<richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:61d329c3-f965-44d2-903f-83b76e34f37c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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...
I am not understanding that statement. In fact there are thousands of
chess
books which advise on openings - the point being, what is understood about
them when you are playing chess, not studying it?
>> > 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".
We don;t even know if there is a theoretical solution to chess, nor what
basis there is to claim one. One consequence of this is that there may not
be one!
> 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.
Sorry? I don't understand whose boredom you reference and what that has to
do with something different.
>> 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.
I don't. I think people get stuck at a certain level and don't want to put
in the effort to look further, so they then suggest deviations. They are
bored with themselves!
> 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.
Why is that a problem? To you as viewer, or you as player?
> 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.
Why not play underwater chess with flippers on too? That is active for the
camera - but really! Its deviance from the game of chess, and who is
complaining? You?
I don't understand your responses since I can't tell if you are bored or
you
complain on behalf of others. Switching the goalposts solves nothing about
boredom or getting chess on tv.
>> 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.
Which people? Everyone except chess players?
> 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.
These people who are told are chess players, or whom else?
> > 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.
Understood. But if you want to represent chess, than you have to do just
that, not Hobbit-Chess or something which you presume will interest
someone
or other.
And maybe you cannot represent chess as it is without resort to deviancy -
but that is the challenge of getting real chess to a general public. Its
not
even about the game, is it? Its about the playing of the game - that is
what
works with every s****t.
It /is/ hard, and a risk for sponsors. Still, if you wish to call it
chess,
it doesn't need Hobbit figures on the board or other showbiz nonsense.
Phil Innes
> Anyhow, can offline with some details I am not in a place to share
> here.
>
> - Rich
|
