Oh but they are not so diffirent at all if you look at it. Chess requieres a well planned strategy if you want to alst beter players, and dont tell me you can baet Civ4 on deity with juz randomly going stuff and by the late industrial age desciding "Oh, lets go for Culture". Civ4 on higher levels requieres people to carefully think trough there moves "If i build this Baracks i get stronger units, but then i cant build a Granery and get a bigger population". Same with chess, you cannot move a pawn without it effecting the move of another piece. Both requiere a good deal of experience before you can match yourself with the top. I guess 1 real mayor diff between Chess and Civ4 isnt the graphics and that sorts, Chess was pretty sophisticated for the time it was created, but i guess Chess leaves nothing to chance but purely the skill of 1 player against another, and only the best will emerge. In Civ, my army can be stronger, my civ can be stronger, but with a few unlucky roles in combat i can still lose it all. So some poor moves in Civ can be as devestating as in Chess. If i gotta pick a beter game on fact, Chess is a better game. A game that has kept thousands of people entertained for thousands of years and still its not out of date. A game that develops actual skill, and requieres pure skill to win. And not some skill and some neat bug abuse or standerd tactic the AI cant defend against. But if i gotta pick one i like best now, its Civ4. But Chess teaches a person alot more, dont let anyone say otherwise. Chess teaches you tactical insight, preperation, bluff perhaps. And what does Civ4 teach you? that the Sputnik, at a curtain time, said "Beep..beep...beep".