|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 38 OF 52 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-27-06 | | HannibalSchlecter: <Very few humans, if any, have the brain power to memorize all the opening variations that exist for orthodox chess, so the argument that says that it has become too predictable, too repetitive, is not very strong.>
I agree totally. Fischer said he doesn't play traditional chess anymore because "it's been played out". But if that's the case he should never lose a game, nor should any GM. There will always be plenty of rich new ideas and improvements on old ideas, so chess will never be played out. |
|
| Jan-27-06 | | HannibalSchlecter: Joshka, I found the issue of that Chess Life & Review. Do you have August 1978? |
|
Jan-29-06
 | | Ron: Excellent games are still being produced in orthodox chess, and I do not forsee that ending any time soon. To hell with fisherandom chess. |
|
Jan-31-06
 | | nasmichael: To go back to <Dudley> on Jan 17th, thank you for putting forward the point that the game is played for fun. This forum is about folks who wish to discuss Fischer Random Chess, who may have played a game with interesting tactics, or who have questions about the variant. The goal of it, after all, is to enjoy the game. Those who don't like the gameplay, don't play, and enjoy the many other forums where you can discuss more ECO friendly lines. That is for you to enjoy. Those who enjoy both those and this variant will not be convinced otherwise--this forum is not to convert the "standard"-favoring players--please remember to be sporting of using time-tested pieces and patterns in a novel way--it just adds to the possibilities. FRC is just as playable and keeps folks from being intimidated by a booked-up player. Most folks with lives don't spend the time in the books; they play at holidays, over a thanksgiving dinner, with family one hasn't seen in a long while, on an afternoon when the kids have gone with the wife/husband on a short trip, or to clear one's head after rushing around. The play's the thing, after all. Enjoy chess, no matter how you play it. Name calling is not necessary, and if you have passed judgement on the game, go somewhere and use your time to enjoy what you DO like. |
|
| Feb-01-06 | | Gene M: [1] Please visit the uschess.org forum, soon, and speak up for allowing chess960 games to apply to players' existing long time control rating. A USCF official has asked the public for its opinions on this idea, so now is the time to speak up. Click on USCF Issues category, then topic Alternate Rating Systems. [2] After a one month delay, my new chess960 book "Play Stronger Chess by Examining Chess960: Usable Strategies of Fischer Random Chess Discovered" has now been formally published. It takes 2-3 weeks for a book to work its way through the systems of companies like Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk and Ingrams and Gartners, but it is on its way. ISBN 0-9774521-0-7. Thank you.
Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/
|
|
| Feb-01-06 | | azaris: <FRC is just as playable and keeps folks from being intimidated by a booked-up player. Most folks with lives don't spend the time in the books; they play at holidays, over a thanksgiving dinner, with family one hasn't seen in a long while, on an afternoon when the kids have gone with the wife/husband on a short trip, or to clear one's head after rushing around.> Opening theory or not, casual players will still get demolished by active hobbyists even in Chess960. |
|
Feb-02-06
| | nasmichael: Yes, I agree--the stronger player is supposed to win--but the players will enjoy it much more--because they know both players are using their respective noggins instead of "homework". A loss that feels fairly earned has a different flavor than one with the taint of someone's sitting on an ECO. Strong board vision is always acceptable from an opponent. |
|
Feb-02-06
 | | Joshka: <HannibalSchlecter> Okay August 78, Im sure I don't cause I dont believe I started getting Chess Life's until around Nov. or Dec. of 1978. Have picked up some old issues though thru the years, will try to find this one..thanks for answering! |
|
| Feb-02-06 | | walker: Is there an Internet site where one can play Fisher Random Chess? |
|
| Feb-02-06 | | YouRang: FYI - <Comments from Peter Svidler regarding Chess960 (taken from chessbase.com)> Q: You are a World Champion of Chess960. How do you manage to switch from classical chess to Chess960? A: I actually like the game and it is easy to switch. Last year, it came almost immediately after Dortmund, and you just felt that it was a break. It’s a chance to do something completely different for four days. I don’t prepare at all for it. I’ve been doing this for the last four years and I never prepared for it at all. I just tried to have a fresh head and enjoy it. For me, it is quite enjoyable, because I like creating stuff at the board; I like to think of myself as a creative, intuitive player. For me, it is a great chance to do something that you can’t always do in classical chess, because, when you compete with the opening preparations, sometimes the positions you get are boring. Other positions you get are drawn by force, so the game just doesn’t happen. For me, Chess960 is great fun and I enjoy and like it. |
|
| Feb-02-06 | | babakova: I like Fischerrandom alot, all the opening yadayada bores me...Patzers firing out 13 moves of french/or whatever theory at blitz speed without knowing anything are much more fun to face over a randomized board. |
|
Feb-02-06
 | | Sneaky: I like FRC a lot as well but I've come to a conclusion: with blitz chess, it stinks. The only reason why we chess players can play a game of chess in 5 minutes (or 2 minutes!) is because of the incredible pattern recognizing powers of the human brain. We all realize that in a very abstract way, all chess games are more or less the same. We develop pieces, we push pawns, our armies have a big slugfest, often one army takes more casualties than the other, then the mop-up phase comes. In FRC the games follow this battleplan as well, but the details of the development can be widly different. You can't just glance at a board and have a good idea about the best course of action, like you can in Blitz chess. And so I say minimum of 30 minutes per side when playing FRC. I also like the idea of beginning FRC games with a 5 or 10 minutes "time out" where both players can look at the board position. |
|
| Feb-02-06 | | aw1988: That is if you take FRC seriously. |
|
| Feb-02-06 | | jackmandoo: how the heck do you play this thing? |
|
| Feb-02-06 | | Gene M: Mr. Sneaky -- Thank you for your very well articulated comments about why Blitz chess1 and Blitz chess960 are so different. That is a revealing comparison. |
|
Feb-03-06
 | | Eric Schiller: I asked Korchnoi about Fischerrandom yesterday. He said it wasn't chess, and maybe should be renamed "Japanese Delight". Like me, he is still trying to figure out the traditional game. And even if I remain active for a long time I'll never catch up to him :-) |
|
| Feb-03-06 | | fred lennox: I am not against chess variants. It is as old as the game itself. Question is whether FRC will solve the problems some have towards standard chess, like the number of draws. While i am not speaking agianst FRC, i doubt it will solve this problem. If i have any objection to FRC, it is the attention it gets over other variants. Take the "Japanese delight" shogi. This game is right up Korchnoi's alley. For he likes middle game complications and hates draws. Shogi draws only 2 percent of the time and gives ample opportunities for complications. I admit, while i did develope a passion for endgame play and simple positions, it didn't come overnight. My native talent and temperment favors tension filled complications and yes, Korchnoi is a favorite as is Bronstein and Alekhine. Bronstein's talent may of favored shogi more than chess. Chess is my favorite game. I am, at heart, the adventurer who likes to explore and who likes a good fight. Chess still has room for people like me. FRC has a further liabilty of superficial play - a few bags of tactical tricks, allowing for exageration. A certain richness and depth is important. Still, FRC may prosper. |
|
| Feb-03-06 | | azaris: <A loss that feels fairly earned has a different flavor than one with the taint of someone's sitting on an ECO. Strong board vision is always acceptable from an opponent.> It's typical that a weaker player loses to a stronger player and then claims that the loss was due to "someone's sitting on an ECO". It's an excuse, nothing more. If you're the better player then demonstrate it in all parts of the game (including the opening) and not just by winning through cheap tactics. |
|
| Feb-03-06 | | jackmandoo: <azaris> a win is a win my friend. Sometimes I'll try the 4 move checkmate on a stronger player than me and even though he might know its coming, I'll throw in a an "intuition move" like a G4 pawn move or something, just to throw the guy off.Some people say that I play like Tal. Well I'm not going to disagree with that! Also I refuse to eat any type of foreign food, not under any circumstandards. This helps keep that American passion going, the American fat in my body keeps my chess elastic and gutsy, like Tal's. |
|
| Feb-03-06 | | aw1988: I wonder when jackmandoo will stop spouting bull@#$%. |
|
| Feb-03-06 | | ajile: The true evolution of chess will be something like Grand Chess: http://www.chessvariants.org/large....
Why? Because this is geometrically more complex and interesting with the extra squares (10x10) and the extra 2 pieces (Cardinal and Marshall). Also a key ingredient in a successful game is the ability to prepare openings and write chess programs. As other people have mentioned regular chess is seriously getting old and boring. You see the same 5-10 openings in every high level tournament and this game has been analyzed to death. It's time for something new and Grand Chess is in my opinion the best of the new ideas. |
|
| Feb-03-06 | | ajile: http://mindsports.nl/cgi-bin/Arena/... Check out this game that is currently being played. |
|
| Feb-03-06 | | YouRang: <azaris><and not just by winning through cheap tactics.> Why do you use the adjective "cheap" with regard to tactics? |
|
| Feb-04-06 | | azaris: <Why do you use the adjective "cheap" with regard to tactics?> I use the qualifier "cheap" to distinguish them from regular tactics. You know the stuff; threatening mate in one which can be easily parried, discovering an attack with a bishop from the other side of the board hoping he won't notice it, that kind of stuff. Stuff that should never work but does in blitz. The reason I'm highly sceptical of Chess960 is because the testimonials seem to be invariably from players who got frustrated from playing orthodox chess (and managed to convince themselves it was only because they hadn't "booked up"), played Chess960 instead, won some games against much weaker opposition (a smaller pool of players usually translates to weaker opposition), and then proclaim that Chess960 is the future of chess. Or maybe they're all very strong players who just got tired of orthodox chess. Who knows. I'm not saying there's not genuine pleasure in playing the weird positions that can ensue in Chess960. But such positions can easily be achieved in orthodox chess, if that's what you wish for. Apart from not having to learn opening theory (which you don't really have to anyways), I just don't see the advantage. |
|
| Feb-04-06 | | diablotins: Where can I find games of chess960 made by GM ? I would be curious... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 38 OF 52 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
