I think the similarity being raised isn't really in the game or mechanics of the game, but the mechanics of being top tier. Aside from some very surface level similarities, you're right that RTS and Chess have pretty low overlap. But I think that the grind required to be top-tier in both is similar. They require you to play A LOT, and to do one of the hardest things a human can do, which is to try to be as objective as possible while analyzing when and why you lost.

Exactly.

There is a staggering amount of similarity between the two, especially at the competitive level where chess moves needs to be played very fast.

The biggest differences I see is that AoE2 is not a perfect information game, and that it needs micromanagement.

You might enjoy the games of Federico Perez Ponsa, chess Grandmaster. He plays Age of Empires II at a 2k+ level and is known as Fedex.

I was just watching Fedex play last night in a game on twitch! I never knew this.

Thanks, that is interesting. I used to be 2000+ rated for AOE1 on zone.com and 1400+ chess on Yahoo! games back in late 90s, and to me it is a point of contention that I often bring up because chess is not motivated by capital greed whereas microsoft and their game studios are. And the dissimilarity between two games is pretty obvious to anyone who plays above 700 ranks.

Sorry, what?

What does MS market position have to do with the design of the game, it's not like it has any sort of monetization within the game mechanics at all.

You are conflating so much BS that it shows a profound lack of understand of both game mechanics and dare i say market economics.

It appears that you've rapped yourself up in some anti market bubble of cognitive disonance and can not longer think straight, I'm sorry for your pain.

What does this even mean?

I'd gladly clarify my position if you specify which part doesn't make sense.

Once I explained the similarities, my kids got into chess.