Main
Date: 19 Sep 2008 06:44:19
From: M Winther
Subject: Chess in the future...
How will chess develop in the future? I have come to the following
conclusion. In the future chess must bifurcate into a less complex and
a more complex game.

(1) in order to keep the amateurs' enthusiasm the chess community must
provide a slower version of chess, foremostly for less skilled players.
This will also entice the better players to take up interest in the difficult
version.

(2) in order to promote creative play among professionals we are
forced to add higher complexity to standard chess. However, we may
keep the option to play a standard Fide-game.

-------------------------------

Answer to problem (1) :
A strategical 10x10 version will enable amateurs to play many more
moves without losing a piece. In this way chess can retain its
popularity among amateurs. Such variants have characteristics of
war-games, which can be played by anybody. One of very many
examples is my own Mastodon Chess:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/mastodon.htm

Answer to problem (2) :
Fide-chess is approaching a crisis and a variant of higher complexity
is needed in order to promote creativity in professional play. I
propose that standard chess is included as an option, thereby
maintaining the historical connection. In a tournament, by way of an
initial voting procedure, players can decide to play a traditional game.

In my own proposal, "Winther's Chess", the rules are the same as in
orthodox chess, except that one extra piece per player, a Bombard , is
placed in the reserve. Before starting, the players must decide
whether they want to use the extra piece. Only if both players choose
not to use the extra piece, then it becomes a regular game of chess.
If white turns down the extra piece, then black can overrule this.

The extra piece, the Bombard, is a form of cannon, similar to the
cannons in Chinese and Korean chess. The Bombard can slide in any
direction like a queen. It can capture only by leaping over any piece.
If the nearest piece after the leap is an enemy piece, then it can be
captured. Enemy pawns, however, can restrict its movement. The Bombard
can only reach the square immediately behind the enemy pawn,
regardless of leaping direction. It is a remarkable piece that blends
in finely with the Western pieces. A positional flavour of chess is
retained, whilst introducing new tactical themes:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/wintherschess.htm

Mats




 
Date: 22 Sep 2008 13:42:38
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess in the future...
M Winther <kalroten@passagen.se > wrote:
> (1) in order to keep the amateurs' enthusiasm the chess community
> must provide a slower version of chess, foremostly for less skilled
> players. This will also entice the better players to take up
> interest in the difficult version.
>
> [Suggested solution: a 10x10 variant.]

First, I don't think that amateurs are losing enthusiasm for chess.
Second, I think there are essentially three types of people in the
west:

1. people who want to play chess;
2. people who want to play chess variants;
3. people who don't want to play anything like chess.

How do these three groups react to your idea?

1. Not interested. They want to play chess and your game isn't chess.
2. Maybe interested, if they like your particular variant. (Possibly
not interested at all because they're avoiding the opening theory
of standard chess and your variant will acquire opening theory if
everyone's playing it.)
3. Not interested at all. Your game is just `chess with knobs on'.

So, I don't think there's a problem and I don't think your solution
would help. But you already knew that.

People have a strong emotional and intellectual investment in chess.
Lots of people have spent a lot of time and money trying to get better
at chess. They don't want to see that effort made irrelevant or
substantially diluted by switching to another game.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Indelible Solar-Powered Gnome (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a smiling garden ornament
but it doesn't work in the dark and
it can't be erased!


  
Date: 22 Sep 2008 16:04:39
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: Chess in the future...
Den 2008-09-22 14:42:38 skrev David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk >:

> M Winther <kalroten@passagen.se> wrote:
>> (1) in order to keep the amateurs' enthusiasm the chess community
>> must provide a slower version of chess, foremostly for less skilled
>> players. This will also entice the better players to take up
>> interest in the difficult version.
>>
>> [Suggested solution: a 10x10 variant.]
>
> First, I don't think that amateurs are losing enthusiasm for chess.
> Second, I think there are essentially three types of people in the
> west:
>
> 1. people who want to play chess;
> 2. people who want to play chess variants;
> 3. people who don't want to play anything like chess.
>
> How do these three groups react to your idea?
>
> 1. Not interested. They want to play chess and your game isn't chess.
> 2. Maybe interested, if they like your particular variant. (Possibly
> not interested at all because they're avoiding the opening theory
> of standard chess and your variant will acquire opening theory if
> everyone's playing it.)
> 3. Not interested at all. Your game is just `chess with knobs on'.
>
> So, I don't think there's a problem and I don't think your solution
> would help. But you already knew that.
>
> People have a strong emotional and intellectual investment in chess.
> Lots of people have spent a lot of time and money trying to get better
> at chess. They don't want to see that effort made irrelevant or
> substantially diluted by switching to another game.
>
>
> Dave.
>

Yes, but that's why standard chess is retained in my proposal. If both players
agree, then it's Fide-chess. Standard chess is frustrating because it's too much
wood-chopping and too little creativity.

Furthermore, why do people get irritated over this form of creativity?
Some chessplayers create chess problems, which lack all connection to
real chess, and to a much higher degree, too. It is much closer to
chess to introduce a newfangled chess piece and see what happens to
the tactical aspects. It is a form of chess creativity, too. It stimulates the
interest in standard chess. Blitz, bughouse and pocket-knight are chess
variants that nobody has ever argued competes with Fide-chess. Please
don't be so defensive. It is creativity on the checkered board.

Mats


http://tinyurl/boardgames



   
Date: 22 Sep 2008 16:49:22
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess in the future...
M Winther <kalroten@passagen.se > wrote:
> David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> People have a strong emotional and intellectual investment in
>> chess. Lots of people have spent a lot of time and money trying to
>> get better at chess. They don't want to see that effort made
>> irrelevant or substantially diluted by switching to another game.
>
> Yes, but that's why standard chess is retained in my proposal. If
> both players agree, then it's Fide-chess.

I thought your proposal was that amateur chess be replaced by a 10x10
game and professional chess by a game that is FIDE chess only if both
players agree for it to be.

> Standard chess is frustrating because it's too much wood-chopping
> and too little creativity.

If you say so. Even if we accept that hypothesis, is creativity
really the aim of chess? It's not the aim of, for example, 100m
sprinting. I'm not sure that it's the aim of backgammon. So is it
really part of the goal of chess? Or is the goal just to be good at
it?

> Furthermore, why do people get irritated over this form of
> creativity?

You can't think why anyone would get irritated about some know-all
coming along and saying `Hey, guys, give up that boring game you all
play and play my game instead!' while backing up his argument with
bald assertions and dubious logic?

> Some chessplayers create chess problems, which lack all connection
> to real chess, and to a much higher degree, too.

I disagree. Creating and solving chess problems involves thinking
about chess. For example, it is often recommended that people study
the K+B checkmate not because it's likely to come up in practice but
because it teaches you about how knights and bishops co-ordinate.

On the other hand, playing chess variants involves thinking about
something that's like chess but different in significant ways. Some
of the lessons one learns from variants may be applicable to chess;
many of them are not.

> It is much closer to chess to introduce a newfangled chess piece and
> see what happens to the tactical aspects. It is a form of chess
> creativity, too. It stimulates the interest in standard chess.

How would replacing amateur chess with a 10x10 version `stimulate
interest in standard chess'? And I'm far from convinced that
inventing variants in general stimulates interest in standard chess.
After all, chess has had a much higher impact on the public conscience
than any variant. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that standard
chess stimulates interest in variants?

> Please don't be so defensive. It is creativity on the checkered
> board.

Please don't label anyone who disagrees with you as being `defensive'
and trying to stifle your `creativity.' An idea can be creative
without being good and an objection can be valid, rather than merely
defensive.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Moistened Car (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-performance luxury car but
it's moist!


    
Date: 22 Sep 2008 19:38:41
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: Chess in the future...
Den 2008-09-22 17:49:22 skrev David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk >:

> M Winther <kalroten@passagen.se> wrote:
>> David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> People have a strong emotional and intellectual investment in
>>> chess. Lots of people have spent a lot of time and money trying to
>>> get better at chess. They don't want to see that effort made
>>> irrelevant or substantially diluted by switching to another game.
>>
>> Yes, but that's why standard chess is retained in my proposal. If
>> both players agree, then it's Fide-chess.
>
> I thought your proposal was that amateur chess be replaced by a 10x10
> game and professional chess by a game that is FIDE chess only if both
> players agree for it to be.
>
>> Standard chess is frustrating because it's too much wood-chopping
>> and too little creativity.
>
> If you say so. Even if we accept that hypothesis, is creativity
> really the aim of chess? It's not the aim of, for example, 100m
> sprinting. I'm not sure that it's the aim of backgammon. So is it
> really part of the goal of chess? Or is the goal just to be good at
> it?
>
>> Furthermore, why do people get irritated over this form of
>> creativity?
>
> You can't think why anyone would get irritated about some know-all
> coming along and saying `Hey, guys, give up that boring game you all
> play and play my game instead!' while backing up his argument with
> bald assertions and dubious logic?
>
>> Some chessplayers create chess problems, which lack all connection
>> to real chess, and to a much higher degree, too.
>
> I disagree. Creating and solving chess problems involves thinking
> about chess. For example, it is often recommended that people study
> the K+B checkmate not because it's likely to come up in practice but
> because it teaches you about how knights and bishops co-ordinate.
>
> On the other hand, playing chess variants involves thinking about
> something that's like chess but different in significant ways. Some
> of the lessons one learns from variants may be applicable to chess;
> many of them are not.
>
>> It is much closer to chess to introduce a newfangled chess piece and
>> see what happens to the tactical aspects. It is a form of chess
>> creativity, too. It stimulates the interest in standard chess.
>
> How would replacing amateur chess with a 10x10 version `stimulate
> interest in standard chess'? And I'm far from convinced that
> inventing variants in general stimulates interest in standard chess.
> After all, chess has had a much higher impact on the public conscience
> than any variant. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that standard
> chess stimulates interest in variants?
>
>> Please don't be so defensive. It is creativity on the checkered
>> board.
>
> Please don't label anyone who disagrees with you as being `defensive'
> and trying to stifle your `creativity.' An idea can be creative
> without being good and an objection can be valid, rather than merely
> defensive.
>
>
> Dave.
>

I issued a proposal for discussing and brainstorming. What about
introducing a 10x10 variant among amateurs, not for replacing chess
but as an alternative? It could stimulate the interest in standard
chess while the amateurs find it entertaining and won't abandon the
game, as a majority of the junior players do today. And when they get
stronger they go over to Fide-chess.

The Chinese and the Japanese understand this. They have simpler
versions of Go, Xiang-qi, and Shogi, such as the Jungle-game. In Go,
for instance, junior players are simply not allowed to play the
standard game before they have mastered the simpler versions. But we
stupid Westerners throw the young players into the full difficulties
immediately, and it's awkward to see the result. No wonder that so
many get depressed and leave the chess community.

Make it fun to play chess, don't be afraid of variability. If young
players think it's fun to play with a catapult piece, or a Mastodon,
then let them do so. I do enjoy orthodox chess, and I have devoted
much time to it. But I enjoy other boardgames as well and have
researches many historical ones, such as played by the Romans. I am
not a chess fundamentalist, and I don't think orthodox chess is the
"perfect" game.

Mats
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/index.htm


 
Date: 22 Sep 2008 04:18:51
From:
Subject: Re: Chess in the future...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:44:19 +0200, "M Winther" <mlwi@swipnet.se >
wrote:

>How will chess develop in the future? I have come to the following
>conclusion. In the future chess must bifurcate into a less complex and
>a more complex game.
>
>(1) in order to keep the amateurs' enthusiasm the chess community must
>provide a slower version of chess, foremostly for less skilled players.
>This will also entice the better players to take up interest in the difficult
>version.
>
>(2) in order to promote creative play among professionals we are
>forced to add higher complexity to standard chess. However, we may
>keep the option to play a standard Fide-game.
>
>-------------------------------
>
>Answer to problem (1) :
>A strategical 10x10 version will enable amateurs to play many more
>moves without losing a piece. In this way chess can retain its
>popularity among amateurs. Such variants have characteristics of
>war-games, which can be played by anybody. One of very many
>examples is my own Mastodon Chess:
>http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/mastodon.htm
>
>Answer to problem (2) :
>Fide-chess is approaching a crisis and a variant of higher complexity
>is needed in order to promote creativity in professional play. I
>propose that standard chess is included as an option, thereby
>maintaining the historical connection. In a tournament, by way of an
>initial voting procedure, players can decide to play a traditional game.
>
>In my own proposal, "Winther's Chess", the rules are the same as in
>orthodox chess, except that one extra piece per player, a Bombard , is
>placed in the reserve. Before starting, the players must decide
>whether they want to use the extra piece. Only if both players choose
>not to use the extra piece, then it becomes a regular game of chess.
>If white turns down the extra piece, then black can overrule this.
>
>The extra piece, the Bombard, is a form of cannon, similar to the
>cannons in Chinese and Korean chess. The Bombard can slide in any
>direction like a queen. It can capture only by leaping over any piece.
>If the nearest piece after the leap is an enemy piece, then it can be
>captured. Enemy pawns, however, can restrict its movement. The Bombard
>can only reach the square immediately behind the enemy pawn,
>regardless of leaping direction. It is a remarkable piece that blends
>in finely with the Western pieces. A positional flavour of chess is
>retained, whilst introducing new tactical themes:
>http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/wintherschess.htm
>
>Mats

yawn, just another chess variant... like there isn't enough already


  
Date: 22 Sep 2008 16:07:44
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: Chess in the future...
Den 2008-09-22 06:18:51 skrev <everincon@yahoo.com >:

> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:44:19 +0200, "M Winther" <mlwi@swipnet.se>
> wrote:
>
>> How will chess develop in the future? I have come to the following
>> conclusion. In the future chess must bifurcate into a less complex and
>> a more complex game.
>>
>> (1) in order to keep the amateurs' enthusiasm the chess community must
>> provide a slower version of chess, foremostly for less skilled players.
>> This will also entice the better players to take up interest in the difficult
>> version.
>>
>> (2) in order to promote creative play among professionals we are
>> forced to add higher complexity to standard chess. However, we may
>> keep the option to play a standard Fide-game.
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> Answer to problem (1) :
>> A strategical 10x10 version will enable amateurs to play many more
>> moves without losing a piece. In this way chess can retain its
>> popularity among amateurs. Such variants have characteristics of
>> war-games, which can be played by anybody. One of very many
>> examples is my own Mastodon Chess:
>> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/mastodon.htm
>>
>> Answer to problem (2) :
>> Fide-chess is approaching a crisis and a variant of higher complexity
>> is needed in order to promote creativity in professional play. I
>> propose that standard chess is included as an option, thereby
>> maintaining the historical connection. In a tournament, by way of an
>> initial voting procedure, players can decide to play a traditional game.
>>
>> In my own proposal, "Winther's Chess", the rules are the same as in
>> orthodox chess, except that one extra piece per player, a Bombard , is
>> placed in the reserve. Before starting, the players must decide
>> whether they want to use the extra piece. Only if both players choose
>> not to use the extra piece, then it becomes a regular game of chess.
>> If white turns down the extra piece, then black can overrule this.
>>
>> The extra piece, the Bombard, is a form of cannon, similar to the
>> cannons in Chinese and Korean chess. The Bombard can slide in any
>> direction like a queen. It can capture only by leaping over any piece.
>> If the nearest piece after the leap is an enemy piece, then it can be
>> captured. Enemy pawns, however, can restrict its movement. The Bombard
>> can only reach the square immediately behind the enemy pawn,
>> regardless of leaping direction. It is a remarkable piece that blends
>> in finely with the Western pieces. A positional flavour of chess is
>> retained, whilst introducing new tactical themes:
>> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/wintherschess.htm
>>
>> Mats
>
> yawn, just another chess variant... like there isn't enough already
>

Are there enough chess problems and chess studies, too? At least the
self-mate type, no? Enough opening inventions? Creativity is creativity
and nobody can stop it. Only the wood-choppers who sit and wait
for the opponent to make a mistake or lose on time complain at creative
people.

Mats