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.
This is an interesting discussion. Those who wish to maintain the current starting position should not complain about the recent world championship match. Clearly the players are using Houdini to book them up, and clearly they are seeking fast exchanges, simplifications and draws most of the time once they are out of their Houdini, for fear that their opponent is still in his. This is what chess has come to, and it will only get worse so long as the standard starting position is maintained.
Clearly the players are using Houdini to book them up, and clearly they are seeking fast exchanges, simplifications and draws most of the time once they are out of their Houdini, for fear that their opponent is still in his. This is what chess has come to, and it will only get worse so long as the standard starting position is maintained.
This might be true for 2700+ players. Maybe chess is dead for them.
But what about all the other players (at least 99.9999% of the chess population) ? Do you realize that beginners, for instance, love chess opening books? When they make a mistake early in the game, they want to check the book to learn what they did wrong, and they are happy to realize that they will know what to do next time they get the same position. This is why they continue playing chess: they have hope of getting better.
But what about Fischerandom chess? There are no openings. A beginner will lose without knowing why. Which means he will lose again, and again, and again, without having a single clue about what he is doing wrong. And even if he sets a computer and is given the right move at some point, he knows that this position will never happen again in his games. Which means that after playing only a few games he will get bored and quit.
In my opinion, Fischerandom has a future. But only for beginners who will learn chess the normal way, and after several years become strong 2700+ players, and yes these people will want to play Fischerandom because chess is dead for them.
This is an interesting discussion. Those who wish to maintain the current starting position should not complain about the recent world championship match. Clearly the players are using Houdini to book them up, and clearly they are seeking fast exchanges, simplifications and draws most of the time once they are out of their Houdini, for fear that their opponent is still in his. This is what chess has come to, and it will only get worse so long as the standard starting position is maintained.
I quite simply find your theory baseless, or rather based on a very limited understanding of chess. Besides this last WC match, there are plenty of superGM class tournaments with plenty of fighting and creativity in all phases of the game. The only real impact of computers is over opening preparation. It has become much more difficult to win games in the opening, but chances keep coming in the further course of the game for those who try and no Houdini will ever change that. Look at the one game that left known paths quickly : Anand won in 17 moves! Ther are still billions of ways to leave known paths and fight whenever players are willing to do so.
Is it about conservativeness or about appreciating the incredible depth and beauty of chess the way it has been for centuries ? Is it to be conservative to appreciate its history and its evolution within a set of almost perfect rules, and to wish for that evolution to continue within those same basic rules ?
Why should we give our interest to Fischerandom when other interesting chess variants have been around for much longer without ever coming close to replace the original thing ?.....
There is nothing wrong with appreciating the current rules. In the below-superGM ranks of chess, you do see much more examples of fighting and creative play than you do in the superGM rank, and so perhaps the problem of boring and lifeless "Houdini Chess" is only at the top ranks. But also, this problem could be said to exist at the top ranks of COMPUTER chess: matches between the very best computer engines.
What this may indicate is that the closer we get to chess "perfection" on both sides of the board, the less interesting the chess play becomes, from a creative / tactical standpoint. Maybe not from a positional standpoint, but who in the general populace is going to appreciate chess from a positional standpoint? No one! The general populace, if they are to get interested in chess at all, will only do so if they see creativity and tactics.
This I propose as the answer to Jean's question: "Why should we give our interest to Fischerandom...?"
Because we all want to see chess grow in interest in the general populace. That and only that is what will allow chess to expand in dramatic fashion.
The reason other variants have failed has little to do with their rule changes. Many of them may be just as close to "perfection" as Jean claims the rules of standard chess are. We can't appropriately judge that because the other variants haven't been backed worldwide by chess organizers. The convervatism is with the organizers: standard chess is for the most part the only chess they offer.
Brad Thomson has it right: the top level of chess is in trouble. The only people who appreciate the WC matches are other serious chessplayers. The top level of chess is not drawing in new audience from among the general populace, and so is not advancing the growth of chess.
The only way to overcome this is to introduce something that brings in more opportunities for creativity and sudden, exciting tactical play, even right from the opening.
Even that alone isn't enough, IMO. But it's a step in the right direction.
Jean, you obviously appreciate the beauty and depth of standard chess. Why then cannot you also appreciate the beauty and depth of all the (millions of)possible variations of the standard rules? Yes, there are going to be duds among them, just as there are duds among the millions of recorded chess games. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Chess variants, and even more specifically, the science and art of creating chess variants, has value!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
First, it has to be said that allowance must be made for the incredible stress involved in playing a match at world championship level.
You only have to make allowances for it if you put the caveat that the players involved are not world championship calibre. There has been plenty of WC matches with incredible stress - what makes the participants memorable in the history of chess is that they faced that stress and gave their best. They didn't turtle up and avoid the challenge.
This I propose as the answer to Jean's question: "Why should we give our interest to Fischerandom...?"
...
Chess variants, and even more specifically, the science and art of creating chess variants, has value!
My answer is that it should not be random! My variant includes classical chess as an option the players can elect, with no change in rules from that point on.
There is nothing wrong with appreciating the current rules. In the below-superGM ranks of chess, you do see much more examples of fighting and creative play than you do in the superGM rank, and so perhaps the problem of boring and lifeless "Houdini Chess" is only at the top ranks. But also, this problem could be said to exist at the top ranks of COMPUTER chess: matches between the very best computer engines.
Computers play differently than people. They have they own peculiar weaknesses still, which humans don't often get a chance to exploit anymore, unfortunately for us. When computers play each other, they simply aren't in a position to try to exploit the weaknesses still left in computer play.
In any case, it's an academic issue. The best playing programs consistently outdo humans in matches now, but then I would expect that they in turn would be outplayed by the almighty, whatever style of play used.
What this may indicate is that the closer we get to chess "perfection" on both sides of the board, the less interesting the chess play becomes, from a creative / tactical standpoint. Maybe not from a positional standpoint, but who in the general populace is going to appreciate chess from a positional standpoint? No one! The general populace, if they are to get interested in chess at all, will only do so if they see creativity and tactics.
As a youngster, before I had any chess books and was a novice, I didn't have a clue of what tactical or positional chess meant. Then I met a number of serious club players in Ottawa, who were generally in awe of strong players with good technique, and who tried to become strong technically, besides calculating well - note that good calculating is a prerequisite for playing good positional chess.
One of my first books was a collection of Botvinnik's best games. Like several juniors in my day, we wanted to play good positional chess.
This I propose as the answer to Jean's question: "Why should we give our interest to Fischerandom...?"
Because we all want to see chess grow in interest in the general populace. That and only that is what will allow chess to expand in dramatic fashion.
Chess variants, and even more specifically, the science and art of creating chess variants, has value!
Two searches I did with Google some time ago indicated that for poker there are 60+ million players in the US (and 100+ million worldwide), and that there were 45 million chess players in the US, in 2004. That obviously includes casual players of both games, but the stats are still interesting. For one thing it shows that poker is largely a U.S./North American activity. Maybe the numbers for poker or chess haven't changed that dramatically in 8 years, regardless of Houdini etc.
I myself have occasionally played variants (especially double chess), but I have for years prefered to occasionally play other games outside of standard chess that I know already have a large following worldwide, such as Go, Shogi (Japanese Chess) and Chinese Chess. That way if I travel I'm a bit more likely to run into some other people who play. I could play variants on the internet, but I generally don't even enjoy playing chess on the internet anymore. I prefer the atmosphere of sitting across from an opponent, whether in a quiet club for a serious game, or a cafe. So in some ways I'm conservative or conformist, in other ways I'm not.
When it comes to standard chess, I play all kinds of openings, whether offbeat or standard, positional or tactical. I don't think I'd enjoy playing without such variety anymore. For one thing I believe in Lasker's approach of playing the man/child/computer that you're facing and adapting accordingly.
Bjorn Borg had all kinds of fans when he was on his way to winning Wimbledon five times, even though he played IMHO a dull positional style of tennis, sticking behind the baseline when he had the option. Maybe it was his Rock star looks or his stoical manner. Personality apparently matters more to the public than style when it comes to top sports contestants, and maybe the same can apply to chess.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
This thread continues to be interesting, and respectful of others' opinions. :)
I do agree that for most of us normal (or below normal) chess players, the standard opening position is still viable. And it always will be. The problem is at the very top. To repeat myself, players are no longer trying to outplay their opponents at the 2700+ level, they are trying to out-Houdini them. And when they come to a point in the game when they are out of their own Houdini, they seek simplification and exchanges for fear that their opponent is still in Houdini. It only makes sense. Why would an elite player seek to play sharp, double-edged, risky and provocative moves, once they are out of their Houdini, when the other player might still be in his Houdini? This would be an almost suicidal way to play chess nowadays. Clearly the fact that computers are the ones finding the vast majority if not all of the opening novelties has changed the game radically, to the point where players will simply not take risks once they are out of Houdini, and understandably so, and this demands, therefore, Fischerandom. The game needs to be taken out of the figurative hands of computers and placed back into literal human hands, and brains. At least at the very elite level of the game.
To answer the point with respect to checkers being solved, this is why the game was changed to add more squares and why certain openings were outlawed from being played. I do not think chess needs to add more squares.
I have Kotronias' book 'The Grandmaster Battle Manual'. I won it as first prize in a fairly recent Quick/Active event (as an aside, my Quick rating is now higher than my regular CFC rating, which in turn is higher than my FIDE rating :().
Kotronias suggests that with computer preparation, one should try to seek novelties that are not among the top playing engines' top first or second choices, i.e. to hope that the opponent hasn't looked at it.
Such an approach may represent what will become the standard modern way of preparing for openings using computers, if one is still willing to risk entering reasonably sharp positions (or not).
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Sunday, 3rd June, 2012, 11:37 AM.
Reason: Grammar
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
There is nothing to fix with chess, but a lot to fix with people around the game, especially those responsible for making tournament and match rules. We would not have that kind of discussion if the champion simply had had draw match advantage like it used to be, or if just one player had a sense of his duties to the game.
I think that giving the champion draw odds is really unfair. I like Kramnik's suggestion of playing the tie-break before the match starts, this way the actual match will never really be drawn, thus players (at least half the players) will have to try and win.
Kotronias suggests that with computer preparation, one should try to seek novelties that are not among the top playing engines' top first or second choices, i.e. to hope that the opponent hasn't looked at it.
Fwiw, I think there is still room for uncertainty, even in reasonably sharp positions, whether the opponent has also prepared for a player's hoped for surprise (albeit computer prepared) move, just as in the days before Houdini etc. As someone (Rowson?) once put it, chessplayers have to live with uncertainty. Keene once opined, though, that any player in theory should have anticipated any surprises before move one. :)
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Sunday, 3rd June, 2012, 12:15 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Kotronias suggests that with computer preparation, one should try to seek novelties that are not among the top playing engines' top first or second choices, i.e. to hope that the opponent hasn't looked at it.
Do you really believe there is something "new" in this approach ? Do you think that top players look only at the engines' top choices ?
I would also point out that in chess, the margin of the draw is quite wide, depending somewhat on the opening, at least between evenly matched opponents of reasonable skill.
Even in a reasonably (but not terribly) tactical situation, a risky looking move can often turn out to be quite sound, or safe enough for possibly having the worse side of a draw, and a player can often feel not too uncomfortable playing such a move if it obeys principle(s) and doesn't look excessively risky or suspect to him.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Tweet
Comment