Chess

Chess is a tactical game two players play with each other.
Each player commands 16 game pieces, composed by 6 different types of pieces, each type with different abilities. The main difference between the different types are their ability to move (direction, distance) and their ability to capture an opposing piece.

Borrowed from here

The most restricted piece is the pawn, able to move forward (and only forward) one square [1] in a straight line and he can only capture other pieces sitting diagonally in front of him [2].

Rook and Bishop can only move in specific directions (straight resp. diagonally), but in any of the four directions and over any distance (restricted only by friendly or opposing pieces). Both can capture in the direction of their movement.

The Queen is basically a combination of the Rook and the Bishop, in terms of movement and ability to capture.

The King, as the central piece to defend and determining defeat, shares the ability to move and capture with the Queen, but is limited to one square at a time.

And finally there’s the Horse, which features a unique movement pattern and is the only piece which can „jump“ over friendly and opposing pieces.

The number of pieces are not distributed equally. The layout consists of 8 pawns, 2 rooks, 2 bishops, 2 horses, one queen and one king.
And finally the pawn is given another interesting feature: Once the pawn has reached the other side of the board he can be transformed to any other class. [3]

On close examination it becomes clear that chess is balanced on various levels to deepen the strategic aspect and challenge of the game.

The most obvious level are the differentiation of pieces itself. It would be quite possible to imagine a version of chess only featuring Queens. Last man standing wins. The game would be quite a massacre, not involve much tactical thinking and be over very quickly.
Okay, Queen=Bad Choice. Just Rooks then. That would take a little longer, but besides that it would be just as boring and uninteresting. Only if you start adding different types of pieces it introduces a dynamic which allows for tactical planning and trade-offs.

Theoretically you could add even more classes and probably add to the complexity of the game, but to make such pieces unique their ability would be rather abstract (like the Horse, which is already quite different to all the other pieces). Such a game would be possible and perhaps even be more sophisticated than the already impressive regular design of chess, but perhaps it would also reach a level of complexity which would make it too complicated and therefore unattractive [4]

In that regard one could say that the specification of 6 different pieces is – while based on certain determinations - to some degree arbitrary. The different pieces and their respective properties have proven to provide the necessary complexity to make the game strategically sophisticated while keeping the rules and possibilities simple enough to be absorbed. [5]

The next level is the number of each specific piece. The weakest piece, the pawn is represented 8 times, while the most powerful piece, the queen, is represented only once. The king, as the game determining piece, is also represented once. The other three pieces are represented two times each. So the tactical value of a piece is counterbalanced by its numbers.

And a final level, albeit indirect, is founded in the round-based nature of the game which enables a player to force his opponent to certain actions, e.g. into trade-offs by threatening two different pieces simultaneously, or to allow for “safe” captures by threatening the King.

If you look at the complexity of Chess’ pieces one important aspect is the restriction imposed to them. Rook and Bishop are both toned down versions of the Queen. This leaves these pieces vulnerable to a complementary attack (e.g. the Rook can be taken diagonally from a piece able to do so). That would not work with a Queen. [6]. Horse, King and Pawn are restricted in the range of their movement and can be threatened from outside their range.

On the other hand special abilities - like the Horse’s unique movement pattern or the pawn’s ability to be promoted - give a class a strength which adds a special quality. The Horse, for example, is the only piece which can threaten the Queen without being „in the line of fire“ (so to speak). Also it can easily move „behind enemy lines“ to take or threat an opposing piece or even check the King.
Then there is the aspect of pieces covering („protecting“) other pieces so that the opponent can’t take this piece without sacrificing a piece of his own.

At this point I’m sure people who know chess (and those who don’t probably as well) will be bored, and might be wondering what the bloody hell this has to do with TF2?

Well, given what I laid out so far one can easily call chess a game between two teams, each consisting of 6 different classes which feature different strengths, weaknesses and abilities, even special abilities. And all this is composed in a way that a complex system of those features creates a balance which is the base for a tactically complex and sophisticated match.

And while there are no direct analogies between chess and TF2 some of the aspects which help creating the balance in chess can be found in TF2 as well.

The differentiation of classes in TF2 is even more complex than in chess, but this pays tribute to the different nature and requirements of the game. It is interesting to note that initially TF started with 5 classes (Scout, Sniper, Soldier, Demolitions Man, Combat Medic) and that the remaining classes were added later. But the nine-class structure has basically remained unchanged throughout TFC and now TF2 [7].
What TF has tried to work out quite meticulously are the different levels of balance integrated into the classes. Since TF (by default) doesn’t limit the numbers of a class represented in a game all balancing has to be achieved within each class and between the classes. And similar to chess important aspects are inherent weaknesses of classes, a complementary strengths/weakness structure between classes and special abilities to create additional balance checks as well as adding tactical layers (e.g. the scout’s double jump, the spy’s cloak, the sniper’s headshot-capability, the soldier’s rocket jump). The difference in movement and range finds a (rough) equivalent in the different speed of the classes. All classes feature an intricate trade-off system between speed, health and power.

Even the arguably less balanced class, the soldier, has still a lot of checks and balances. His high health and strong weapon is countered by his lack of speed. To some degree he can compensate his lack of speed by rocket-jumping but this happens on cost of health [8]. His powerful and long-ranging rocket-launcher holds only 4 projectiles and is slow on reload.
In a similar way it is no coincidence that the demo, as the other powerful class has been given no mid-to-high-range weapons.
There are tons of similar balance trade-offs within each class and between the different classes, though to some degree some of the lines have been blurred by the different class updates. There are fewer hard counters, but still a lot of soft counters.

But it can’t be stressed enough that any kind of inherent weakness of a class, or vulnerability to special aspects of another class, is a significant part of the balance structure of TF. Those weaknesses are as important as the restrictions of the different pieces of Chess. Remove (or circumvent) those weaknesses and you bend the game to a version which is like chess with Queens only. Powerful, but simple. [9]

But there’s one major difference. In chess a move is a move, and the outcome is predetermined by the rules. In TF the outcome of the encounter between two players is by no means predetermined but eventually decided by skill (of we put aside luck and surprise).

Therefore such a reduced TF would still attract a lot of people, since the tactical simplicity of such a variation would increase the importance of skill. It would trade the tactical complexity to a more even power struggle. Under that consideration the inherent balance of a class and the balance checks between classes become secondary (at best, worse: unimportant, worst: a nuisance).

Of course this is exactly what TF2’s competitive scene has settled on. They play chess with Queens and Horses.

Drawing an analogy between Chess and TF2 might seem a bit far-fetched, yet some of the conceptional similarities are striking. And one important element of the concept in both games is the idea of weakness as a balancing factor within and between pieces/classes. This is a fact which one have always to keep in the back of one’s mind when discussing classes and considering any kind of changes (like we do often when – for example - imagining new weapons).

The fact that Valve itself is losing sight of this in a few cases is a bit worrying, and I can’t help but wonder if it is a (perhaps subconscious) tribute to the different way the comp scene approaches TF2 *shrug*. This level of worry is not exactly alleviated when I look at the first results of community designed weapons.

We will see where this is heading ...