Re: The Future of Chess and Getting It "Unstuck"

In message <47f76871$0$17361$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Murphy 
<emurphy42@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
>> On Apr 3, 10:30 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> I don't mind the thought of adding a new variant of Chess to help to
>>> address certain perceived problems; if Capablanca, Fischer, Seirawan,
>>> and the Polgar sisters have all been involved with variants, they're
>>> not entirely a bad idea. But they're no panacea - especially for the
>>> issue of the popularity of Chess.
>>
>> I googled Polgar sisters variants in google and your post here comes
>> up in the top 10.  Go figure.  Anyone know what variants the Polgars
>> play?
>
>Googling (Polgar chess variant) produces some more viable-looking
>results.  IOW, the answer may be different for each sister (actually
>the first hit explains some variants suggested by their father).
>
>>> You don't need to be an athlete to watch a game of football, but you
>>> do need to be intelligent to understand a game of Chess.
>
>> Football, the game itself, is
>> FAR more complicated than chess.  It is compared to chess, because
>> chess is a simplistic analogy to have people relate to it.  It has
>> multiple ways you can score in it, a bunch of rules governing how the
>> pieces on the board can move, more than chess.  It also has multiple
>> phases, unlike chess.  Yes, football is on TV.  It is because the NFL
>> made it TV friendly back then.  Had it not done that, it wouldn't be
>> where it is today.  It would be even less than hockey is.  I believe
>> that it wouldn't even be necessary to change the basic time controls
>> either.  Sure, change the scoring a bit, so you get closure, but for
>> TV, you can do time compression.
>
>Speaking as an amateur follower of both games, football is easier to
>partially understand, because more aspects of it follow simple linear
>scales that routinely vary widely:
>
>  1) Which team is behind on points?  By how many?  How much time do
>     they have left to try to catch up?
>
>  2) Which team has possession, i.e. is in a short-term position to
>     score more points?  How close are they to a scoring position,
>     i.e. where is the line of scrimmage, what down is it, and how
>     far must they advance the ball to reset to first down?
>
>  3) What are each team's specific strengths and weaknesses?  What
>     strategies do these dictate?  (This is where it gets complex.)
>
>The closest obvious analogy in chess is "which player is behind on
>captured pieces?".  Beyond that, what would a similar breakdown of
>positional analysis look like?

It seems to me there's a relevant and obvious difference between chess 
and football.  When I watch a football game, I can think "I could have 
done that myself, if I were fitter".  Ok, it's not true, I couldn't 
really have done it, but I can understand what the guy did, and I can 
imagine my doing it.  But in chess, I don't find myself thinking "I 
could have done that myself, if I were cleverer".

Nick
-- 
Nick Wedd    nick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]