If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Didn't Fischer think that Chess 960 would eventually replace Standard Chess? Did he not think it would introduce a variety into chess ( and make traditional opening theory less of a weapon ) that would in time prove very attractive to chess players becoming bored with the ever-narrowing scope that Traditional Chess was developing?
Bob
I truly have no idea what Fischer thought, I can't say I'm a historian of chess960. You could be very correct that he did think what you wrote.
But despite Gary Ruben's assertion, I do not worship Fischer, so I don't necessarily agree with every opinion he might have had, or even with very many of them. I like chess960 on it's own merits, and the fact that it's Fischer who invented it is very interesting but irrelavent to my opinion of it.
So let's face the questions dead on: Are we afraid that if we just open the door and let chess960 into the room, it will eventually replace standard chess?
My own 2 cents on that is that I wouldn't see it happening for many decades simply because of the huge inertia standard chess has built up. And I sincerely doubt standard chess will wane and eventually disappear.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Kevins idea is to turn up the faucet of newbies to the point where it overcomes the drain. He chooses to for the most part ignore the drain, although he has suggested improving CFC services. I'm suggesting that maybe CFC services or lack thereof isn't the main reason for the size of the drain. I'm suggesting, as others evidently do as well, that the drain mainly exists because newbies quickly realize that they don't know enough about openings to be competitive and they immediately sink near the bottom, where the drain beckons enticingly, as if saying, "You don't need this, you have other things to do with your weekends". In the case where the newbie isn't a young child, they are so far behind as to have little chance of ever being competitive.
What you are suggesting is an unproven theory as yet, as I have basically said before. I think there is insufficient data collected to conclude too high a percentage of adult newbies who drop out quickly quit because of the reasoning you give. Moreover, there is more to learn in chess than just openings, endgames for example (identical for chess960), so why just mention having to learn some opening theory as being (potentially) discouraging?
Some of the private chess teachers here in Ottawa have the odd eager adult student who joined the CFC as an adult newbie. I think Tom may have at least one of them.
In any case, many/most people who take up chess probably do so as juniors. They drop out after a while in many cases, but some re-join later on as adults when their lives become less busy. They still would remember some basic opening moves and other necessary knowledge, which is often enough to get by at lower levels, perhaps all the way up to below IM level.
The two of you both seem to think that standard chess and chess960 must somehow be mutually exclusive. Tom's cigar club example especially presses that point home. I have never made that suggestion. Standard chess and chess960 can and should exist side by side. This is just one idea to grow CFC membership and to enlarge participation in tournaments.
Instead of Tom's misguided cigar club example, think of major poker events. Is everything No Limit Texas Hold Em? Not on your life, there are a whole smorgasbord of tournaments making up each major event. Now one could say, there's little difference in skills required between Omaha and Hold Em. Possibly true, but there are differences in skill when you compare the betting structures, the three main ones being Limit, Pot Limit, and No Limit. There are also two other distinct ways to play the game, again each requiring their own special skills and techniques. These are "multi-table tournaments" and "cash" or "ring" games. There are players who specialize in one and only one of these structures, or in either tournaments or cash games: although they may dabble in the others, they just seem to prefer and do better in a certain one.
It could be that way for chess too. Some people don't want to memorize and will prefer chess960, and some of the more tactical standard chess players will welcome the challenge of taking up chess960. The more positional, strategical players will prefer standard chess.
If you guys really want to think about growth, think out of the box. As long as you keep the blinders on and stick to only standard chess, there will be little to no growth.
And one last time: STANDARD CHESS AND CHESS960 CAN COEXIST!
Sheesh, as Kevin likes to say! :)
1) Poker events take less time to run than chess/chess960 events, unless speed chess[960] is the format. Thus there are obvious difficulties arranging [near-]concurrent chess & chess960 tournaments in the same playing hall on the same weekend. Plus I imagine tables with chess boards seating two players opposite each other physically take up somewhat more space than poker tables with several players around them, so you can only crowd so many players into a hall if you run chess & chess960 together unless you can manage to obtain a large one.
2) Different forms of poker probably take less time to master individually than chess or chess960, so players might tend to want to specialize in one or the other more often than master both. Plus at the moment regular chess is the standard that the whole world adheres to, and has much tradition and literature built around, unlike chess960.
3) Some chess servers do offer the option of playing chess variants, including chess960. I think this is the ideal forum if you are going to try having chess and chess960 co-exist relatively permanently (see my point #1). However I imagine regular chess, at the moment, is still by far the most popular choice for server users (see my point #2).
4) I think chess960 may finally become the standard worldwide when people agree that regular chess has become exhausted. Obviously there is no consensus or great movement for this at the moment, which makes me suspect the strength of your arguments against regular chess standing on its own, in the eyes of adult newbies for example, even though you think it can co-exist with chess960. Whether chess960 becomes the new standard happens by a sudden FIDE declaration with a gradual transition, or without, is not so important to me, if it happens long after I'm gone. Yes, chess960 can co-exist with chess, for a while, but for one to really prosper, one must fall by the wayside sooner or later, at least to some extent, as chess960 in effect has already, for the moment at least - see my points #1 & 2.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?
Paul,
One need hardly change the position so radically as Chess960 or FischerRandom in order to eliminate opening knowledge. I think it was Dvoretsky who originally suggested that all you need do is have the first move by White and Black be totally random (or nearly random so as to eliminate things like 1.e4 f5 or 1.a4 b5, if you like) and start the game from there. The number of possible first move positions is so large (400 if you include them all, say 350 if you eliminate the most unbalanced ones) that no one would bother to study. Kasparov said that perhaps they should make one position standard yearly or every X years, switching them every (say) January 1st. So you might have all games starting 1.c3 g6 in Year One, 1.f4 c5 in Year Two, etc.
I rather like this idea. It keeps the same flow of chess, keeps many of the middlegame strategic concepts intact, while eliminating the opening memorization element. As importantly in my view it allows players who are interested in studying the new "opening theory" to come up with strategies based on their opponent's most likely choices, while not requiring that anyone do so. Shouldn't chess have some element of preparation for those inclined to put in actual work? Since when did preparing for something become "bad"?
BTW, I have taught a few adult newbies or near-newbies in my time. None have mentioned the time element required to learn openings, but rather the time element required to play in a weekend event. Chess games are long, but for me personally I like that just fine. :-)
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?
I highly doubt many of the juniors who are graduating out of the recent "CFC bad years" will recommend to newer players ( be it their friends of their students ) that they compete beyond CMA type events or casual get togethers. You've lost a whole generation of players.
Basically many people have rejected the CFC/FIDE monopoly model on organized chess and are either finding alternative activities or chess activities that are outside the model. The exceptions would be some specialized groups like the Eastern European background community in Toronto. The result will be you will retain some interest in those communities but the umbrella of interest in chess as a sport will not register for a wider community.
The CFC shows no signs of changing. The same bureacratic games with very little value to anyone. Van Dusen has achieved nothing and apparently has no leadership skills at all. I see less communication and less events. The Canadian Junior for example is something some veteran players and organizers think needs to be run but in essence the formal chess organizations may be incapable of sustaining these events anymore. And the potential player interest has shrunk dramatically anyways, there is hardly any critical mass in this age group. This is what happens when an organization sees a youth section as a profit center not as an important aspect of sustaining interest in chess competition.
BTW, I have taught a few adult newbies or near-newbies in my time. None have mentioned the time element required to learn openings, but rather the time element required to play in a weekend event. Chess games are long, but for me personally I like that just fine. :-)
Hi Tom
If you don't mind giving away a teaching secret, about how much time might you recommend to your students, at their various levels (starting with newbies), to spend on opening theory, say as a percentage of their study time (if you do express it to them that way)?
I seem to remember Spraggett recommending something not more than, say, 50% of study time for openings to most people. I know it becomes more important at the top levels.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I highly doubt many of the juniors who are graduating out of the recent "CFC bad years" will recommend to newer players ( be it their friends of their students ) that they compete beyond CMA type events or casual get togethers. You've lost a whole generation of players.
In my day there was just the provincial junior and the Canadian junior and that was it. The CFC raised kids'/parents' expectations years ago, introducing the CYCC, and then expectations were disappointed, as you perhaps allude to. Plus there was the rise of the CMA and the internet (chess, other games, etc.), and perhaps poker and any number of other things competing for kids' attention besides CFC events these days.
Basically many people have rejected the CFC/FIDE monopoly model on organized chess and are either finding alternative activities or chess activities that are outside the model. The exceptions would be some specialized groups like the Eastern European background community in Toronto. The result will be you will retain some interest in those communities but the umbrella of interest in chess as a sport will not register for a wider community.
There was a collapse of organized chess in Toronto a number of years ago. It is now starting to come back. The collapse took away a lot of CFC members. The building fund fiasco didn't help.
The CFC shows no signs of changing. The same bureacratic games with very little value to anyone. Van Dusen has achieved nothing and apparently has no leadership skills at all. I see less communication and less events. The Canadian Junior for example is something some veteran players and organizers think needs to be run but in essence the formal chess organizations may be incapable of sustaining these events anymore. And the potential player interest has shrunk dramatically anyways, there is hardly any critical mass in this age group. This is what happens when an organization sees a youth section as a profit center not as an important aspect of sustaining interest in chess competition.
I don't follow the CFC governance much (e.g. I don't bother with the Governor's Letter) so I'll take your word on the beaucratic games. Wouldn't surprise me if the Executive continues to keep the Governors largely in the dark on at least some important decisions. The current CFC president at the least hasn't made any disasterous mistakes I've heard of.
At least that's an improvement for the CFC in recent times. The prez has got rid of the disaster of a webzine and in favour of a newsletter, so at least that's something concrete. If you're referring mainly to CFC junior chess you may have a point in saying he's done nothing, but apparently he has hopes for it in the long run.
If I recall/understand correctly, part of CYCC funds in the past were siphoned away from the juniors to concurrent Canadian Opens by their organizers, in a prize structure stipulated in bids by those organizers that were approved by the CFC, and thus the CFC as an organization would wear responsibility for what you describe too, besides the organizers. This would be the CFC allowing adult chess to be advanced at the expense of junior chess.
When the CFC was in its recent 'bad' years I think people believe the opposite was happening too. As I think of it, the CFC spent time and energy on junior chess (though not the dollars you'd wish) when it had limited manpower/local organizers, so much that the CFC neglected services to adults.
For example, the rating system was allowed to deflate for years. A deal with ICC fell apart and server membership was lost for adult and junior members alike. Events that were supposed to be FIDE rated had delayed submission. Print magazine service faltered in its appealing quality and in number of magazine issues, and then the magazine ceased. All while the CFC lost $100K+ in a few short years as membership dropped like a stone. Meanwhile, no membership drive of any kind was attempted.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
One need hardly change the position so radically as Chess960 or FischerRandom in order to eliminate opening knowledge. I think it was Dvoretsky who originally suggested that all you need do is have the first move by White and Black be totally random (or nearly random so as to eliminate things like 1.e4 f5 or 1.a4 b5, if you like) and start the game from there. The number of possible first move positions is so large (400 if you include them all, say 350 if you eliminate the most unbalanced ones) that no one would bother to study. Kasparov said that perhaps they should make one position standard yearly or every X years, switching them every (say) January 1st. So you might have all games starting 1.c3 g6 in Year One, 1.f4 c5 in Year Two, etc.
I rather like this idea. It keeps the same flow of chess, keeps many of the middlegame strategic concepts intact, while eliminating the opening memorization element. As importantly in my view it allows players who are interested in studying the new "opening theory" to come up with strategies based on their opponent's most likely choices, while not requiring that anyone do so. Shouldn't chess have some element of preparation for those inclined to put in actual work? Since when did preparing for something become "bad"?
BTW, I have taught a few adult newbies or near-newbies in my time. None have mentioned the time element required to learn openings, but rather the time element required to play in a weekend event. Chess games are long, but for me personally I like that just fine. :-)
Would serious chess players really want to play a game that begins 1. a4 h4, for example? An interesting idea, but I personally think of chess960 as less radical than that. In fact, I don't think of chess960 as "radical" at all. Perhaps time will show that some chess960 starting positions are unbalanced, but my guess is that will not be the case.
Standard chess will always be around for those who want to be rewarded for preparation and study. Personally, I remember enjoying studying openings, and perhaps when I retire someday and have more free time, I'll take that up again, along with doing crossword puzzles.
Please don't think I have a vendetta against standard chess or want to see it radically transformed. Rather I would say to standard chess "Live long and prosper". But what is wrong with the CFC supporting and holding events in another parallel form of chess that minimizes the memorization aspect and maximizes creativity and tactical vision?
For anyone who thinks chess960 is radical, I'm thinking of posting my idea for a new way to begin a chess game, which makes chess960 look like a walk in the park. It's not quite complete yet, but it would definitely not be for those wanting time to study openings. The tentative name should hint at how radical it is: BIG BANG CHESS.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
What you are suggesting is an unproven theory as yet, as I have basically said before. I think there is insufficient data collected to conclude too high a percentage of adult newbies who drop out quickly quit because of the reasoning you give. Moreover, there is more to learn in chess than just openings, endgames for example (identical for chess960), so why just mention having to learn some opening theory as being (potentially) discouraging?
True, it is an unproven theory with insufficient data. I'm not demanding anyone look into it, I'm just offering it up for consideration.
1) Poker events take less time to run than chess/chess960 events, unless speed chess[960] is the format. Thus there are obvious difficulties arranging [near-]concurrent chess & chess960 tournaments in the same playing hall on the same weekend. Plus I imagine tables with chess boards seating two players opposite each other physically take up somewhat more space than poker tables with several players around them, so you can only crowd so many players into a hall if you run chess & chess960 together unless you can manage to obtain a large one.
Now, this makes me think that you personally are not prepared to see chess grow beyond a certain amount or rate of growth that you feel can be handled. I just wonder if many organizers would love to even have the space problem you mention, or would love to have growth so high that they could actually book a bigger space. Growth does bring it's own set of problems, poker has experienced the space problem itself at the annual WSOP in Las Vegas. In fact, last summer they did have to limit registrations, I think for the first time ever. What you seem to be saying above is let's not even bring on those kinds of problems, let's just grow bit by bit up to a point we can handle without too much trouble.
BTW, a chess event having concurrent standard chess and chess960 should probably require each player to choose one or the other, and not allow playing in both, because of the time constraints. So the chess960 events would be small for quite some time, taken on mostly by newbies attracted to the "wild west" aspect of it. Some corporate sponsors who might want to be associated with that image might eventually latch onto it, and it could reach critical mass. Makes one think of years gone by when there were just ski events and then snowboarding came along.
2) Different forms of poker probably take less time to master individually than chess or chess960, so players might tend to want to specialize in one or the other more often than master both. Plus at the moment regular chess is the standard that the whole world adheres to, and has much tradition and literature built around, unlike chess960.
3) Some chess servers do offer the option of playing chess variants, including chess960. I think this is the ideal forum if you are going to try having chess and chess960 co-exist relatively permanently (see my point #1). However I imagine regular chess, at the moment, is still by far the most popular choice for server users (see my point #2).
But these servers aren't charging membership fees and awarding cash prizes, or are they? If they are, then you might have a point, and maybe I should look into what's happening there. If they aren't then I wonder if few people take it seriously other than as a training tool?
4) I think chess960 may finally become the standard worldwide when people agree that regular chess has become exhausted. Obviously there is no consensus or great movement for this at the moment, which makes me suspect the strength of your arguments against regular chess standing on its own, in the eyes of adult newbies for example, even though you think it can co-exist with chess960. Whether chess960 becomes the new standard happens by a sudden FIDE declaration with a gradual transition, or without, is not so important to me, if it happens long after I'm gone. Yes, chess960 can co-exist with chess, for a while, but for one to really prosper, one must fall by the wayside sooner or later, at least to some extent, as chess960 in effect has already, for the moment at least - see my points #1 & 2.
But we are talking about growing the chess base here, not maintaining your personal preference. Again, the goal isn't for chess960 to become "the standard". Maybe it will someday become the most popular form, just as No Limit poker has supplanted Limit poker, but traditional chess, like Limit poker, will never disappear.
I don't agree with your assertion that for one to prosper the other has to fall by the wayside. Where do you get the idea it has to be a zero sum game? Chess960 is by the wayside right now, but it hasn't really been given a chance yet. Remember again, we're trying to widen the base, not shuffle it around.
Wow, I just had a vision of Dana Carvey doing his George Bush Sr. imitation, "A thousand points of light".
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I don't agree with your assertion that for one [chess or chess960]to prosper the other has to fall by the wayside. Where do you get the idea it has to be a zero sum game?
As I wrote in my point #4, in my previous post directed to you, see my point #1 & (especially) point #2 (about players probably tending to want to specialize in one form of chess or the other, due to the study [and practice] time demanded to master one or the other) if you want to know why I think that in the end it has to be more or less 'a zero sum game'.
I myself, for example, don't have the interest to add serious extra study time to take up another board game seriously. Say Go, or Scrabble (I would list Shogi and Chinese Chess as well, which I also play casually, except that there are little organized events for these in (eastern) Canada, at least, afaik).
Exceptionally for many people, I would have time to participate in weekend tournaments of such, besides chess. Thus you can see its a narrow subset of chessplayers who have the study time, the interest, and the time for tournaments for more than one board game including chess. I know of players who have quit chess for Go, I know of players who have quit Go for chess, I know a couple of players who play chess and scrabble (the latter at least may take less study and tournament time than Go).
Go and chess, for example, are run by completely different organizations, so there is no combining the base for each into one bigger base. I guess I didn't realize it, but I am assuming that chess and chess960, if each ran seperate cash tournaments and championships, ultimately would have their own seperate organizations (if they didn't, organizers of say the CFC might be stretched and/or divided between chess and chess960, and TDs might be facing an issue with learning the distinct rules and rulings of each properly) and thus their bases would not be combined. Instead the base for each game would be at the expense of the other, besides any potential members lost to other games or activities, such as Go, poker, Bridge, etc.
Even if this amoeba-like seperation of organizations didn't happen, I doubt that at the moment you would get many players for chess960 from people who might have not otherwise chosen regular chess instead, thus the size of the base would not greatly expand, for all the efforts required to do what you propose. Chess960 was meant to replace chess, not compliment it, at least in the mind of its inventor.
I think at this point perhaps we can agree to disagree on whether chess and chess960 ultimately can co-exist well, forever, but as for the rest of your post, you make points I think I can't disagree with or discuss too much, without starting to nitpick :).
Bruce Harper mentioned to me on the old chesstalk that there were chess variants played on at least one server he named. I think it was ICC, but I'm not at all sure.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Tuesday, 16th February, 2010, 11:44 AM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?
An interesting article - "The Role of Deliberate Practice in Chess Expertise", APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 19: 151–165 (2005)
I have not seen this article before, nor I knew that one of the researcher is from Toronto, and one more thing: "This research was supported by ...,
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC A0790) ) -
Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?
Professor Neil Charness has done numerous studies on chess players over the years. I have been one of a group of test subjects twice, if I recall. Once at a Canadian Open in the mid-80s(?) in Edmonton, and once in Toronto a little later.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Professor Neil Charness has done numerous studies on chess players over the years. ...
One of his article Expertise in Chess and Bridge in Complex information processing: the impact of Herbert A. Simon (chapter 7, p 183, http://books.google.ca ) goes through DH's progress.
Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?
Neil Charness was part of McGill's team which won the Nortn American Intercollegiate championship held in Montreal in 1969. (I was a team member as well).
Tweet
Comment