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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?
aspects of computing are getting so advanced that the role of the speed of light as a limiting factor in computation speed is proportionally greater all the time. i understand that different computing forms are being researched and when they come online, this factor will be overcome and chess will be solved in short order.
If that's all the case, even Double chess or Shogi will be solved soon enough, I suppose.
However, there's always the possibility of divine intervention before we possibly blow ourselves up, and/or our own none-too well thought out inventions or practices like computers, AI, etc. wreak untold havoc.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Predictions about the "demise" of chess, like those of the death of Mark Twain, are greatly exaggerated.
Actually, you're way off here. According to a serious promoter of chess, over 600 million people worldwide play chess on a regular basis. That's an enormous number.
so, you're seriously NOT drawing a distinction between kitchen chess with grandpa and his grandson played like twice a year (with queens & kings on the wrong start squares etc) with serious organized chess?? you lump them in the same pot? you see, grandpa and his grandson are the people included in your 600 million.
so, you're seriously NOT drawing a distinction between kitchen chess with grandpa and his grandson played like twice a year (with queens & kings on the wrong start squares etc) with serious organized chess?? you lump them in the same pot? you see, grandpa and his grandson are the people included in your 600 million.
i think bob was referring to serious chess here.
To try to help put things in some perspective, poker stats I've seen online (100 million people playing worldwide, 60% of which are US players) no doubt include estimated casual poker play by the public.
At least the public is still playing chess (their way, ahem), in spite of computers.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
so, you're seriously NOT drawing a distinction between kitchen chess with grandpa and his grandson played like twice a year (with queens & kings on the wrong start squares etc) with serious organized chess?? you lump them in the same pot? you see, grandpa and his grandson are the people included in your 600 million.
Actually, no. The 605 million refers to people who play chess regularly, like every month, and not once or twice a year. Read the article and the connecting links, m'kay?
In any case, "serious" chess rests on the foundation of millions of ordinary players who never aspire to the heights of chess prowess. Bob's shopping list of questions for chess doesn't include, moreover, any substantiation of his claim that global chess has "been in decline" since 2000. Where is his data to support such a claim? Where is yours?
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Re: Re : Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?
I'd like to reiterate that the article posted is not mine. The author is Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) member, Abbey Alo, from Ghana. And I have alerted him to the request for evidence that chess has been in decline since 2000, when Kramnik won the crown. And I'll advise when I receive an answer.
But what I think is also important is that the mainstream media coverage of chess has been in decline. I'm sure a suvey of mainstream media in North America, at least, would confirm this. In Canada, have we not been lamenting the diappearance of chess columns from our local newspapers? As CFC Public Relations Coordinator, I can advise that chess in the mainstream media is a tough sell.
I asked on the Facebook chess discussion board of CCC, the following:
" what do you think would be the first CONCRETE STEP for your country federation to take to start on a road to making chess a more popular mainstream passtime IN YOUR COUNTRY, and to get it mainstream news coverage? "
I think this is a logical supplementary question to Abbey's questions in the original post.
...
In Canada, have we not been lamenting the diappearance of chess columns from our local newspapers?
...
Sadly, checkers columns seem to have long ago died out from being carried in newspapers. I would have enjoyed reading them, as I occasionally play someone casually, who hardly flinched when I told him the game was solved some years ago.
In Ottawa the Citizen newspaper dropped it's chess column some years ago, but it has naturally kept the Bridge column, which its editor probably assumed had a greater following. However, I suspect that newspapers are having to make all kinds of cutbacks, including to chess columns, more due to the internet and the economy than to a perceived dying interest by the public in chess.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Actually, no. The 605 million refers to people who play chess regularly, like every month, and not once or twice a year. Read the article and the connecting links, m'kay?
i did. here's a cut and paste: "Most surprising is the percentage of adults who actually currently play chess (either weekly, monthly or during the past year)".
In any case, "serious" chess rests on the foundation of millions of ordinary players who never aspire to the heights of chess prowess.
this is quite a good point, and may completely over-ride other considerations in this discussion. the problem is the relationship between the apparently healthy number of recreational players and purported dwindling number of organized serious players is very hard to establish or quantify. if bob is right, then this situation is hard to explain.
Bob's shopping list of questions for chess doesn't include, moreover, any substantiation of his claim that global chess has "been in decline" since 2000. Where is his data to support such a claim? Where is yours?
i don't recall claiming that chess was on the decline. it probably is at the moment. i don't care if someone thinks i have to prove it. it doesn't matter to me if it is in fact not on the decline, as a retired player. presuming bob's premise that it is, i merely added that my conversations with people reveal this: that upon finding that the strongest player in the world is a computer, this has a visible effect/reaction on people and does diminish their view of chess/chessplayers. i also took a moment to extend this by way of conjecture that solving chess would have a similar effect.
read my posts again, "m'kay" ?
Last edited by David Bowers; Wednesday, 17th October, 2012, 11:18 PM.
Reason: accidentally left out part of a nigel quote
Re: Re : Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?
It seems to me that Kevin is correct.
The Windsor chess teachers/ club organizers seem to have done an amazing job of junior development in the city - it is likely one of the foremost cities in Canada in terms of chess growth. And they have developed junior/ chess junior parents desiring to play in major national and provincial tournaments - a good chess junior with a good result DOES often interest the media, especially where you have made prior contacts with them.
I think the Windsor situation is not duplicated very many other places in Canada at the moment. Not that there aren't good junior programs elsewhere, but they are not as highly visible, and do not match the growth numbers.
...
my conversations with people reveal this: that upon finding that the strongest player in the world is a computer, this has a visible effect/reaction on people and does diminish their view of chess/chessplayers. i also took a moment to extend this by way of conjecture that solving chess would have a similar effect.
...
In the defence of chess (or checkers!) players, I would like to remind chesstalkers that on the old chesstalk message board, years ago I posited that computers in effect cheat when they play chess, by looking at more than one board at a time, moving the pieces, looking up opening theory or using tablebases, all of which is prohibited for human players [edit: except for correspondence chess players, or in man+machine exhibitions].
I recall one poster arguing with me, but when I posted a poll on whether computers 'cheat', the vast majority of respondents agreed.
A little explanation of the rules and the difference between human and computer 'thought' might help with chess PR.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 18th October, 2012, 12:41 AM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?
Interestingly, modern International Checkers/Draughts is played on a 10x10 board. There are evidently many tournaments worldwide (and millions of people still play all sorts of checkers variants, say online, including the old 8x8 checkers).
I suspect checkers moved to 10x10 in serious events more because 8x8 opening theory has been played out, and people were drawing lots for choice of opening, rather than 8x8 checkers being solved.
If chess is ever deemed to be played out, there may be plenty of 10x10 checkers boards available worldwide by then, and then two new type(s) of piece(s) and two pawns might be added to both the White and Black coloured pieces of 10x10 chess sets, in order to make it the new standard chess at that time (say 100+ years from now!?).
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 18th October, 2012, 12:29 AM.
Reason: Grammar
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?
TCN is already in contact with the inventor of a chess variant on a 10x10 board with 2 extra pieces, for each side. We expect an article on it in the near future.
TCN is already in contact with the inventor of a chess variant on a 10x10 board with 2 extra pieces, for each side. We expect an article on it in the near future.
Bob , TCN Editor
I wonder what the extra pieces move like in his variant. S-chess (sp?), which Bruce Harper of B.C. was promoting (I think) is played on an 8x8 board, but has two extra pieces that can be added as the game unfolds, I seem to recall (not sure).
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Interestingly, modern International Checkers/Draughts is played on a 10x10 board. There are evidently many tournaments worldwide (and millions of people still play all sorts of checkers variants, say online, including the old 8x8 checkers).
I suspect checkers moved to 10x10 in serious events more because 8x8 opening theory has been played out, and people were drawing lots for choice of opening, rather than 8x8 checkers being solved.
If chess is ever deemed to be played out, there may be plenty of 10x10 checkers boards available worldwide by then, and then two new type(s) of piece(s) and two pawns might be added to both the White and Black coloured pieces of 10x10 chess sets, in order to make it the new standard chess at that time (say 100+ years from now!?).
You don't need to add extra pieces and pawns, as interesting as that might be. Just change the board to 10 x 10 and place the 32 existing chess pieces on the inner 8 x 8 set of squares. Thus all rules are the same, including en passant and castling, only the area that is played within becomes new and larger. Knights would obviously become weaker in such a variant, and Bishops stronger, so that Bishop / Knight exchange would occur less.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment