On Mar 23, 12:13 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Beyond this, besides a system gamed to draw, the amount of play in
> > chess has resulted in there being far less ways to surprise anyone, so
> > the end game ends up being predictable, minus a bungle.
>
> Hi Richard, let me make a note here, since I am also a chess teacher.
What
> you say is true at the top levels, but for 99% of players does not seem
to
> be true in my experience or student's experience.
>
> Theoretically some players know very much about main lines, but a 'b'
class
> move puts them outside of their book knowledge, and they have to resolve
> what to do over the board. The only surprise to me is if they can do
that
> without their position collapsing almost instantly :)
The top levels should be getting media interest, getting on TV, being
something used to recruit new players and being relevant. This is why
I speak to the top level.
> Even relatively strong players do not understand common opening systems
-
> and even in correspondance chess I defeated a 2100 player with white and
> black in under 20 moves last year.
My preference is people who understand THEORY should be doing better,
not people who have memorized line of play. My preference for chess
makes it more universal in nature.
> Since I hardly ever draw I don't have an issue with my opponents level
of
> play. Last week I /did/ offer a draw to a 2340 player, who accepted it,
I
> gained one point and he lost one. I had a slightly better position with
> white after a Ruy, but OTOH, this was a team match game, and I need to
score
> better than 50% result for the team - and with black I am still a pawn
up at
> move 20 after a Wing Gambit, have undoubled my b pawns and will try to
win
> it.
On the highest level, it is an issue.
> > The last option is to add new rules to chess, to make the game new.
> > Of course, this is heresy to hardcore players of the game, who think
> > the FIDE rules were handed down by God and immutable for eternity.
>
> Laugh. Unfortunately you are writing to someone who wants to play
exactly
> the same game as Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine, Fischer and Kasparov - so
> doesn't want new rules that would change the method of play.
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.
> What I don't understand about much of this correspondance about draws is
if
> people who suggest its a problem are just speaking as chess spectators
about
> top players [nothing wrong with that, and I share that point of view] or
if
> they are speaking about all chess players?
Well my take here about this is that everything is just fine the way
it is, then why isn't it being covered on TV? Everyone things some
American player like Bobby Fischer will "magically" appear on the
scene and captivate people again? Short of this, I hear
rationalizations about how chess is IMPOSSIBLE to do on TV, because
the m***** are too stupid to understand it. It is a form of
intellectual snobbery to justify stagnation in my book.
> I think if its just the first, and unfought 'GM-draws', then its not
> necessary to make changes for the rest of us - who after all - don't
have a
> problem.
Unless a scoring system encourages playing for wins, why would people
not play cautious and hope for an opponent mess up?
- Rich
|
