|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 381 OF 406 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-20-10
 | | boz: Maybe chess 960 isn't as good as chess. |
 |
| May-20-10 | | BadKnight: why is fischerrandam trash? I like it quite a lot. regular starting chess position is just one of possible 960. it has some merit, but still... |
|
May-20-10
 | | acirce: <Do you think some of the starting positions are unreasonable or something?> Yes, most of the starting positions make you seasick. (It's not an "objective" reason, but it's quite obvious why people would prefer the one very harmonious starting position we have.) For me personally, it's also that opening theory is one of the most fascinating aspects of chess. Also, it's great fun to speculate about what opening a certain player is going to use for a certain game, etc. Fischerandom in my view takes a great game, removes one of the best parts of it, forces us to play bizarre positions, and poses as an improvement. <From my limited experience with it, I think Fischerandom can be a lot of fun> Sure it can.
<and makes a lot of sense in terms of avoiding the problems associated with opening preparation taking over the game.> "Problems" that I think are way overstated. |
|
| May-20-10 | | Mr. Bojangles: <BadKnight: why is fischerrandam trash?> ... because it was invented by a lunatic.
Was Fischer certified? |
|
May-20-10
| | boz: The traditional starting position in chess may be the most balanced. White to play has a very slight advantage. There is evidence that some random starting positions favour White too much. I don't think you can randomly vary a game with such deep and rich traditions and assume that you haven't created an inferior version. |
|
| May-20-10 | | Kazzak: In the recent WCC, we had a number of games being prep-feasts, with the players revisiting lines in the hope that the opponent would play a move they had prepared for.
The first game was a "let's see who remembers prep fastest" display, and that was won by Topalov when Anand mixed up his move order. Topalov then invited an examination of his computer assisted prep's, where he actually departed significantly from the style that has made him Topalov the Inventive Chess Player. We then had Anand completely losing Geist in games 6 and 7, as he decided to cruise. Here's the supercomputer that was used to solve chess in the accepted array we term classical chess, which is one of 960 FR arrays.
This is IBM's Blue Gene, to which Topalov had access through the Bulgarian government and IBM. Is this the future of chess we want?
http://blog.pcnews.ro/wp-content/ph...
We admire the romantic era of chess, in spite of the flaws revealed in the playing by computer analysis. Now imagine that era replicated 959 times ... Chess960 is far from trash, and when you've tried it, you get totally energized and excited about the game. |
|
| May-20-10 | | whatthefat: <acirce>
Thanks. |
|
May-20-10
 | | Eyal: Fischerandom can certainly be fun and creative, but in terms of level of play it cannot even begin to get close to “normal” chess, at least for a very very long time, because it’s extremely difficult for systematic knowledge to accumulate. I think Dvoretsky sums it up well (in an article where he actually discusses the problems which he believes result from the “information explosion” in theory): <[after reviewing two ridiculously low-level GM Fischerandom games from Mainz 2005]: This is all very curious and funny – but that’s all. The level of play demonstrated here by grandmasters isn’t much different from (to take an example from traditional chess) the efforts, successful or unsuccessful, to exploit the weakness at f7 from the starting position, and deliver the “scholars mate.” Of course we need to take into account the fact that in Mainz, the games were played in rapid chess; however, I suspect that, even under a classical time-control, the quality of play would not have risen very much. In the early days of chess, many such naive games were played. As experience grew, so did the understanding of the principles of opening play; new schemes of battle appeared and were worked upon, and those that didn’t work out were tossed aside. For example, it became clear that certain gambits were not too promising; others, by contrast (like the Queen’s Gambit), were positionally well-founded. Some excessively categorical statements (such as Tarrasch’s thesis that it’s wrong to accept the Queen’s Gambit, because the white bishop can then get to c4 in one move, without loss of tempo) appeared, and then lost their power. The conception that one need not occupy the center with pawns, but could attack it with pieces instead, proved viable. And it was this kind of idea-filled development of views on the opening that undoubtedly aided the progress of chess […] But in chess-960, there will be practically no accumulation of experience: there are too many opening positions, and too many differences between them. And thus, the concept of the opening phase will find itself frozen, for a long time, at a childhood level. Let me summarize, briefly: Playing Fischer-random is undoubtedly interesting (and probably even useful: overcoming routine, and developing an unfettered approach to the position). But studying played games is of no interest, because it’s almost impossible for anything creatively important to come from them (when measured against the level that both amateurs and experts in classical chess have grown accustomed to).> (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/dvore...) |
|
May-20-10
| | boz: The problem is that not all starting positions are equal. It may well be that the one we've been using for the last 300 years is the best. I also agree with <acirce> that the opening is one of the most interesting aspects of the game. And judging from the discussions around here, for many kibitzers, it may even be the most interesting. |
|
May-20-10
| | acirce: <Chess960 is far from trash, and when you've tried it, you get totally energized and excited about the game.> Well, I've tried it and didn't like it, but certainly nobody is saying others can't. Play it all you want. It's still a pretty safe prediction that the popularity of Fischerandom/Chess960 will never come anywhere close to that of traditional chess. It will not be generally appreciated as a great thing to throw hundreds of years of tradition overboard in order to play ugly positions instead of the position that gave us tens of thousands of wonderful games. |
|
May-20-10
| | acirce: Yes, people seem to like the opening phase. And like to study openings. It's not just because they "have to". The tedious process of rote memorization is one thing, but people do seem to like studying the ideas and principles of the openings, its typical tactical and strategical themes, reading about them and working them out, playing over games where they are used, and so on -- and then the challenge of trying to apply your hard-earned knowledge and understanding in your own games. Where does all that go in Chess960? |
|
| May-20-10 | | bharatiy: OK do we have information about opening advantage of different positions, say evaluations of all positions to 25-30ply by rybka or someone, don't think it will take lot of time for few of the companies. That will help to eliminate few positions or may be we can understand a particular variable that can't be in opening position such as no rook next to king or may be something which gives unfair advantage, we remove that and play only fair positions, it may not be 960 anymore but 540, but always better than 1. i think it will bring more people into it as I wont have to study a lot of opening, I am not at disadvantage if I am not in touch for long time. Most of the established players will hate it as all their acquired knowledge will be waste but we will have real problem solvers or analytical people being successful. Sorry for long post! |
|
| May-20-10 | | Kazzak: Link to the computer, dropped out of the post:
http://blog.pcnews.ro/wp-content/ph... |
|
| May-20-10 | | dotty hill: <ConLaMismaMano>
Here's a picture of Anand's team depicting ten people:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...
The passage
<How’s your wife, by the way. She suffered probably more than you?Yes, she was trying to keep most of the details from us, during the trip, but of course sitting in the same van with two mobile phones it is almost impossible to do that. By the last day it wasn’t clear who was suffering more, her or me. It’s tough – at least the seconds get to stop seeing me for a while, but when I woke up I was really tense and she could see that and it affected her as well.> suggests that Mr and Mrs Anand shared a room, but it sounds reasonable that they actually used two rooms, in order that Anand could work or rest undisturbedly whenever he felt like it. So your source appears to be correct.
Elementary, dear Watson. |
|
| May-20-10 | | fab4: < Mr. Bojangles: ... because it was invented by a lunatic. Was Fischer certified?>
No he was'nt... and neither did he worship the moon. Don't be a fool. As weird and socially ugly as RJF was away from the 64 squares, over them, he created and composed art as pure and truthful as a Beethoven symphony.And impacted upon his art similarly. Fischerrandom is just a small byproduct of the great man's creative input into our beloved game. It is what it is.. seeks to bypass memorization and enhance the imaginative dimension to Chess.. What's wrong with that ? |
|
May-20-10
| | boz: One aspect of opening theory I enjoy is that it involves long-term decisions. The pawn structure you choose, the placement of the pieces and the dynamic balance of strategic and tactical aims have far reaching consequences often felt deep into the endgame. We often recognize even in the final position the specter of an opening idea. |
|
| May-20-10 | | call14: We all know this, but just to record, this WC involved 6 world number 1's / 5 WC's. 1. Carlsen (Current no 1)
2-5 Anand, Topa, Kramnik, Kaspy (former no 1's & WC's - you call it Fide or classical) and..
6. karpov - started one of the rounds!
A record!!!, I guess even if Karpov is removed out of the list. And I am confident Carlen complete the list by becoming WC sometime in future. And.. Anish too could have chance, but too early to say now. |
|
| May-20-10 | | Riverbeast: <One aspect of opening theory I enjoy is that it involves long-term decisions> Yes....One of the more interesting comments I heard about, was Kramnik advising Anand during the WC match that "a lot of the Slav endings are worse" That sounds like quite an interesting insight...I wish Anand had gone into that in more detail, but it's understandable he wouldn't want to give that information out to the public <Fischerrandom is just a small byproduct of the great man's creative input into our beloved game> Sometimes I think Fischer doesn't get enough credit for the farsighted contributions he made to the game Didn't he invent the concept of the time delay clock (which used to be called "The Fischer clock")? Nowadays, time delay clocks are regularly used in tournaments and speed games around the world...If Fischer had patented that idea and received royalties, he could have been a multimillionaire from that idea alone.... Also, the Fischer-Spassky 1992 match was the first high profile match where every game was played in one session, without adjournments....This was Fischer's idea, and this was several years before computers were strong enough to become a threat to the top GMs That idea of Fischer's also became the wave of the future |
|
May-20-10
 | | amadeus: Well, don't forget Kasim. |
|
May-20-10
 | | alexmagnus: <Didn't he invent the concept of the time delay clock (which used to be called "The Fischer clock")?> Actually he didn't. IIRC it was Bronstein's idea, Fischer only <promoted> it. |
|
| May-20-10 | | dotty hill: <acirce> Sorry for mutilating your beautiful post, but I simply could not resist. Anything deserving the name theory is the result of <(...) studying the ideas and principles (...) reading about them and working them out (...)> while
<(...) the challenge of trying to apply your hard-earned knowledge and understanding (...)> simply means to test a theory against practice.
Never mind...
Another thing: isn't the whole point of Chess960 to get rid of opening theory and memorization? The awkward feeling of not knowing what to do in the first place reminds me of my very first experience with chess as a kid. In fact, for many years I was playing chess only every once in a while, simply because I was convinced that I had reached a level where I would have to do a lot of tedious work and invest a huge amount of time playing in order to make real progress. This turned out to be true.... Chess 960 is what brought me back to the game, because I found out that I do like to rely on my experience and my own little opening theory, and thus playing Chess 960 never felt as rewarding and satisfactory as playing good old position no. 518. |
|
| May-20-10 | | Riverbeast: <Actually he didn't. IIRC it was Bronstein's idea, Fischer only promoted it.> Ahh... I didn't know that
In that case, they should have called it the Bronstein clock? Or maybe (like the Fischer-Sozin), the "Fischer-Bronstein" |
|
| May-20-10 | | Xenon Oxide: Bronstein's invention was slightly different:
In his system, let's say that the regular time is <1 hour> and increment is <45 seconds>. If you play a move very quickly, say within <5 seconds>, then the time on your clock is STILL ONLY <1 hour>. The extra time is simply tossed away. In a Fischer clock system, if you only take <5 seconds>, then the remainder of the increment will be ADDED to your time, so you remain with, say, <1 hour 40 seconds>. |
|
| May-20-10 | | Blunderdome: Best way to get rid of theory is Fischerrandom blindfold bughouse bullet...played on a balance beam over a shark pool. Although I suppose some kind of theory about how to avoid the sharks might still be helpful. |
|
May-21-10
 | | jessicafischerqueen: "Chess variants are an abomination."
--Ignatius J. Reilly
"A Confederacy of Dunces"
John Kennedy Toole
Actually, Ignatius says "Canned food is an abomination." I remember telling my professor how brilliant this statment was, and how much I agreed with it. So he looks at me, pauses, and says:
"You *do* realize that the statement is quite literally insane?" I don't know why I thought of this.
But I feel the same way about chess variants. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 381 OF 406 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
|
