JonathanStrange
PrinceWithA1000Enemies
His chess analogy was deeply flawed as chess software programs in fact are known for their ability to calculate tactics in any position to an astonishing depth - they don't rely on databases for that. Databases for opening and endgame positions are akin to a human studying and (if his memory's can handle it!) remembering; it's hardly cheating. Though we all might wish for such a memory!
However, that said, I think his point was (or should have been ) that Civ IV has a lot more going on than chess does and can't rely on databases of tested high level move by move theory. A chess engine might be able to rely on an opening book for 30 moves if there's no deviation and when it leaves the book, chess engines while theoretically having to deal with all sorts of possible moves and move orders while evaluating their worth, the truth is most possible moves are clearly identifiable as bad.
It's remarkable, imo, that Civ IV plays at well as it does given the far more complicated struggle it faces than does Fritz or Chessmaster or HIARCS with two teams, 32 units, six unit types, 64 squares, opening/endgame databases
Civ IV and chess are comparable: chess lives in a simpler world.
However, that said, I think his point was (or should have been ) that Civ IV has a lot more going on than chess does and can't rely on databases of tested high level move by move theory. A chess engine might be able to rely on an opening book for 30 moves if there's no deviation and when it leaves the book, chess engines while theoretically having to deal with all sorts of possible moves and move orders while evaluating their worth, the truth is most possible moves are clearly identifiable as bad.
It's remarkable, imo, that Civ IV plays at well as it does given the far more complicated struggle it faces than does Fritz or Chessmaster or HIARCS with two teams, 32 units, six unit types, 64 squares, opening/endgame databases
Civ IV and chess are comparable: chess lives in a simpler world.