Thanks for the reply. I am going to do chop down on the verbage below
to give context to my replies.
On Mar 24, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <richardhut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> 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.
And there is book after book after book after book written on them.
Most people don't but there are books, and people peak ahead and
people write how certain lines are weaker and certain variations
should be avoided, etc...
> > 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?
Solved means, "We know for sure what side has an advantage or if it
will end in a draw with perfect play". What I see at the highest
levels, is that there is a level of boredom on the part of some of the
top players, who want to do something different. This is particularly
true with the creative types.
> Draughts [checkers] is 'solved' by as many people play now as they ever
did.
Well, something has happened that it is ignored on the tournament
levels. I can fill you in offline about more details on checkers and
my connection to them.
> 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?
I think people get bored for one thing, or think a game is "flawed"
somehow. What has happened is that there isn't a breakthrough like
the "Mad Queen" (modern queen) that happened during the Renaissance
back then. Chess was all over with a lot of varieties, and the
community collective decided to change the queen because it worked.
Some rules were dropped (like baring the king as a win), and other
pieces gained more mobility also I believe. Since then, chess has
been codified, and doesn't evolve. The problem with variants is that
they don't take a gradual step off the path and show themselves
improved actually. You have Chess960, which is a pain to set the
board up with. You can't acquire the equipment for Capablanca Chess
anywhere, unless you go Gothic Chess. All that does is make the board
bigger. In other words, it just is not available. Bughouse does have
its following also. I believe the Capablanca on an 8x8 board
definitely has potential to be something, Seirawan or otherwise.
> 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!
So, you wonder why variants? Well, because chess was a game of
variants, it is how we have the variety of chess-like games out
there. People like novelty in all this. That is why they play them.
Chess is actually a variant itself. It evolved when the old Persian
game was found too slow. If you had the mentality and uniformity we
have today with the old Persian version, you would never have the mad
queen in it, and people would be told to actually LIKE to play chess
with short-range pieces.
> 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..
The email address I have in the email might work, but I don't check
it. It is for spam trapping. I did email you from the
iagoworldtour.com. I can fill you in offline on what is going on.
> 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!
The trick is to be able to make it be followed, and have people get
acclimated. Anyhow, we can chat more off here about this via email or
whatever else.
> Or to work for long... there are a few precedents.
>
> Anyway, thanks for writing.
Welcome. I hope the email works, because I would like to swap ideas
with you. What I will say is my objective is to get abstract strategy
games collectively to boom together, not just one game. This would
help out a lot with even chess. It would also enable chess to get and
stay on TV. As a single game, it isn't large enough to get on a
television network dedicated to it. But if other games like it were
to also go, then we would be set.
Anyhow, can offline with some details I am not in a place to share
here.
- Rich
|
