Thanks for the reply.
On Mar 23, 5:27 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I agree with you!
There was a $1.5 million Chess champion****p in Mexico last year, and
no one cared. The World Mind S****t Games will be going on, akin to
the Olympics, and no one in North America is picking it up. If they
were, then players for Go and checkers could get money to go out
there, and sponsors. But it isn't happening. And the chess world and
others are waiting for a Bobby Fischer to bail them out. This is of
concern for myself, in regards to IAGO and the IAGO World Tour. If
the big games have issues, how do I end up having modern abstract
strategy games noticed.
> > 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.
>
> Yes, though [laugh] I had memorised the first 3 moves against this
player
> who was not 2100 postal but USCF. It's true that I forget the move order
but
> remembered a complicating manoevre - so, if he does this, I do this - is
> that what you mean by theory?
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. 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 :-).
> > 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. 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).
> 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.
> 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.
> > 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.
- Rich
|
