Which is deeper, 2 player Caylus or Chess?

Both seem to me to have tremendous tactical and strategic depth.


Thoughts?

AHA! I remember seeing you say that you didn't think Caylus had the strategic depth PR did and I initially agreed thinking Caylus was much more tactical, what do you think now?

Between Chess and Caylus I'd have to go with Chess although it may be closer than people think.

Well, at the time I hadnt ever player 2er Caylus. I'd just play ed a bunch of games where people wasted tons of money on the provost to screw individual opponents.

I have made this comparision many times; with no luck apart from the initial neutral building placement and who goes first (first), the game is all about who makes the most of their position (and doesn't screw up).

In all honesty, I think Caylus is much deeper than chess. For one, there are (theoretically) 720 different starting positions, as opposed to just the one for chess. (True, many of these 'different' positions are similar enough to be grouped together; still, there are at least dozens of significantly distinct starting placements which can cause a drastic change to even a first move.)

Second, the game can change drastically within a couple turns. The first wood building or favor taken can lead to a number of possible responses by both players. Many chess openings are 'standard', to the point that the first dozen or so moves by each player are rote memorization. (New ideas are always coming out in chess, but the same is true of Caylus.)

The last sentence above deserves its own paragraph. Every day, it seems, 'optimal' strategy changes. One day, buildings through the carpenter and mason seems the best way to win; next day, it's all about the castle. Which track is best? Money? Points? There are many options, and all can succeed or fail.

Compare this with chess, which typically has 'open' and 'closed' games. The moves themselves will change, and often a position is a bit of each, but the number of possible strategies is still significantly less, IMHO.

One thing I think chess does have over Caylus is the possibility of a long-term tactical move. Calculations and responses can be done over a dozen moves in one's mind, and if everything thing works out, a long beautiful combination is the result. (One game stands out for such an example: Reti-Alekhine, Baden Baden 1925.) I don't think Caylus offers this kind of beauty.

The object of chess, though, is, in the end, to capture the opponent's king. Usually, this means gaining a material advantage and converting it. In Caylus, the object is to get the most points. How one goes about getting these points, with all its possibilities, is the question whose answer is why I think Caylus is deeper. (OK, you can tell by that last sentence that I'm not an English teacher.)

Before responding to your thread, what does "deeper" mean to you?

Define "deeper"??

I think I asked that same question of a girlfriend, once...


-


All joking aside, I think the amount of book-learning to play standard, international tournament, orthodox Chess on it's "deepest" level is tremendous. Someone would have to do an awful lot of analysis (statistics and such) of Caylus to achieve even a small fraction of the analysis done over the last 250 years or so for Chess.

Consider "Fischer Random Chess" or "Chess960". It is a variant created by famous American Grand Master Bobby Fischer, former prodigy and world champion. The 960 refers to the number of possible randomized starting positions (an array) of major pieces in the back row for each player. The idea of so many starting combinations is to remove the book learning from the game, allowing players to apply raw mental computing power, so to speak, or to follow intuition more naturally.

Both versions of Chess can be considered "deeper" than the other, depending on one's opinion. I personally can see either as legitimately being described as "deeper" than the other.

That being said, on what level do you think Caylus is "deepest"?
On the "learning all the possible combinations" side like Orthodox Chess, or a more fluid approach of Chess960? Chess960 could perhaps be referred to as more tactical, but I'm not sure that's the correct term for the disctinction. I think it is equally strategic, just on a more pure mental muscle level, in terms of visualizing positions... whereas Orthodox Chess requires a measure of that position visualization, combined with memorizations of "right response Y to given move X", which for me, somehow seems to use a different part of my brain.

More thoughts later as a digest the implications of this thread

I think that anyone wanting to crown Caylus deeper should wait a decade or so. Caylus strategy is still up in the air is due to the release time. Given that there are noticeable (effective) styles in 2er, it appears that Caylus allows multiple strategic paths (as well as tactical tricks). Let's assume that there are long-term strategic choices (otherwise the answer is obvious). Do we really expect new tactical tricks in a year? I mean, I can classify a few ones, give them names ("Provost Squeeze"). I've written extensively on Caylus, and I could put out another 10-20 pages of useful analysis. But beyond that? Even discounting opening theory in Chess (a big subject), that leaves thousands of books on tactics, strategy, attack, defense, sacrificing, preparation, etc. Could you see 1,000 pages of useful Caylus analysis geared towards making someone an expert? How much information is necessary? Sufficient? Granted, expert depends on the population, but after 50 games of chess, you are still in a much steeper part of the learning curve than with Caylus. And that makes it deeper, in my book.

I love Caylus, but it isn't deeper.

Caylus is a fantastic game.
And it has quite a bit more to it both in terms of strategy and tactics than Puerto Rico.
But it is not comparible to chess.

If one were looking for an exacting method of determining which game is "deeper", I suppose you would have to wait until both games were solved, and then make an analysis of which solution was more difficult.

Yes, and waiting for Chess to be solved, might just have to wait until we have functional quantum computers. As for Caylus, I don't think we even know (yet) how much or how little (compared to Chess) computational power it would take to solve it.

I think we are reaching a consensus on this forum that Chess is deeper. Anyone care to argue that Caylus is deeper?

I offer a bounty of 2 GeekGold to someone who can "make me go Hmmmnnn??!!" with their arguement that Caylus is deeper.

- -

I'm not sure I'm ready to make an argument either way, that Chess is deeper, or that Caylus is deeper. I would like to take a moment to make some comments on things mentioned in this thread...

Yes, there are thousands of pages written over hundreds of years about Chess. However, many of those pages say pretty much the same thing. Thousands of pages could be written about Caylus as well. I spent a good decade or so playing competetive Magic, and in it's 13ish year history (actually, competetive Magic's history is probably a bit less than that) there have been probably thousands of (web) pages written about the strategy. In that case I can tell you firsthand that many of those pages aren't worth much. However I wouldn't necessarily know that without them having been written and the information compared...

The point is, measuring the amount of analysis will not give us our answer as to which is deeper. If we ran out of things to talk about right away then that would tell us that Caylus is not deeper, but that's already not the case. Without looking at hundreds of years of analysis and millions upon millions of games of Caylus played, we can't really use any of that as evidence of depth.

I think Caylus has the potential to be as deep as Chess, but it will never 'catch up' in terms of actualized depth because Chess has way too much of a head start.

with all due respect, even thinking that cayus might be deeper suggests one does not have much idea what chess is about. do you really mean to suggest that you believe you could study caylus for 5-10 years, 10 hours or more each weak, play a lot with people much better than you, and after those 10 (or even 5) years truly think there's so much left to master, and you are so far away from perfection?

how long will it take of real study, not just playing by even as few as 20 people, before first 1/3 of the game seems to be practically solved? in PR if you believe some threads here the game seems 'solved' for first 3-4 turns. how many more decisions are left before the game end there? caylus is so new i won't be much suprised if same thing happens here, once enough people get enough games.

disclaimer:
i don't play much chess, i've played 1000s of go games, i've spent 1000s more hours _studying_ go, _working_ at it, not just playing around, and i see full well how much more is still before me. i believe go is far superior to chess, but i am not ready to believe chess is so much less deep that it could be compared to caylus...

I do not see any Euro games reaching the level of the Chess series (and I include Go in this bracket). Euro Games is a hobby but Chess is a "life".

You can't master Chess without dedicating a lifetime of study to it.

Comparing them is also not looking at the correct perspective. Euro Games can be complex (like Caylus, PR) but they are also meant to be fun/engaging. Chess never pretends to be fun. Yes to the right ppl, chess is fun.

Chess delivers at a much more cerebral level. In fact mastery in chess comes not from memorizing all the moves but from being able to recognize patterns. This is much more so in Go.

To compare Go and Chess is perhaps a proper match.

In the 16th century (so I have read), Chess was regarded as a game of chance, in which players 'lost' their queen by 'accident'...

The rules were the same as today, but the players were amateurs who didn't study the board.

They sure had fun though...my point being we don't know Caylus well enough to be sure of the answer. I think that it isn't as deep as Chess. It is finite in length, which makes it more amenable to 'solving'. The playing area seems more restricted...then there is more off-board stuff going on. Chess is more elegant, for sure.

Regardless of board position, each game offers a number of potential moves one can make on a turn. E.g in Caylus, it might be you to place a worker, hence there are so many places you can choose. It might be you to bribe the provost in which case there are 7 values you might choose (-3 thru 0 to +3 coins). Either way, at any point in time in Caylus there are only a small number of moves (or choices) you could make. In chess, however, at any given board position, there are usually many more moves to chose from: which piece, which direction, how far etc.

Hence even from this heavy handed view of the question, I'd say chess is the deeper by far.

Well, that was my question: is 2 player caylus deep enough that that amount of study would leave it nearly solved, or not.

I have studied over a dozen chess books, and played thousands of games of chess. My rating when I was playing heavily was around 1600. So that puts me at a level of an average tournament player.

One thing is that the opening position is not the same. While this only matters in the initial turns, those turns do structure what cubes you have and maybe what buildings you build which will affect later turns. In chess, you can truly memorize openings. Fisher random chess is less memorizable, but probably deeper, because you have to be able to play all these different positions.


I am not saying that caylus certainly is deeper than chess, only that I think it might be (or be as deep). I guess playing and studying 2 player Caylus for many years would be neccessary in order to tell.

BUT the thing about that is that you make those choices so many more times. Over one turn, you make like 5 or so worker placements a person for 10 placements, plus there is choices of buildings to build and favors to take, etc.

Its not about X move lookahead like in chess, in many of the decisions. Its about knowing the strategic implications of your building or favor choice.

If Caylus were to become even one tenth as popular as chess (which will not happen) and people started playing it every day of the week and writing books about it, I think all of the possible combinations would be narrowed down to a few. I think eventually there would be optimal opening strategies, an optimal order to which buildings should be built, and optimal use of the favor track, etc.

Because the game is so new people try many different things. The major difference though, as was pointed out above, is that whereas in chess there is the goal of capturing your opponent's king, in Caylus you are trying to score the most points, and there are various ways of obtaining points: buildings, trading money in the church (I confuse all the bldg names), trading cloth in one of the other buildings, favor track, castle batches, other people using your buildings. I do not think this necessarily makes it deeper. I am sure there is a "best way" to do things, but it will take a little time and play experience to figure it out. In fact, the optimal strategy may change with every possible layout of the neutral buildings.

But does all of that make it deeper? I doubt it.

Nowadays there are many silly moves in chess, especially opening moves. I haven't played in many years but if my opponent's first move is moving one of his rook-pawns up one space, well that seems a pretty poor choice.

We know this because for hundreds of years analysis has proven that this move is extremely poor.

There are probably a LOT of very poor moves in Caylus. The just has not been enough analysis yet or play experience yet to make that determination. A year from now, maybe if an opponent's first move is to place a worker in the Inn or at the Peddler or the Trading Post (?... with the 3 coin after the gate) we would already know that this is the equivalent of moving that rook-pawn up 1 space when playing black after white pushed his king pawn up 2 to take control of the center.

I like Caylus. I like it a lot and I like that but for the beginning placement of the 6 tiles there is absolutely no luck factor in the game. But I cannot imagine it is deeper or will inspire people to spend a lifetime attempting its mastery like chess.

Now that there have been many comments, my thoughts.

I suspect that Chess is deeper.
However, I believe 2 player Caylus is extremely deep.


In caylus, the choice of which building to make has such long lasting effects that you cant calculate the effects, you must base them on strategic principles gained from many games of experience.


As to good caylus openings, I at present believe it to be like this:

Turn 1, going first. You should place your worker on whichever of the cloth or stone spaces is at least 4 spaces back from the provost, and is farthest back (i.e is 'very safe' and if multiple are safe, is 'safest'). Failing this, go on whichever cube space is 'safest'. (I say 4 back (very safe) instead of the standard 2 player '3 back is safe' rule, because at 3 back, they can play on the provost mover and engage you in a battle for that space, where if you pass first they only have to pay $1 more than you to deny it to you).

Going second, you should take the other of the cloth or stone if very safe. Else if there is a very safe cube (at least 4 back), go on it, if not, go to the $3 space.

After the very safe cubes and $3 spaces are taken, go to the 3 back space if its a cube. If it is not a cube, pass.


If your opponent goes outside of these rules, and plays on an unsafe space (less than 3 back), then you do the following:

If there are safe cubes, go on them. If not, go on the $3. If those are all taken, go on the provost mover, initiating a battle. (i.e. you dont initiate the battle if there is a safe cube remaining, because you can take the safe cube and initiate a battle later).

When a battle is initiated, and no safe cubes remain, the $3 is the most critical space. Take it if untaken. Once it is taken, its holder is going to 'win' the battle. Even if they are denied the battle space, doing so will break their opponent.
Thus, if you do not have the $3 space, you should immediately concede the battle by passing, recouping the $1 for doing so.
If you are going to win the battle, you should continue placing workers on the most attractive remaining space, until your opponent passes.

If you have a guaranteed ability to play in the castle, and get a favor from it, then that is the most attractive remaining space. Failing that, I would order them:

Sell a cube for $4, provided it is in a safe location (because this battle is going to run both players low on money, denying the opponent a way to get their money back that they are spending on the battle)
Inn (because this will give advantage over an opponent who is low on money).
Build (provided it is in a safe location. Its not better than a cube, or money, or getting money for apssing, but its not worthless).
Other spaces (here, you are wasting the $1, but if your opponent doesnt pass, he has to waste $1 also).


If you create a building as a result of this, you will be down on cubes in relation to your opponent. Thus you should make a produciton building to remedy this by devaluing cubes. Make the production building in a cube type where you have less than your opponent.



Going on into future turns, you need to go to the castle twice in the first scoring section, in ways that score you a favor, so you have to fit those in somehow. (Its good to do it at times when there is a battle if possible, and you probably dont want to do it at a time when there is a cube or $3 available. A turn in which a provost battle will occur (so both palyers want to play out all their workers), is best. Barring that, a turn when you go first is good, once all the cubes and $3 are taken.


When building an early building, build the one whose presence gives the most value to your current resources and the least value to your opponent.


Examples:

You are ahead on cubes, but not ahead on money (or behind on money): Build the sell a cube for 6 building. This increases the value of cubes and decreases the value of money.

You are behind on cubes of type X, but not ahead on cubes in general: Build production building of type X.

You are way ahead on money, but not way ahead on cubes: Build the buy 2 cubes of your choice for $2.

You are way ahead on stone (at least 2, and they have 0), and not behind on cubes, and your opponent has committed favors to the build track: Build the stone mason. (Though in this case, sell cube for 6 may still be better)

You are way ahead on cloth (at least 2, and they have 0), not behind on cubes, and your opponent is ahead on money (but you still ahve enough to pay extra for using the lawyer, and for getting into provost battles over it): Build the lawyer. However, sell a cube for $6 may still be better.

If you only consider raw numbers, a Caylus game certainly has more possible unfoldings than a Chess game. Choices of buildings for those allowed to build them, choices of favours, placing the gate user, deciding how to make up your batch for castle building, the possibility of using an "inferior" favour, deciding when to stop placing your workers, ... let exponential numbers cavort. But this doesn't mean the game is more subtle ; what it lacks if playing depth, as some have mentioned it.

However, there is something 4- or 5-player games have and Chess don't, be it for better or worse : the best strategy for you, player A, to beat player X from some intermedate position will be influenced by (perhaps irrational) choices from player Z ; and allowances should be mande for what your moves will make in your battle against each of your opponents. This is true of many good board games like Porto Rico, Civilization, Renaissance, 18XX, ...
And that's why I think 2-player Caylus loses something.

I think it the answer is obvious and agreed upon by all. I have played thousands of Chess games over the years and am slightly better than an intermediate tournament player (1800 ELO). I would be completely destroyed by the top 10-15% of serious chess players, with little chance of competing with them, let alone beating them.

In contrast, I have played dozens on Caylus games over the last few months, and can compete with, if not beat anyone in the world. Don't misunderstand me, I know there are Caylus players that are better than me, but they don't have any special knowledge or insight into the position that I don't, IN GENERAL. After about 20-30 games we are essentially level on the learning curve. Sure I might make a tactical mistake here or there that costs me the game, but I lost on a mistake I made (like leaving a lose piece out that is subject to capture). It was just an over site, not a bolt of lightning I would have never seen if I looked at the board for a long time. Essentially each turn you are limited to about 16-20 spots to chose from (often much less), and of those spots only a few offer a further decision like which building to build or what to use your favor on.

In Chess the learning curve is much steeper. When a Grandmaster looks at a Chess board, he sees much deeper into the position that I do. That is why he is so much better, he sees more that I do. In Caylus, my opponent sees essentially what I do. Caylus is just not as deep as Chess.

Good threat Alex. Spurred some good conversation.

The answer, based on this thread is:

a) not obvious, and
b) not agreed upon by all.

Is it possible that the reason you're on the same level, approximately, as the best Caylus players (I'm paraphrasing a bit, but you get my point) is because Caylus is so new? Imagine if you played Caylus for 30 years, and then I sit down and play 20 or 30 games as a novice. Do you expect us to be the same? I would assume you'd beat me pretty soundly. I think Caylus has way more than 20-30 games worth of strategy and experimentation in it.

Chess might appear deeper (and it might actually BE deeper) because it's been around so long. The longer something exists, the more analysis can be done.

I have to agree with the reasoning here.

Yes, see my anecdote about 16th century chess players, above...

I still maintain that the finite duration of Caylus should be considered here. Only 15-30 turns?

As has been noted before, the decision tree for chess is MUCH bigger than for Caylus. The number of game states for chess is atronomical and Caylus doesn't even come close. Whether this fits your definition of "deep" can be debated but it's an objective fact that decisions in chess will have FAR more options throughout the game.