<richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2b8d7bfb-7f8b-42a7-87ce-073614890aed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What I mean is I would like to see a form of chess that is played
> where it grows so diverse and deep in opening theory and so on, that
> it becomes hard to actually name the lines of play. You can talk
> about general areas, and finding general theory, but not to where you
> start doing stuff like, "Queen's Gambit Decline, with the Slav
> alternative, and a fill twist, complete with a pickle". Yes, that is
> made up nonsense, but I am doing it to make a point, and at least get
> a groan out of it. I would like for a version to be something where
> innovators and creative players can uncover new things early in the
> game, rather than later.
I recently interview Mickey Adams, and he answered one question with that
sort of answer - he can still find early innovations. But the thing of it
is, most players don't even know the first 12 moves of many Openings, or
sub-variation. Perhaps they know half a dozen variations, but there are
hundreds of possibilities. So, opening knowledge has only a small
influence
on the result of the game for 99% of players, in my opinion, which is also
the opinion of one of the best chess teachers in the USA, Dan Heisman.
The issue so often is, not just knowing 12 moves for white, but what to do
if black deviates at move 7? Or even noticing that black's seventh move is
a
deviation! Is it a side-line, an alternative move in this position, or is
it
a mistake? Very few people can answer that when they are playing over the
board.
> If I had my druthers, I would have a version
> of chess that, right when the start to write books to explain openings
> and do minutia, we change the rules somehow to mix it up. This way,
> you can keep the book writing business busy, and offer a gravy train
> for all the chess book writers, so they don't run out of things to
> write about :-).
But I think its not necessary to do so! An illustration is that for 20
years
I opened 1.b4 and can't remember any game that was similar to any other
even
at move 10.
These days I play lots of Sicilians, and a relatively well-trodden
Pelikan.
Even so, its hard to find two similar games to move 10. I even like to
play
against the Pelikan, and play a slightly obscure side-line pu****ng a pawn
to
a4, so that black cannot play the usually freeing b5, and thus the c4
square
is open for bishop or knight. But people's responses to this 'strategic'
move are all over the place.
Therefore, in actual practice, I don't see anything being played out in
chess for 99% of players, not even by move 10.
>> > How about the same game that was played in the 18th century? Well,
>> > that would mean you wouldn't be using the point system and time
>> > controls.
>>
>> True - but the play of the game would be the same. The only difference
is
>> that few people in their right minds would sit down for an indefinite
>> amount
>> of time to play chess.
>
> The introduction of time control and the way scoring was done, did
> change things. Anyhow, that is a bit of the point, chess will either
> change and adapt and you don't play the same game in the past, or it
> will have the word "SOLVED" dumped on it by some game theorist and
> then it loses its luster some.
I doubt it. There are many theorists of chess who can't actually play the
game when there is a real opponent opposite them. And chess, it must be
pointed out, is not a theory, but more like a performance art. I can't
beat
grandmasters, but that doesn't put me off playing, and their knowledge is
very considerable indeed - but so what?
Draughts [checkers] is 'solved' by as many people play now as they ever
did.
> It ends up in the place that Checkers
> has been, which has done different things to keep the game around by
> introducing different things to mix up the openings (think like how
> Chess960 works).
Fischer Random or 960 didn't catch on any more than any other chess
variant.
I wonder if chess variants emerge because their inventor is personally
stuck, and then it appeals to other game players who are also stuck?
Instead of getting through their block they give up the game - and excite
another similar one as 'better' - but I distrust the psychology of that. I
can understand someone giving up chess for Go or Bridge or even Poker, but
to play Hobbit-Chess or some doodad-thing? Very questionable!
>> I know the answer to that - being one of the few people who ever made a
>> tv
>> program about chess. A live event with 8 GMs in it, and 2 world
>> champions -
>> and for 2 hours. I know what was right and what was wrong - and maybe
you
>> have to do it to know that?
>
> I can share some ideas offline, as I am currently in discussions with
> different video studios that do television to work to get chess and
> other abstract strategy games on TV somehow. I will say that the
> pacing needs to be, AT MOST, spread apart like American football
> between moves, preferably have the scoring to be less draw-prone, and
> have it so the presentation puts you in the heads of chess players
> playing, complete with reality TV drama. You DON'T show it live, and
> you do reality TV editing. Go to www.iagoworldtour.com and get my
> email address from there. You can do that. You can also look here
> going with iagoworldtour.com as the domain name @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
before it, and then
> go with rich. Pardon this being cryptic, but I don't want some email
> harvester to pick it up. Please contact me regarding this.
Understood. But this is my e-mail in the header. Maybe write to me
instead.
After all, I did it already, and already made most of the mistakes
possible..
>> People always have their excuses for doing nothing. What is more boring
>> than
>> American football with 1 minute of actual play in every 10? But
American
>> media makes that work, so they can certainly make blitz chess work!
>
> People have been acclimated to football, and it has its pacing down
> for it. They do enough between plays to do it. I believe you actually
> can learn how to make chess work, by studying how the do American
> football. I am of the belief that blitz chess is too fast, so it has
> a problem with pacing. I would say here, if you want heresy, Bughouse
> would make for good TV. You might even do a simul game where you have
> 3 grandmasters play each other all simultaneously by use the of the
> computer. There are 3 or 6 games going on at once, and the
> grandmasters have to be able to manage all the clocks of all their
> games. They play it over the computer, rather than a live board. But
> live you could do two players, each playing two boards against each
> other, Bughouse style.
Yes - these are a few ideas - there are many more.
Some time ago I was looking at reviews of a computer game and found a
recorded conversation between two-beta testers, girls aged 9 and 10. They
said they liked the game because [I paraphrase] its episodes took a long
time to play, it was hard to play so that you couldn't get good and
exhaust
the possibilities too quickly, and that it was very complicated!
>> > Unless a scoring system encourages playing for wins, why would people
>> > not play cautious and hope for an opponent mess up?
>>
>> Indeed. Especially these days when you are paid just to show up. But
>> still,
>> is this for top players only, or for all players, in your opinion?
>
> Let's just say this. The average joe who plays chess, isn't going to
> be using clocks, worrying about scoring, touch moves, etc... They
> will just play a game. In a club, they will play with clocks, maybe
> some speed play. You need to worry about the top players, and how you
> do that. They are supposed to be the stars that get people
> interested. If you can get the highest level to work so it isn't
> overcautious, then you can transfer it down to lower levels. Making
> tournament structure stronger doesn't hurt to migrate the ideas down.
>
> Please get in touch with me via the info I gave above. I would like
> to hear your ideas. I am on a mission to get abstract strategy games,
> as a group, to end up where poker is now, in regards to money, and
> media recognition, and being a permanent fixture on TV. I will say
> that there are things at work, partly due to the Sudoku craze, that is
> making this favorable. It is just no one has shown that you can get
> abstract strategy games to work on TV.
Or to work for long... there are a few precedents.
Anyway, thanks for writing.
Phil Innes
> - Rich
|
