< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 14 ·
|May-12-12|| ||310metaltrader: robson has some stones with that exchange sac!|
|May-13-12|| ||Shams: Nakamura in the hospital? He doesn't seem worried, but he did tweet this an hour ago:|
<@GMHikaru><Nothing like finding out your brother is engaged, winning a long chess game, spending the night in the ER and seeing the NY Rangers win!!!>
|May-13-12|| ||Jason Frost: <310metaltrader: robson has some stones with that exchange sac!>|
Good move, but nothing really brilliant or even game-changing, since it was fairly obvious white would just have to sac back.
|May-13-12|| ||MindCtrol9: I think Nakamura has played a great game,it looks to me that he has won a lot of confidence.The endgame was good, but not really difficult to win,and I am not wrong to say this.|
What is the problem with the american players? Let's be real and look at the facts.
|May-13-12|| ||parmetd: 13/30
|May-13-12|| ||Jason Frost: <MindCtrol9: What is the problem with the american players? Let's be real and look at the facts.>|
A: Lack of popularity B: Availability of better paying jobs in other fields for intelligent/motivated people.
Which go hand in hand.
|May-13-12|| ||Kanatahodets: <Jason Frost: <MindCtrol9: What is the problem with the american players? Let's be real and look at the facts.>
A: Lack of popularity B: Availability of better paying jobs in other fields for intelligent/motivated people.>
Sure. One cannot compare former Soviet system and western system of incentives. in USSR and now in Russia good chess player can gurantee a decent lyfestyle. In the US and Canada, life of say 2300 player is miserable. Even stronger players have to travel a lot for 100 baks. Igor Ivanov was an example.|
|May-13-12|| ||Kanatahodets: I am sure that given right incetives USA can produce plenty of good players. But there's is problem with chess itself. Now when best chess players cannot win computer programs the magic of chess disappeared. Why not to specialize in creation of soft if it is well better paid and you can create a soft whcih is way better than say Magnus?|
|May-13-12|| ||Kanatahodets: I think humainty is in search of a new mind game which give no chance to current computers and can compete with chess in level of popularity. Some variant fo chess may work for a while.|
|May-13-12|| ||zoren: <Kanatahodets:I think humainty is in search of a new mind game which give no chance to current computers and can compete with chess in level of popularity. Some variant fo chess may work for a while.>|
Starcraft is gaining fairly big popularity these days since it's basically chess in real time. Many expert programmers cannot create an AI that can beat even the lowest rank of players. The sad thing is that there's more money in the gaming scene than there is for chess.
|May-13-12|| ||Appaz: <<Kanatahodets> I think humainty is in search of a new mind game which give no chance to current computers and can compete with chess in level of popularity.>|
One possibility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa
|May-13-12|| ||parmetd: Starcraft is nothing close to chess. Starcraft is closer to rock - paper - scissors than chess.|
|May-13-12|| ||Kanatahodets: I checked both games - haven't heard of them before. My raw opinion is that Arimaa is a better candidate for replacing chess than Starcraft, just because it's a board game. However, arguments in favor of Arimaa with respect to chess based on presumption that chess-based programs cannot succeed in Arimaa. This is of course true, but there might be a clever idea that can solve Arimaa problem? I rememeber that Gik and Karpov in 1980 predicted that chess programs will never beat a decent GM. They based their conculsion on the search argument, but since then few tricks were invented which basically eliminated this argument.|
|May-13-12|| ||Kanatahodets: The name Arimaa sounds strange for Western people, more like Aryan.|
|May-13-12|| ||Jason Frost: <zoren:... The sad thing is that there's more money in the gaming scene than there is for chess.>|
In the gaming industry sure, as far as making more money as a professional gamer than as a professional chess player, doubtful. (e.g. Kasparov made more than Boxer and I'm pretty sure the disparity actually grows pretty rapidly past the top few)
Not really sure what this chess is dead -> <new mind game> talk is. Chess players have never really made a ton of money outside the top 10/20 players in the world, that really hasn't changed, and players far lower than top 20 can now, at least, make a decent living playing chess without having a second job, e.g. Tal.
|May-13-12|| ||zoren: <parmetd: Starcraft is nothing close to chess. Starcraft is closer to rock - paper - scissors than chess.>|
For one way to look at it, if the set of possibible of unique chess positions are approximately 10^43 with a game-tree complexity of approximately 10^123, then the possibilities in any game that is in real time are going to have possibilities of VAST magnitudes larger than that. (not even considering the fact the possibility of putting new pieces back onto the board a la Shogi until the map resources does not allow for it anymore).
<<For those interested>>
<<The strategy and timings and how far you can research a particular opening in Starcraft is infinitely deeper than Chess because it is in real time. It's always easier to craft a set of "knowns" in a game where one side can only move once, instead of using a wide number of indicators before you can know what is legal and potentially legal. Due to the nature of Starcraft being a game of incomplete information, openings can parallel poker strategies due to the fog of war - and branching variations as such off of resulting consequences.
It's famous players were also known for their particular innovations in the opening phase much similar to chess like the inventive Bronstein, but were incredible because they took a lot of ingenuity to invent since there is a vast amount of strategies to account for that your opponent can be doing. Very frequently in chess, many novelties are known by any of the top professionals at any given moment and is standard fare as a spectator to go "oh okay that is very normal" or in an interview for them to say "I have looked at this at home", but when a new opening is found to be viable in Starcraft, it changes the entire way the game is conducted.>>
It can appear like a paper scissors game to someone who doesn't play it or doesn't want to emotionally invest in any other game other than chess but historically has shown that it is very balanced. There is nothing to indicate that it is like rock paper scissors since there are infinite ways for you to create a strategy that counters another one. Its balance is one of the main reasons that a professional scene has existed since its inception.
|May-13-12|| ||Peligroso Patzer: Interesting win by Hess today with Black vs. Kaidanov. Hess had traded his Queen (plus a pawn) for three minors. In the subsequent play, Hess came up with tactics that forced Kaidanov to give up an exchange (which would leave Hess with a Rook and TWO minors for Queen). The game ended at that point (not sure whether by Kaidanov's resignation or by time forfeit).|
|May-13-12|| ||Cushion: Kaidinov resigned. After he lost the exchange, all of his pawns would be hanging and he would be getting mated.|
|May-13-12|| ||beenthere240: Nakamura appears to have an interesting strategy. Win with white. Draw with black. I'll have to try that in my next tournament as an alternative to draw with white, lose with black.|
|May-14-12|| ||Arcturar: That doesn't seem to be Nakamura's strategy at all, no matter what the results have been! It seems to me that he has been trying hard for a win in every game...|
Actually, my respect for Naka has gone up during this tournament. He really is a great fighting player and is a pleasure to watch. There is no way he plays at the level of Carlsen, Aronian, and Kramnik, and I doubt that he will ever be a real candidate for WCC. Nevertheless, it's great having him among the Top 10, and I like that he is improving his rating. He also seems to have matured a little bit since London, which can't be amiss.
|May-14-12|| ||parmetd: zoren, you're talking to the wrong guy. I ran the biggest online gaming league in North America for 6 years. I was in the starcraft and starcraft 2 betas when they came out. I have worked at e3, quakecon and cpl. I also know many people that work dreamhack. Starcraft the main skillset required is speed. But as far as strategy goes... its quite light. It is really he/she does that then I counter it with this (rock-paper-scissors). In chess, speed is helpful but not the most essential above all else component. Of course any comparison of turn based strategy to real time strategy is baloney. |
Anyways, enough of that tripe, I love computer games as much as the next guy but very few of them are particularly deep strategically.
Sad to see Lenderman blow that win =( Stripunsky escaped by the skin of his teeth!
|May-14-12|| ||paavoh: @Kanatahodets: <The name Arimaa sounds strange for Western people, more like Aryan>. The name of the game is inversion of the developers' son (AAMIR) plus an A. Incidentally, <Arimaa> is also a name for a few locations in Finland. Finnish words often have double vowels.|
|May-14-12|| ||zoren: <parmetd:> Your ethos is about as credible as your desire to falsify your playing strength on the internet...|
Chess is completely dominated by computers who analyse in concrete means. For every tactical possibility that disables a particular continuation, there is a particular response that refutes it. If this is your definition of rock-paper-scissors gameplay in Starcraft, then this is true in both games. Just because you "love" video games does not enable you to conclude that Starcraft is not a strategically deep game.
Speed is a very valuable asset in Starcraft and does not have a true limit in ceiling because the game is in real time. However, for an organizer that has been in the scene for 6!!! years, one could have observed the best players who dominate the scene were not remarkable in their actions per minute, and only limits to how they can respond to a tactical situation since it is real time (to name a few, Boxer, Flash, Stork, Oov, Savior who were noted for ingenuity over raw speed and were much slower than their contemporaries) and not how to conduct the game outside of tactics.
<parmetd: Starcraft is nothing close to chess.>
You are right, however you have enabled the argument that chess can be <as compared to rock - paper - scissors> as Starcraft, and I do not have a particular problem with this.
And as a personal note, I don't wish to type a paragraph full of fluff as for my personal credibility on the subject (but please do grill me!) but I'm sorely disappointed a person who has worked so long with a particular field has developed little to no interest in his own work.
|May-14-12|| ||fyjx: why are we talking about Starcraft? Diablo 3 is launching tonight at MN. I don't know if D3 requires as much strategy as chess but it sure is addicting. chess:nicotine :: D3:crack|
|May-14-12|| ||tpstar: The first half of the US Championship has been very enjoyable, with lots of fighting chess. The official site is quite slick and keeps getting better all the time. I love how both players will give postgame interviews together, which much be hard for the losing side, but all to promote the game. Moreover, Bennifer has been a hit!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 14 ·