[Bartmanhomer]

Theoretically, your total bonus should be at least 20 higher than your opponent. Let's say a level 8 build, with 22 int, skill focus (chess), and a masterwork tool (a chessboard) would have 11 skill ranks+3(sf)+2(masterwork)+6(int)=+22. contested against an average int humanoid with no ranks in chess, only a natural 20 could beat our guy.

I think Boccob must have been a grandmaster at chess at one point. He must have teach the grandmasters how to play well at chess.

[RatElemental]

So where are you getting this ridiculous notion that all manner of real people commonly die from stab wounds?

A single stab wound is enough to kill anyone who doesn't have immediate access to modern medicine and first aid techniques and sometimes even then. Between blood loss, risk of infection and chance of damage to vital organs it gets grim fast.

Historically, many people who died in war died as a result of injuries acquired in battle that we just didn't have the knowledge to properly treat.

[Kurald Galain]

A single stab wound is enough to kill anyone
Nope, I don't buy that. Got any sources?

While it is clear that occasionally, some people die from stabbing, this could easily be explained by low constitution, multiple hits, sneak attack, prior injuries, failed saves against infection, etc. It doesn't mean (as Nowhere implies) that any healthy adult has only half a dozen hit points total.

[RatElemental]

Nope, I don't buy that. Got any sources?

While it is clear that occasionally, some people die from stabbing, this could easily be explained by low constitution, multiple hits, sneak attack, prior injuries, failed saves against infection, etc. It doesn't mean (as Nowhere implies) that any healthy adult has only half a dozen hit points total.

I was mostly referring to complications after the fact such as bleeding and infection, not somebody instantly falling over dead of being stabbed. If that's what you meant then, okay, I'll revise my statement to "A single stab wound is enough to cause somebody to die of related complications."

[Morty]

The fact that D&D has very little in terms of complications from being hurt (as long as you don't continue to sustain damage, you'll be right as rain eventually, even without healing magic) should be one of many hints about how it doesn't translate to real life.

[Asmotherion]

The fact that D&D has very little in terms of complications from being hurt (as long as you don't continue to sustain damage, you'll be right as rain eventually, even without healing magic) should be one of many hints about how it doesn't translate to real life.

Technically it does, it's just that most people don't use the wound variant rules because 3.5 is already complex enough, to penalise you with a further resource to manage...

[Morty]

Technically it does, it's just that most people don't use the wound variant rules because 3.5 is already complex enough, to penalise you with a further resource to manage...

And because people don't play D&D to worry about a stab wound putting their character out of commission for a long time or permanently.

[Bartmanhomer]

Again let me repeat myself. What does physical and magical combat have to do with the OP question? The OP only asked about the Intelligence and Wisdom score for chess. Everything about wounds is very irrelevant here. :mad:

[RatElemental]

Again let me repeat myself. What does physical and magical combat have to do with the OP question? The OP only asked about the Intelligence and Wisdom score for chess. Everything about wounds is very irrelevant here. :mad:

It stemmed from a discussion trying to translate some real world statistics into D&D terms, in this case trying to suss out what level and thus how many skill points a chess grandmaster would have. But with level comes hit dice and with hit dice comes the ability to shrug off stab wounds.

[Bartmanhomer]

It stemmed from a discussion trying to translate some real world statistics into D&D terms, in this case trying to suss out what level and thus how many skill points a chess grandmaster would have. But with level comes hit dice and with hit dice comes the ability to shrug off stab wounds.

Well skill points, hit dice and wounds are very different subjects. I don't really see how can you compare one way to another. :annoyed:

[King of Nowhere]

Nope, I don't buy that. Got any sources?

While it is clear that occasionally, some people die from stabbing, this could easily be explained by low constitution, multiple hits, sneak attack, prior injuries, failed saves against infection, etc. It doesn't mean (as Nowhere implies) that any healthy adult has only half a dozen hit points total.

a stab to the heart or the throat (one that cuts the major blood vessels, not one that narrowly misses anything vital), or one to the head that manages to penetrate the skull, is quickly fatal to anyone. even a slash that reaches the femoral artery leads to death in minutes.
also, nobody in real life could fall 9 meters on hard ground and keep on fighting (surviving is not too unlikely, but you'll certainly not be on your feet). in d&d it's 2d6. with a jump check to voluntarily drop and an acrobacy check you can take no damage at all, at level 1.
but i'm not exactly implying everyone has limited hit points. there are also instances of people surviving dozens of stabs, or falling hundreds of meters and surviving.

all i'm trying to prove with this tangent is that you cannot relate real world people with class levels, because if you look at different things you will get different results. If you assume a DC 40 for relativistic physics, eintein was level 5. if you assume a DC 45, einstein was level 10. if you look at an athlete ability to hit a small target they are level 7, if you look at their ability to run long distances they are probably much higher. if you look how much whacks it takes to drop one with a weapon, they will look much lower. if you take chess ability into account, again you're likely to get high levels.

So, asking "what level is this real life guy" is nonsense. levels are a poor model for people.
what you can actually ask is "what level do you need in d&d to emulate this specific feat". which can bring us back to chess.
I'll report back the power scale we're trying to emulate here



- world champion scores 90% against
- low-end grandmaster scores 90% against
- strongest player in town scores 90% against
- mid ranking club player scores 90% against
- weak club player scores 90% against
- untrained dude scores 90% against
- total noob. (who probably has a penalty for lack of proficiency)

Now, if you reduce the game to a single toss, in order to score a 90% you need roughly a +10. By this metric, untrained dude has +0, weak club player has +10, mid-ranking club player has +20, all the way to world champion at +50. So you'd need a +60 to beat them consistently. we have a hard time accepting that, because it would imply world champions (and even many lesser players) are epic level, while they clearly fail to show any other power of a epic level character. but the reason for it is not that chess champions have a lower modifier, it's just that class levels and modifiers do not accurately represent reality, and so if we look too closely the system will break apart.


if instead of having a single toss decide the game you turn chess into a more elaborate minigame, as i also mentioned in that same post, then you need a lower bonus to replicate that 90% score. and so the bonus goes way down.
Long story short, you need to figure out a system to simulate chess. then you need to figure out what kind of bonus one would need to score 90% over a weaker opponent. a world champion has that bonus *5 or *6, depending on where you set your +0 baseline. and then you add again that bonus to find someone who would score 90% against a world champion.

[Bartmanhomer]

I think there's no clear answer and how high the player Intelligence and Wisdom score to beat chess. Unless If you homebrew a rule on how to do it. But there no rule indicating that. :frown:

[RatElemental]

I think there's no clear answer and how high the player Intelligence and Wisdom score to beat chess. Unless If you homebrew a rule on how to do it. But there no rule indicating that. :frown:

I actually pointed this out on the first page, but there are rules for a chess-like game in one setting book. It's rather simplistic but it's an opposed knowledge(history) roll with +2 if you have 5 ranks in bluff and/or +2 if you have 5 ranks in sense motive.

[Bartmanhomer]

I actually pointed this out on the first page, but there are rules for a chess-like game in one setting book. It's rather simplistic but it's an opposed knowledge(history) roll with +2 if you have 5 ranks in bluff and/or +2 if you have 5 ranks in sense motive.

Cool. I guess there is a rule after all. :smile:

[ngilop]

Nope, I don't buy that. Got any sources?

While it is clear that occasionally, some people die from stabbing, this could easily be explained by low constitution, multiple hits, sneak attack, prior injuries, failed saves against infection, etc. It doesn't mean (as Nowhere implies) that any healthy adult has only half a dozen hit points total.

I mean.. how can you seriously deny that people die to being stabbed?

I would link multiple sources of such but, the truth is, I am 1005 certain that such would be against the forums rules on political and religious stuff.

This is honestly the most mind blowing statement I have ever seen on this forum and I stared at the screen in disbelief for several minutes.

To actually and fully have the belief that somebody died as a victim of violence solely because something was wrong with them and not the fact that violence was visited upon them (whether it was warranted or not) is so disrespectful that I am not able to put it into words. Contrary to what you belief the human race is not nigh-invulnerable and in the grand scheme of things are in reality kinda not durable in regards to damage.

[Kurald Galain]

I mean.. how can you seriously deny that people die to being stabbed?

Conversely, how can you seriously deny that people survive being stabbed?

[ngilop]

I never did:smallconfused:. People do survive being stabbed.

[Biggus]

I mean.. how can you seriously deny that people die to being stabbed?

I would link multiple sources of such but, the truth is, I am 1005 certain that such would be against the forums rules on political and religious stuff.

This is honestly the most mind blowing statement I have ever seen on this forum and I stared at the screen in disbelief for several minutes.

To actually and fully have the belief that somebody died as a victim of violence solely because something was wrong with them and not the fact that violence was visited upon them (whether it was warranted or not) is so disrespectful that I am not able to put it into words. Contrary to what you belief the human race is not nigh-invulnerable and in the grand scheme of things are in reality kinda not durable in regards to damage.

I Googled "chance of dying from being stabbed" and the figures I found said that 7.7% of stabbed people who arrive in hospital by ambulance and 26.5% of those who arrive in a police car die. So in the modern era at least, it seems stabbing is not usually fatal.

[Asmotherion]

Again let me repeat myself. What does physical and magical combat have to do with the OP question? The OP only asked about the Intelligence and Wisdom score for chess. Everything about wounds is very irrelevant here. :mad:

well, there is a co-relation. The same logic that applies for optimising AC - or to-hit is used to calculate a virtual unbeatable skill check in chess (theorising that chess is either a skill or a valid candidate for perform (chess) profession(chess player) or craft(check mate).

[Bartmanhomer]

well, there is a co-relation. The same logic that applies for optimising AC - or to-hit is used to calculate a virtual unbeatable skill check in chess (theorising that chess is either a skill or a valid candidate for perform (chess) profession(chess player) or craft(check mate).

I feel like someone needs to homebrew a new prestige class: Grandmaster Of The Chess Gods. :tongue:

[Segev]

If I were to try to model a game of strategy, I’d abstract it into usually 3+ rolls, with three phases.

Phase 1 is the opening moves. Here, players are establishing their positions and solidifying how they’ll go into the rest of the game. This is an appropriate skill check (int + either spellcraft, martial lore, or disable device, perhaps, for chess; the skill chosen defines the play style). The total rolled is your advantage in the game.

Phase 2 is the mid game. Here, players are attempting to establish dominance and whittle down their opponent’s position. The role is made again, and the amount is subtracted from the opponent’s advantage. This can make it go negative.

Phase 3 is the endgame, where reversals and clinging to life can happen. The same role is made, but now the difference between your roll and your opponent’s is added to your score (reducing it if negative). Your opponent is gaining or losing the same number, but in reverse.

If, after any end game roll, at least one player has a negative advantage, the game ends if one player has more advantage. It continues for another roll if they’re tied or both are at positive advantage.

Keep rolling endgame moves until somebody wins by having more advantage while at least one player is at negative advantage.

[Morty]

I think there's no clear answer and how high the player Intelligence and Wisdom score to beat chess. Unless If you homebrew a rule on how to do it. But there no rule indicating that. :frown:

I feel like this was obvious pretty much immediately, yes. There are no rules for chess (or any other boardgame) and even if there were, high Intelligence and Wisdom shouldn't be enough to win.

[Biggus]

So the answer seems to be roughly "it should be a skill check, but you'd have to invent a new skill as none of the standard ones cover it. A world champion would be roughly a 7th-level expert with a bonus in the region of +20. (Therefore to be sure of never losing against them you'd need a bonus of about +40). Even with an arbitrarily high bonus they could still probably force a draw sometimes though. Also Bluff and Sense Motive would be relevant if playing face to face against a living opponent".

Is that approximately where we're at?

[Morty]

I would sum it up as "this game about adventurers fighting monsters and finding treasure has no rules for playing chess". It's a bit shorter.

[Bartmanhomer]

I feel like this was obvious pretty much immediately, yes. There are no rules for chess (or any other board game) and even if there were, high Intelligence and Wisdom shouldn't be enough to win.Agreed.


So the answer seems to be rough "it should be a skill check, but you'd have to invent a new skill as none of the standard ones covers it. A world champion would be roughly a 7th-level expert with a bonus in the region of +20. (Therefore to be sure of never losing against them you'd need a bonus of about +40). Even with an arbitrarily high bonus, they could still probably force a draw sometimes though. Also Bluff and Sense Motive would be relevant if playing face to face against a living opponent".

Is that approximately where we're at?
7th Level expert?! I thought a world champion would be a 21+ Level expert.

[noob]

Agreed.


7th Level expert?! I thought a world champion would be a 21+ Level expert.

Did you see world champions in chess being more accurate with a rifle than most soldiers and also see world champions in chess survive being shot 10 times in a row?
I think they are low level but that they got really good feats to help them at chess or something like that.

[Bartmanhomer]

Did you see world champions in chess being more accurate with a rifle than most soldiers and also see world champions in chess survive being shot 10 times in a row?
I think they are low level but that they got really good feats to help them at chess or something like that.

No, I didn't but I thought with a chess rating of 2100+ would consider being epic. Also, I don't believe a chess grandmaster would at a low level.

[noob]

No, I didn't but I thought with a chess rating of 2100+ would consider being epic. Also, I don't believe a chess grandmaster would at a low level.
No they are not epic in any dnd way.
They are exceptional relatively to other chess players but it does not translates under the form of dnd like epic character qualities.
Assuming that they just got some extremely specific feats(since they learn chess for years having chess specific feats would not be weird) is more logical.
At level 21 dnd people do things like walking on clouds.
Do you assume a real life person who is as exceptional at balancing as a world champion chess player is at chess should be able to walk on clouds?
No because real life people are not epic dnd they are in fact far from that.
Nothing indicates that skill checks at chess works the same way as other opposed checks: maybe having 4 more in the chess skill than your opponent makes you have 90% chance to beat your opponent due to how the chess skill works.
In which case someone with +40 to chess skill checks(probably possible with enough optimisation at levels as low as 5) would have the equivalent of 3500 elo(assuming 0 elo players are just players with +0 in the skill while it is more likely they are players with a negative modifier).

[Bartmanhomer]

No they are not epic in any dnd way.
They are exceptional relative to other chess players but it does not translate under the form of dnd like epic character qualities.
Assuming that they just got some extremely specific feats(since they learn chess for years having chess specific feats would not be weird) is more logical.
At level 21 and people do things like walking on clouds.
Do you assume a real-life person who is as exceptional at balancing as a world champion chess player is at chess should be able to walk on clouds?
No, because real-life people are not epic dnd they are in fact far from that.
Nothing indicates that skill checks at chess work the same way as other opposed checks: maybe having 4 more in the chess skill than your opponent makes you have 90% chance to beat your opponent due to how the chess skill works.
In which case, someone with +40 to chess skill checks(probably possible with enough optimisation at levels as low as 5) would have the equivalent of 3500 elo(assuming 0 elo players are just players with +0 in the skill while it is more likely they are players with a negative modifier).

You got a point there. No grandmaster won't be able to walk the clouds. But they're not low level either. Maybe mid-level or high level (not epic). Also, let think for a moment a 7th level chess player would consider a low-tier chess player. I don't think a 7th level chess player would be at the same league against the chess grandmaster.

[RatElemental]

You got a point there. No grandmaster won't be able to walk the clouds. But they're not low level either. Maybe mid-level or high level (not epic). Also, let think for a moment a 7th level chess player would consider a low-tier chess player. I don't think a 7th level chess player would be at the same league against the chess grandmaster.

Once you get above about level 6 or 7 you're leaving behind normal humans in terms of physical and mental capabilities. This is one reason e6 exists and why it stops at level 6 but lets you continue to gain feats. A 10th level chess player would be a superhero in addition to being good at chess. A 20th level chess player would be capable of fighting entire armies and winning (assuming none of the soldiers was higher than the 6-7 "normal" for humans).

[Morty]

This is a fine example of why the Expert and Commoner classes (arguably Aristocrat too) have so very little point. Class levels are meant for adventuring PCs; trying to describe skilled civilians with them leads to absurdity.

[Bartmanhomer]

Once you get above about level 6 or 7 you're leaving behind normal humans in terms of physical and mental capabilities. This is one reason e6 exists and why it stops at level 6 but lets you continue to gain feats. A 10th level chess player would be a superhero in addition to being good at chess. A 20th level chess player would be capable of fighting entire armies and winning (assuming none of the soldiers was higher than the 6-7 "normal" for humans).
And that's a very good reason to have e6. But aren't grandmasters consider to have superpowers at chess knowing how good they come up with a very good strategy and tactics against the other player? (I'm speaking figuratively not literally.)

[RatElemental]

And that's a very good reason to have e6. But aren't grandmasters consider to have superpowers at chess knowing how good they come up with a very good strategy and tactics against the other player? (I'm speaking figuratively not literally.)

No. Chess players are still humans. Outside of hyperbole no one considers them to be literally superhumans when it comes specifically to chess.

They also definitely cannot fight dozens of opponents in real hand to hand combat simultaneously and come out victorious, or drink poisons that would be lethal to lesser men and survive, or any number of ludicrous stunts a high level dnd character can do.

[Bartmanhomer]

No. Chess players are still humans. Outside of hyperbole no one considers them to be literally superhumans when it comes specifically to chess.

They also definitely cannot fight dozens of opponents in real hand to hand combat simultaneously and come out victorious, or drink poisons that would be lethal to lesser men and survive, or any number of ludicrous stunts a high level dnd character can do.

Awwww........:frown:

[noob]

I found out how much int and wis you need: you need to have low enough int and wis to die before playing chess in your life.
Or sufficiently high paranoia, int and wisdom to avoid living anywhere where other things can interact with you at which point you never play chess.

[Quertus]

7th Level expert?! I thought a world champion would be a 21+ Level expert.


You got a point there. No grandmaster won't be able to walk the clouds. But they're not low level either. Maybe mid-level or high level (not epic). Also, let think for a moment a 7th level chess player would consider a low-tier chess player. I don't think a 7th level chess player would be at the same league against the chess grandmaster.

And this is why people were cross-referencing other aspects of D&D.


I found out how much int and wis you need: you need to have low enough int and wis to die before playing chess in your life.
Or sufficiently high paranoia, int and wisdom to avoid living anywhere where other things can interact with you at which point you never play chess.

Snarf. I suppose "never lose" and "always win" can be synonyms…

[noob]

Snarf. I suppose "never lose" and "always win" can be synonyms…

They are not due to ties.
If you have a tie you no longer always win but you can still never lose(ex: if you always have a tie then you do not always win but you never lose).
However never playing makes you both never lose and win all the matches you do(you won 0 out of 0 matches)
(You also always lose and never win but we asked to always win not to have won matches)

[Silfir]

Assuming that Magnus Carlsen sits at +30 to chess skill checks, however the source, and that all chess skill checks rely on INT, you need an INT modifier of +50 to reliably defeat him if you only know the rules and nothing else. That corresponds to INT scores of... 110? Is that even a thing?

(WIS only enters into it for staying calm and collected during play - so you need only a WIS good enough to reliably pass all your will saves; beyond that WIS does very little. You don't have to be wise to be good at chess; just check Bobby Fischer's biography.)

Chess grandmasters are not inherently smarter or wiser than someone with a good college degree. I wouldn't peg most of them as 18 or higher. Carlsen might be a 20th level Expert... If you use a variant of Expert that allows him to substitute BAB and bonus feats (i.e. all the combat abilities that are hard-coded into the D&D class system, but pointless for modern day humans) for more skill ranks and Skill Focus feats, or similar tricks. Something to represent the ungodly amount of practice and experience that goes into becoming a chess world champion. You have to start playing the game close to full time from like six years old to have a shot at the top.

[hamishspence]

(WIS only enters into it for staying calm and collected during play - a good will save can make the difference. You don't have to be wise to be good at chess; just check Bobby Fischer's biography.).

D&D Wisdom isn't necessarily a perfect match to real-life wisdom. It boosts one's will save, and various skills - but high Wis characters can make very unwise choices.

[Bartmanhomer]

And this is why people were cross-referencing other aspects of D&D.



Snarf. I suppose "never lose" and "always win" can be synonyms…

Yes I totally get it and understand it now.

[Morty]

D&D Wisdom isn't necessarily a perfect match to real-life wisdom. It boosts one's will save, and various skills - but high Wis characters can make very unwise choices.

D&D wisdom doesn't correspond to anything in particular, really.

[Bartmanhomer]

Assuming that Magnus Carlsen sits at +30 to chess skill checks, however the source, and that all chess skill checks rely on INT, you need an INT modifier of +50 to reliably defeat him if you only know the rules and nothing else. That corresponds to INT scores of... 110? Is that even a thing?

(WIS only enters into it for staying calm and collected during play - so you need only a WIS good enough to reliably pass all your will saves; beyond that WIS does very little. You don't have to be wise to be good at chess; just check Bobby Fischer's biography.)

Chess grandmasters are not inherently smarter or wiser than someone with a good college degree. I wouldn't peg most of them as 18 or higher. Carlsen might be a 20th level Expert... If you use a variant of Expert that allows him to substitute BAB and bonus feats (i.e. all the combat abilities that are hard-coded into the D&D class system, but pointless for modern day humans) for more skill ranks and Skill Focus feats, or similar tricks. Something to represent the ungodly amount of practice and experience that goes into becoming a chess world champion. You have to start playing the game close to full time from like six years old to have a shot at the top.
With a Intelligence score off 110: that's a deity terriority. Grandmaster with an Intelligence 18+ are very high. I have face a few Grandmaster in my lifetime and they're very difficult to beat. These players are like 5 or 10 moves ahead of me. Even if I use my best defensive moves, they totally pummeled me. I can totally get a grandmaster who's level 20 expert.

[Segev]

This thread now has me pondering what epic uses of “strategy games” as a skill might be.

[Bartmanhomer]

I wish the chess grandmaster were epic. :frown: A Level 7th Team will be completely wiped out in one move. :sigh:

[Morty]

I wish the chess grandmaster were epic. :frown: A Level 7th Team will be completely wiped out in one move. :sigh:

Wiped out by whom? How? Chess players aren't D&D characters. Nor is any other real-world person.

[Bartmanhomer]

Wiped by whom? How? Chess players aren't D&D characters.

If the chess grandmaster were D&D characters and has their own class: Chess Grandmaster and have their own mind powers they will be very hard to beat.