CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

[Paul Bonham]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

If diamonds were the norm for stones in nature, they'd be worthless.

I've played chess variants and oriental board games for fun and don't mind them for that purpose for the time being while classical chess is my focus.

I think some day a (single) chess variant will probably become the new norm instead of classical chess. However as you've alluded to I think we've already agreed to disagree that only one form of chess can ever dominate in terms of popularity.

With your diamond analogy, you are talking about monetary worth. But what about aesthetic worth? If diamonds were everywhere, we still might appreciate looking at them. Similarly for exciting chess games. If every chess game were exciting and unpredictable and double-edged, with piece sacrifices galore, would that make them "worthless"?

That's fine that classical chess is your focus, I don't criticize anyone for that. My point was that those in the business of organizing chess events (which I don't think includes you) should have enough imagination to bring other chess variants into the fold, and to create tournaments for them.

It's strange that you quote Einstein talking about imagination, yet you display absolutely none of it. But again, that's fine, classical chess is your speciality and no criticism there. I have no quarrel with you, but I would hope that if someone with imagination did try and introduce new tournaments of new chess variants, that at least some classical chess specialists would be open to playing in such events.

If not, then I guess it has to begin with the children, and the children need to be shown that they don't need to block their imaginations just because that's what the adults are doing.

Of course, there are some variants that wouldn't qualify to make for organized events, because some variants become one or two dimensional. Only the variants that prove to be multi-dimensional, as classical chess itself has done, deserve the attention I'm talking about.

It's done very successfully for poker. There's Hold 'Em, which is the dominant form, but there's also Omaha, Stud, Razz, and many others that get events organized regularly and even are part of the World Series of Poker. Strange that no one in the business of chess has the imagination to take that idea and do something with it.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

To be fair, the oriental board game of Shogi (Japanese Chess) comes close to what you are hoping for. Sacrifices are the norm, and a given game usually seems exciting (to a novice like me anyway).

However what makes for a 'diamond' (or any other kind of gem) in any sort of boardgame takes the 'co-operation' of one player and his opponent, in the way of producing a near flawless yet still exciting game. An error-filled game, however exciting it may seem to a novice, gets a yawn from even class players. That sort of 'co-operation' isn't common and takes expertise.

Further regarding the diamond analogy, if they were the norm for stones, most people would still like the look of some types of them more than others if they valued them for just aesthetic reasons. Just like some players value/love technical chess, which you seem not to.

My biggest problem with imagining the success of more than one type of chess [variant] in terms of serious tournaments, federations etc. is that it apparently is taking the cart before the horse. Even classical chess is not yet popular enough, so when you think of it soberly, what hope of increasing its popularity is there by first attempting to popularize competing variants as well?

If you don't get it yet, look at music. It's extremely popular, and there is more than one type of it as well, made possible by the basic popularity of music. What makes music more popular than chess can ever hope to be? Well, good music takes no opponent to produce, nor to play, nor is it perceived as elitist/intellectual (well, maybe more such people listen to opera music or classical :) - I don't know). Even with music people generally focus on paying for the kind that they like, listening to other 'variants' now and then if they normally like them less. I used to play dice chess now and then for fun, but for many people that would be sort of like listening to Rap, I suppose. :)

Anyway, if you're determined to re-ignite this debate in full force, I'd suggest starting a fresh thread or taking some sort of a poll. I noticed in our previous debate in an ancient thread no one much piped up, and I wouldn't hazard to guess that the lack of interest was due to silent popular approval of your proposal.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

To be fair, the oriental board game of Shogi (Japanese Chess) comes close to what you are hoping for. Sacrifices are the norm, and a given game usually seems exciting (to a novice like me anyway).

However what makes for a 'diamond' (or any other kind of gem) in any sort of boardgame takes the 'co-operation' of one player and his opponent, in the way of producing a near flawless yet still exciting game. An error-filled game, however exciting it may seem to a novice, gets a yawn from even class players. That sort of 'co-operation' isn't common and takes expertise.

Actually, I think the only cooperation that is needed is for both players to take some chances in the game. In other words, don't play safe, play aggressive. Now, imagine for a moment (imagination, remember? your Einstein quote?) that you were playing a variant of chess in which there was no possibility of playing a slow, safe game, because right from the beginning, multiple pieces are under attack on both sides, and you have to sort through it all. The comments about Serper's game were that he couldn't possibly have calculated all the complex variations, so he just went for it. If the rules were such that both players couldn't possibly calculate all the complex variations, but instead had to play on gut instinct alone and find a way to "just go for it", wouldn't that make every game exciting? Yes, there would be error-filled games, but that's part of what makes the ANALYSIS fun!

And I'm also thinking of it from the standpoint of the spectator. People wonder why soccer doesn't grab hold in the U.S., and someone in America invented indoor soccer to make the play much faster and more offensive-natured (in terms of how many goals get scored in a game). It was actually exciting and attracted fans. Of course, the soccer purists dissed it. My question is, why does there have to be one "pure" form of any sport or game, and all other forms are to be repressed? Poker shows the most open-mindedness of any game in the way it allows and encourages the playing of several different games, all under the umbrella of poker. Why can't chess do this?

Just to illustrate another example: are you familiar with Daniel Nestor? He's a Canadian professional tennis player. He specializes in doubles tennis. I don't believe he even plays singles tennis, just doubles. He's one of the world's finest doubles players, he's been part of many doubles championship teams. He is probably not very well known even in Canada outside of tennis, despite his success. I suppose that's because success in tennis is disproportionately associated with success in singles tennis. Nevertheless, doubles tennis does have its fans and Daniel can make good money playing just that game. So I ask again, why can't chess be the same?

Chess can't even get an Active version to have any kind of credibility. And at the other end of the spectrum, there's Correspondence chess. Only chess which fits into a "Goldilocks Zone" of time control is considered worthy of consideration as "valid" chess, although Correspondence chess does have it's international following. Yet our own Gary Ruben gets attacked by OTB chess players because somehow his chosen game is less valid than their chosen version. "Correspondence allows books and computers!" they cry. Well, yes, what of it? If every game were a draw, they might have a point, but until that happens, Correspondence chess is a valid form of chess. People are still winning and losing, which happens because mistakes still get made, which means books and computers aren't a magic solution that destroys the game.

Further regarding the diamond analogy, if they were the norm for stones, most people would still like the look of some types of them more than others if they valued them for just aesthetic reasons. Just like some players value/love technical chess, which you seem not to.

I agree about your general point. You are correct that some would appreciate the "plain" stones more than the diamonds, if they were all equally plentiful. There's nothing wrong with that. If you like "technical chess" more than I do, that is fine, but don't restrict the kind of chess I like, just as I should't restrict your preferred chess. Instead, we should work together to promote chess in general.

My biggest problem with imagining the success of more than one type of chess [variant] in terms of serious tournaments, federations etc. is that it apparently is taking the cart before the horse. Even classical chess is not yet popular enough, so when you think of it soberly, what hope of increasing its popularity is there by first attempting to popularize competing variants as well?

If you don't get it yet, look at music. It's extremely popular, and there is more than one type of it as well, made possible by the basic popularity of music. What makes music more popular than chess can ever hope to be? Well, good music takes no opponent to produce, nor to play, nor is it perceived as elitist/intellectual (well, maybe more such people listen to opera music or classical :) - I don't know). Even with music people generally focus on paying for the kind that they like, listening to other 'variants' now and then if they normally like them less. I used to play dice chess now and then for fun, but for many people that would be sort of like listening to Rap, I suppose. :)

But what if it turned out that the only reason (or major reason) that classical chess isn't popular enough is that spectators (non chess players) don't like classical chess? What if it turned out that they LOVED some new variant that produced exciting, unpredictable games every single time? You see, Kevin, when you talk about concepts like "the cart before the horse", you are blocking your imagination. Einstein, if he applied himself to this problem of chess as much as he did to spacetime, would understand where the problem lies -- lack of non chess player spectators -- and would theorize a solution to that problem. Once that problem gets solved, there are no limits to where chess can go.

But nobody thinks this way. Everybody just thinks, "How can we make the public like chess as it is now?" There is no solution to that problem. The public does not like chess as it is now. Period. You'd have to PAY THEM to come watch chess as it is now.

Lack of imagination... I swear that if you grouped everyone who takes chess seriously together, they make up the most unimaginative, narrow-minded group of people possible.

Anyway, if you're determined to re-ignite this debate in full force, I'd suggest starting a fresh thread or taking some sort of a poll. I noticed in our previous debate in an ancient thread no one much piped up, and I wouldn't hazard to guess that the lack of interest was due to silent popular approval of your proposal.

No, there's no use rehashing and rehashing and getting the same old arguments back. If there's no imagination, that's it, there's nothing to be done until someone comes along with both the imagination and the resources to make changes happen. That someone will have to treat the situation the way Serper treated his incredible game: just go for it.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Is Canadian Chess Failing?

Kevin, everyone is capable of imagination, especially when we are (or in the case for most people, "were") children. What happens as we get older is that imagination gets blocked by the rigid rules and expectations of society.

If anyone that was in the business of organizing chess truly had Einstein-like imagination, they would realize that classical chess is just one of several variants that deserve to be organized worldwide and to be rated and to have people pursuing some kind of personal title. Each of these variants could make money, some perhaps more than others. Getting people to play these variants could start with children.

But you and I have been down that road before, and you seem to have your imagination blocked, which is to say you decided you don't like variants....

Paul

Oddly enough, perhaps your memory has been playing tricks on you. You and I haven't had a debate about chess variants before, afaik, now that I've checked my past posts on the new chesstalk message board. [edit: Oops, now that I recall, as I did previously when you brought it up here, we definitely did dispute your ideas re: promoting chess variants at some point in the past. A definite seniors' moment on my part today - 'senior' being 50+ in Canadian chess circles :)]

Indeed, I had had the vague memory of our debating something similar within a certain thread in the past, in which no one much piped up, but it wasn't about chess variants. It was about your idea for regular "brilliancy" and "strategy" prizes at events:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...?t=2685&page=4

I recall that, on the old chesstalk message board, you once did a poll, I think trying to see if poker-based (or luck-based, anyway) chess was in any way popular with the chesstalk viewers back then. It wasn't (something like 90%+ against).

Anyway, as you've probably noticed, I launched a poll yesterday concerning whether the CFC should promote chess variants, as you would wish, because I wanted to verify for both of us if there wasn't any sort of popular support. So far the results might discourage you, but I think you haven't voted yet, most probably, if you ever care to.

Chesstalk viewers nowadays aren't necessarily all staunch (classical) chess players, and even they might view your idea on its merits (as I have tried to do) rather than simply being against the idea of any greater playing of chess variants. With that in mind, I would consider any substantial minority support for your position in the poll as indicating perhaps enough popularity could be out there in the Canadian population for your idea to be worth trying, at least experimentally. So please go ahead and vote, and 'your side' might get some momentum going.