WCC 2012: Assessment

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Ah, so Gelfand showed up to a match for the world championship of chess without having explored any openings at all, he was thinking from move one, he showed up without having explored in advance how to save king against king and pawn endings by taking the opposition, without having explored how to mate with a rook, and so on...??? No wonder he offered or accepted fast draws. And yet he stayed remarkably close to Anand despite all of this!? My goodness he must be a profoundly lazy, but wonderful natural player. :) Fischerandom would be perfect for someone like this, no? Perfect for someone who has no wish to explore opening theory, no?

I would point out that endgame play (and theory, and the problems of tablebases, not to mention computer use still discouraging adjournamnets nowadays) doesn't change one bit once the middlegame stage of a Fischerrandom/chess960 game has passed. This is one reason I prefer to play other games like Shogi to chess960. As I argued with Paul Bonham years ago, chess960 was meant to replace standard chess, not co-exist with it for long should chess960 become super-popular.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

I would point out that endgame play (and theory, and the problems of tablebases, not to mention computer use still discouraging adjournamnets nowadays) doesn't change one bit once the middlegame stage of a Fischerrandom/chess960 game has passed. This is one reason I prefer to play other games like Shogi to chess960. As I argued with Paul Bonham years ago, chess960 was meant to replace standard chess, not co-exist with it for long should chess960 become super-popular.

And your argument still doesn't hold water. There will ALWAYS be people -- like YOU, in fact -- who prefer to play from the same old starting position and waste time playing the same old moves until ply X, when you will then choose one of 3 or 4 variations, then playing same old moves again until ply Y, when you will choose from another 3 or 4 variations, then again play moves from memory.... until maybe ply 15 or so, when you will finally do some original thinking.

So standard chess will ALWAYS be around even in tournament form, and I've maintained that that is fine, chess960 is NOT meant to force all chessplayers out of their routine. It is meant to be an alternative for those who want to think right from move 1.

I think you are using your argument to try and put people off of chess960. Why else would you insist in this nonsensical view that chess960 must REPLACE standard chess? This is very disingenuous of you. It is obvious that you personally have no use for chess960, and would like to prolong the day when it approaches critical mass. You should at least let other people decide for themselves, rather than falsely claiming that the day is coming when they will be forced to give up standard chess altogether.

As for the endgame stuff, this is not something we need to worry much about and is not what chess960 is meant to address.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Paul, I think if people look back at some of your previous posts in this thread, they'll see that you yourself have alluded these days to chess960 replacing standard chess (e.g. your post #59 of this thread where you write "It doesnt' have to be FIDE changing the standard rules for chess, although perhaps that is the ultimate best move.")[edit: who's being disingenuous?]. Honestly, I had thought you had come around implicitly to accepting that I had won our old argument. :)

I have stated that the basic rules of standard chess will inevitably be replaced by something else - I just don't know when. You can get upset or not about whether I personally prefer playing it the way it is for the time being, but that's besides the point. [edit: I think you also grossly overestimate the extent to which you and I discussing things on chesstalk can sway the way the chess world thinks]

[edit: was Bobby Fischer being disingenuous when he invented Fischerrandom/chess960 specifically to replace standard chess? ]

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

For those who are looking for board games that are a long way from being mastered/compromised by computers, I can recommend the two player Eastern games Go and Shogi, which both have long traditions and considerable opening theory (especially in the case of Go). Both have way more legal moves available in a typical position than is the case for chess/chess960, and both have a standard start position.

For those who don't know, Go is played on 19x19 points (intersections of lines) with the object of capturing territory (and to a lesser extent, prisoners). Each turn normally consists of putting a Black or White 'stone' on an intersection, sometimes with options being restricted by certain rules, with the starting position being a completely empty board.

Shogi (Japanese chess) is played on a 9x9 board, with a variety of pieces like chess. Several of the pieces have lesser mobility in comparison with several chess pieces, but the number of legal moves becomes staggering after pieces begin to be captured, since like in double chess, in Shogi a captured piece can be dropped on any square on the board as a move, subject to some restrictions. The goal is to deliver checkmate. There are opening, middlegame and 'endgame' phases, except that 'endgame' refers to a king hunt phase. Like in double chess no pieces are exchanged off the board 'forever'. Sometimes a king hunt fails, and then play returns to what can be considered another middlegame phase. The advantage of moving first in Shogi is arguably negligible, unlike in Go.

Chess pieces are arguably magical works of art compared to Go and Shogi pieces, however, which may help explain why chess succeeded long ago in becoming popular worldwide (another explanation is that it went wherever European etc. cultures went, and it stuck).

Fwiw, my favourite chess variant (though I play it less these days) is double chess, though it has the drawback of needing two clocks, two boards and four players (though arguably just two players could play it). The number of possible legal positions for both boards and captured pieces in hand combined is so large that I imagine computers won't be mastering double chess for a while.

[David Bowers]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Fisher said the game was played out after he stopped(ish) playing.. I wouldn't be surprised if one day Kasparov say the game is played out.. he has virtually nothing to gain by keeping the game the way it is..

capablanca said the game had been played out. in a hundred years someone will say the same thing. if this becomes (or is now) a credible claim, it only applies to 0.001% of players in the world anyway. for the overwhelming majority of us patzers, computer prep means precious little ("he made a move the computer didn't say. what do i do?")...

so let's not let the tail wag the dog in instituting changes for the rest of us. (e.g. we see this already in the sad g/90-type nonsense foisted on the rest of us because short time controls were needed to avoid adjournments at the top.)

[Paul Bonham]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Paul, I think if people look back at some of your previous posts in this thread, they'll see that you yourself have alluded these days to chess960 replacing standard chess (e.g. your post #59 of this thread where you write "It doesnt' have to be FIDE changing the standard rules for chess, although perhaps that is the ultimate best move.")[edit: who's being disingenuous?]. Honestly, I had thought you had come around implicitly to accepting that I had won our old argument. :)

I have stated that the basic rules of standard chess will inevitably be replaced by something else - I just don't know when. You can get upset or not about whether I personally prefer playing it the way it is for the time being, but that's besides the point. [edit: I think you also grossly overestimate the extent to which you and I discussing things on chesstalk can sway the way the chess world thinks]

[edit: was Bobby Fischer being disingenuous when he invented Fischerrandom/chess960 specifically to replace standard chess? ]

It's funny how you try using a quote of mine that was in the context of the word "ultimately", which could mean 500 years from now, and was also something I wrote to say that FIDE does NOT need to change standard rules to chess960 rules. The "ultimately" clause was meant to imply that if chess960 eventually becomes the de facto standard because no one wants to play standard chess, THEN the rules of standard chess might switch over to chess960. Personally I don't see that happening for decades, but chess960 could still be a viable FIDE-sancitoned and FIDE-governed chess variant before this year is out.

You seem to be stating that the only way that chess960 can exist in parallel with standard chess would be if FIDE sanctions it but simultaneously decides not to govern it as they do with standard chess, but instead leaves it to some other governing body. That's the kind of conservatism that at least one person in this thread was initially being critical of.

I'm not upset about your preference nor anyone else's preference. But if you use that preference to try and (disingenuously) sway other people's view of chess960, that isn't tolerable. And the quote of yours that I objected to was this: "at least one of them [the top players] might eventually choose to lobby FIDE to change the standard rules for chess." That could be taken as a subtle attempt to make the rank and file standard chess player fear that if chess960 gets too popular, it's going to take away their ability to play organized standard chess or to see it played at the top levels. However, if that's not the way you meant it, just say so and all will be fine.

And no, we're not talking the "chess world" here. I harbor no such illusions. But if you affect one person's opinion of chess960 by being disingenuous, I object.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Paul, to a large extent I don't care what top players do. I was pointing out one way (the most plausible?) FIDE could sanction chess960. [edit: you can keep your illusions about that, but I doubt others feel the same]

My point to you, which I virtually hammered at you, but you still ignored, was that Fischer invented his variant specifically to replace standard chess. It's not just me saying that. Brad has been posting that Fischerrandom's time has come (to replace standard chess), and you've been cheering him on [edit: which I think people can gauge your reasons why for]. In fact, you've been slagging standard chess. How about people objecting to that?

I still say, you're the one who's being disingenous!

[Roger Patterson]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

For those who are looking for board games that are a long way from being mastered/compromised by computers, I can recommend the two player Eastern games Go and Shogi, which both have long traditions and considerable opening theory (especially in the case of Go). Both have way more legal moves available in a typical position than is the case for chess/chess960, and both have a standard start position.

.

computers are up to 6 dan in Go. Not good enough to be world champion but plenty good enough to beat most people. The entry in Wikipedia reads like a similar entry for chess would have in the early to mid 1990's so I wouldn't bet on Go not being subject to the same concerns say a decade from now.

And smaller boards (5x5) are completly solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go

[Paul Bonham]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Paul, to a large extent I don't care what top players do. I was pointing out one way (the most plausible?) FIDE could sanction chess960. [edit: you can keep your illusions about that, but I doubt others feel the same]

My point to you, which I virtually hammered at you, but you still ignored, was that Fischer invented his variant specifically to replace standard chess. It's not just me saying that. Brad has been posting that Fischerrandom's time has come (to replace standard chess), and you've been cheering him on [edit: which I think people can gauge your reasons why for]. In fact, you've been slagging standard chess. How about people objecting to that?

I still say, you're the one who's being disingenous!

It's not an issue whether you care what top players do. But if you come right out and suggest they might petition FIDE to replace standard chess with chess960, that could be interpreted as an attempt to start an anti-chess960 revolt, because virtually no standard chess player in 2012 wants to see standard chess REPLACED. That won't change for another several decades at least. Even Kramnik, with all his quotes against modern chess trends, still doesn't even want chess960 (as a replacement), but I'm sure he'd welcome it as a parallel variant to standard chess, complete with events worldwide.

It has no bearing what Fischer intended, that was decades ago. What Fischer intended doesn't somehow pass by osmosis to everyone who likes Fischerrandom chess. So you can hammer away all you like, it doesn't make an iota of difference.

I'll leave it to Brad to clarify whether he thinks standard chess should be replaced with chess960 or should be augmented with parallel chess960 events. If he says replaced, I'll object to that also. What I've been "cheering on" is his ability to see that chess960 is needed TODAY as an option to get chess out of its doldrums.

Meanwhile, I'll clarify my position which I've held all along, since you want to try and drag me into the muck with you: Standard chess should not be replaced as an event that organizers support until such time as there are so few entrants that it is no longer economically viable. That will still be a long time away, because as one poster on this thread noted, the club level player still doesn't have or use computing resources the way the super GMs do. Rather than "slagging" standard chess as you exaggerate, I have been claiming its high dependance on memorization as a shortcoming that chess960 can alleviate. I've also claimed that its total absence of luck is a deterrent to players being willing to pay high entry fees and make chess a professional option for medium-skill players. I do not claim chess960 will solve that problem, rather I fully realize it won't. However, chess960 will be mildly more spectator-friendly than standard chess and once fully supported, offered, rated and governed, will outstrip standard chess in popularity. The sooner this can happen, the better for chess in general.

If you still want to think I'm being disingenuous, let me know where and I'll clarify further if needed.

Meanwhile, even in your latest post you are still trying to suggest that replacement of standard chess may be the "most plausible" way FIDE could sanction it. You still haven't answered the question as to why having chess960 events in parallel with standard chess events isn't the most plausible way forward. And so I still have to think you are being disingenuous. Do you want readers of this thread to be anti-chess960 or not?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Paul, you've attacked the nature of standard chess as it stands today for a number of reasons, yet claim you are not against it. You've attacked me too, and then played the innocent.

Fwiw, I'd rather have something other than chess960 replace standard chess eventually. To me chess960 is not a sufficiently adequate replacement for chess, for reasons I've alluded to earlier in this thread, e.g. computers will still be able to outplay people at it right now. I'd much prefer that another variant like double chess be the eventual replacement.

If people want to lobby for chess960, they can [edit: however they want, if that will satisfy your odd way of thinking]. I'll also feel free to point out its deficiencies as I see them, thank you.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Paul, you've attacked the nature of standard chess as it stands today for a number of reasons, yet claim you are not against it. You've attacked me too, and then played the innocent.

Fwiw, I'd rather have something other than chess960 replace standard chess eventually. To me chess960 is not a sufficiently adequate replacement for chess, for reasons I've alluded to earlier in this thread, e.g. computers will still be able to outplay people at it right now. I'd much prefer that another variant like double chess be the eventual replacement.

If people want to lobby for chess960, they can [edit: however they want, if that will satisfy your odd way of thinking]. I'll also feel free to point out its deficiencies as I see them, thank you.

Well, I don't know what you mean when you say I've attacked the "nature" of standard chess, but in this entire thread and in many other threads, I've stated that I think of it as a beautiful game and I think there is no reason to prevent those who love playing it as it is right now -- and that includes it's opening memorization phase -- from doing so. So I am NOT in any way saying that standard chess needs to disappear.

I haven't attacked you personally, only your disingenuity. I've disclosed what you've now confirmed for me: that you are prejudiced against chess960, but instead of just saying so from the beginning, you made it seem that you were for it as one potential replacement for standard chess, and then made subtle statements that were designed to start a backlash against it (among readers of this thread, NOT among the "chess world" as you tried to allege in your diversion tactic).

And when I ask you to explain those subtle statements, you won't. You get angry because I've exposed your little game.

I'm not sure why you see computer dominance as a reason to not favor chess960. Computers can do all kinds of math problems much faster than we do. Should we all stop doing math? "There's an app for that", as today's young people would say. Pity for them.

The game of chess960 is a suitable replacement for standard chess because it removes almost all vestiges of memorization from the game, and so any game between two humans can be a pure combination of calculating skill / strategic creativity / psychology. It will be still missing the luck element, and so cannot qualify as a perfect game that truly resembles the processes of life itself.

There doesn't have to be one "replacement" for standard chess. There can be many variants that come under the umbrella of "chess" and could each have sanctioned events. Poker has about 4, maybe 5, major variants right now (some even with sub-variants, such as "Limit" and "No Limit") that all get played at the World Series of Poker and earn their winners WSOP bracelets.

Exactly what characteristics a game must have to be considered an official variant of chess is open to debate, and would make a very interesting debate indeed.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Subtle statements? Only in your own mind.