| |
Main
Date: 16 Oct 2008 09:06:14
From: M Winther
Subject: Chess evolves...
|
The fact that more and more people are thinking about making changes
in the chess rules is a sign that people are experiencing the game as
less exciting today, compared with the seventies.
To introduce a cannon into Western chess, which can optionally be
excluded by the players, could be an answer to today's routinization
of chess, occasioned by theoretical development and computer power.
The Culverin cannon can step one square in any direction like a king,
provided that the square is empty. It can capture long-distance by
leaping over any piece in any direction. Enemy pawns, however, can
restrict its movement.
The culverin was a long cannon (as an 18-pounder) of the 16th and 17th
centuries (Webster's Dictionary).
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/culverinchess.htm
/Mats
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 15:28:09
From: Senica
Subject: Re: Chess evolves...
|
M Winther wrote:
> The fact that more and more people are thinking about making changes
> in the chess rules is a sign that people are experiencing the game as
> less exciting today, compared with the seventies.
>
> To introduce a cannon into Western chess, which can optionally be
> excluded by the players, could be an answer to today's routinization
> of chess, occasioned by theoretical development and computer power.
>
> The Culverin cannon can step one square in any direction like a king,
> provided that the square is empty. It can capture long-distance by
> leaping over any piece in any direction. Enemy pawns, however, can
> restrict its movement.
>
> The culverin was a long cannon (as an 18-pounder) of the 16th and 17th
> centuries (Webster's Dictionary).
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/culverinchess.htm
>
> /Mats
If grandmasters are still challenged by playing chess so nothing needs
to be changed however if you want to experience the most extremely
radical evolutionary change in chess just google protopowers and get
yourself a free copy of that game.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 19:29:00
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: Chess evolves...
|
* M Winther <[email protected] > (18:45) schrieb:
> It indicates that if chess is going to compete against the allurement of
> everything else that captivates young people today, then one cannot
> demand that they sit before the computer for days on end to learn
> theory in order to be able to be competitive. It must be more creative
> and less tedious, because we live in an era when people want to
> see results faster. The collective psychology is undergoing change,
> and one must adapt to that.
Oh please shut up.
mfg, simon .... l
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 12:31:31
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess evolves...
|
M Winther <[email protected] > wrote:
> The fact that more and more people are thinking about making changes
> in the chess rules
[Citation needed]
> is a sign that people
[Who?]
> are experiencing the game as less exciting today, compared with the
> seventies.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Carnivorous Ghost (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ haunting spirit but it eats flesh!
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 14:34:57
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: Chess evolves...
|
Den 2008-10-16 13:31:31 skrev David Richerby <[email protected] >:
> M Winther <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The fact that more and more people are thinking about making changes
>> in the chess rules
>
> [Citation needed]
>
>> is a sign that people
>
> [Who?]
>
>> are experiencing the game as less exciting today, compared with the
>> seventies.
>
>
> Dave.
>
Most chessplayers don't even know that there is an ongoing WCH
match right now. Compare with the sixties, seventies, and the
Karpov-Kasparov matches in the early eighties.
Just shut up and have a look at my Culverin Chess where standard
chess is retained as an option. Don't be so lazy and unsuspecting.
Things are happening in chess now, and it's time to take control
over the development. Certain grandmasters want to wholly move
over to rapid chess, to make the game less tedious. Don't let
them take charge over the situation. Now it's time to be creative and
not so damned conservative. Culverin Chess:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/culverinchess.htm
Mats
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 15:02:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess evolves...
|
M Winther <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]>:
>> M Winther <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The fact that more and more people are thinking about making
>>> changes in the chess rules
>>
>> [Citation needed]
>>
>>> is a sign that people
>>
>> [Who?]
>>
>>> are experiencing the game as less exciting today, compared with
>>> the seventies.
>
> Most chessplayers don't even know that there is an ongoing WCH
> match right now. Compare with the sixties, seventies, and the
> Karpov-Kasparov matches in the early eighties.
That does not indicate that `more and more people are thinking about
making changes in the chess rules.' It does not indicate that the
decrease in interest in chess that you claim is because of stagnation
in the rules of chess -- there could be any number of reasons.
> Just shut up
Oh, puhlease.
Follow-ups set -- this has nothing to do with computer chess.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Dictator (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a totalitarian leader but it's twice
as fast!
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 18:45:26
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: Chess evolves...
|
Den 2008-10-16 16:02:07 skrev David Richerby <[email protected] >:
> M Winther <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Richerby <[email protected]>:
>>> M Winther <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The fact that more and more people are thinking about making
>>>> changes in the chess rules
>>>
>>> [Citation needed]
>>>
>>>> is a sign that people
>>>
>>> [Who?]
>>>
>>>> are experiencing the game as less exciting today, compared with
>>>> the seventies.
>>
>> Most chessplayers don't even know that there is an ongoing WCH
>> match right now. Compare with the sixties, seventies, and the
>> Karpov-Kasparov matches in the early eighties.
>
> That does not indicate that `more and more people are thinking about
> making changes in the chess rules.' It does not indicate that the
> decrease in interest in chess that you claim is because of stagnation
> in the rules of chess -- there could be any number of reasons.
>
It indicates that if chess is going to compete against the allurement of
everything else that captivates young people today, then one cannot
demand that they sit before the computer for days on end to learn
theory in order to be able to be competitive. It must be more creative
and less tedious, because we live in an era when people want to
see results faster. The collective psychology is undergoing change,
and one must adapt to that.
Mats
|
|
