[sspiff]

I started this comment trying to explain how Civ was not like chess at all, but concluded that the two have much in common.

There's an opening, where there are a few tried-and-true, well studied strategies, and the goal is to claim territory.

Then there's a mid-game, where all available land is claimed, and competing players start trying to steal territory from each other, and capturing the others pieces (or cities).

I can't seem to find a parallel in the end game though, it doesn't require nearly as much planning and cunning in Civ to finish of a wounded opponent as it is in chess.

[T-hawk]

There is a parallel in the end game: Military advancements. Civilization lets you research new technology for significantly more effective military units, to ease the mop-up phase. The equivalent military advancement in chess is queening a pawn.

The difference is that chess requires continued tactical execution to get there, while Civilization lets you sit back and get there on a superior economy.