| |
Main
Date: 11 Oct 2008 06:41:54
From: M Winther
Subject: Routinization of chess
|
The problem today is the mechanizing effect of theory and computers
among professionals. Nobody has argued that Fide-chess, as such, is
about to die, but *creativity* risks perishing. If a professional is
going to devote his whole life to this game, then creativity is to
prefer before a routinization of the game. Routinization is a
phenomenon we see in all enterprises that initially were brimming with
enthusiasm and creativity. It is especially true about religious
revelation, which with time turns grey and stale. It becomes a ritual
with only one motivation, namely to obtain money.
Mats
http://tinyurl/chessvariants
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2008 04:29:55
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Routinization of chess
|
On Oct 10, 10:41 pm, "M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Nobody has argued that Fide-chess, as such, is
> about to die, but *creativity* risks perishing.
This is a problem with Chess, I agree.
And it has stimulated people, time and again, to propose changing the
chessboard a little; Capablanca Chess is one example of many. Yet none
of these ideas has ever caught on.
Of course, the great inertia in favor of the established game which so
many have spent so much time studying is a major factor. If that was
all, however, as there is room for many other kinds of game besides
Chess, a new Chess-like game could take root and grow, gaining
enthusiasts, if it offered what Chess as it is lacks.
I think that one of the problems is that the insights of Steinitz
which led to the more systematic and objective approach to Chess which
has deprived it of the excitement, at least in a superficial sense, of
the Romantic era *are equally applicable to any chess variant with
changed or added pieces*. So it won't take long for the opening in
Capablanca Chess to be analyzed to death.
If Capablanca's Chess and all the other ideas like it must fail, what
else is left?
Fischer Random Chess, or Chess 960 as it is also known, comes to mind.
And I've put my own mind to work, such as it is.
If a random initial array is inaesthetic, how about a Chess in which
one chooses at random a Chess variant from a large pool? I've devised
an example of that on my web page.
Then I learned of how _komidashi_ was successful in invigorating the
game of Go (or Wei Ch'i) from a game with a pre-ordained result
deriving from defensive play (in the case of Go, a win by the first
player, who is Black in that game, instead of a draw) to one where
both players must fight for the win - and I made an effort to
translate this to the game of Chess in a robust fashion that would
have a chance of working without depending on a precise valuation of
White's first-move advantage.
But while I think my ideas are a bit more original that what usually
gets proposed, I don't want to go ahead and claim that they are what
will "save" chess. I don't have the inflated idea of my self-
importance to think they're likely to be adopted as is.
I know that there are still other factors they do not address.
Even if I had fully succeeded in my proposals in finding a scheme
which would make Chess as exciting as in the Romantic period, would
that lead to Chess games gaining widespread public interest, leading
to money coming in to support a corps of grandmasters as in the Cold
War days of yore? Why?
For how many people is Chess as much fun to watch as football? (Given
that football has cheerleaders, and Anna Kournikova effectively
promoted interest in Tennis, some of Sam Sloan's posts about this or
that lovely young chessplayer may _not_ be as totally off the beam as
they might seem, but there really isn't much for Chess to achieve in
this department!)
And then there's the problem posed by the ability of computers to play
Chess quite well (whereas they are still lagging in Go).
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2008 10:11:52
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Routinization of chess
|
On Oct 13, 7:58 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> Why is popularity always the measuring stick?
That's a good question.
If a more sublime contest of minds than Chess is desired, there are a
few choices - Go, Gess, and perhaps even Rithmomachy. It's also been
argued that Chinese Chess is superior, and, while Shogi in its modern
form does not seem to be esteemed as a profound game, dropping
captured pieces back on the board was not a factor in the older
Japanese game and the many Great Chess variants it had.
But it doesn't seem to me to be the case that Chess is in any crying
need of improvement on that front. Chess isn't being criticized by
anyone as "too easy".
If it could be purely a contest of tactilcs and strategy, with
memorized opening theory eliminated as a factor, that might be nice
for intrinsic reasons.
Because I want to have a well-defined yardstick before me, so that I
can know what problem I wish to solve before trying to solve it,
popularity is as simple a one to use as any - as a way to address what
I see as the main source of the desire to improve or change Chess
somehow: nostalgia for the era before Steinitz. More exciting and
dynamic play has an obvious appeal, and is not something that in
itself would detract from the dignity of Chess.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2008 06:58:07
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Routinization of chess
|
On Oct 13, 6:29=A0am, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> For how many people is Chess as much fun to watch as football? (Given
Why is popularity always the measuring stick?
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2008 06:56:17
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Routinization of chess
|
On Oct 13, 7:19=A0am, "M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Creativity can also take place in home studies.
If that is your stance, I really don't see your argument as valid.
There is plenty of room in "FIDE" chess for at home creativity. What
seems to irk people are those who can be more creative at home, thus
they want to change the rules so that they can catch up.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2008 16:54:47
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: Routinization of chess
|
Den 2008-10-13 15:56:17 skrev SBD <[email protected] >:
> On Oct 13, 7:19�am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Creativity can also take place in home studies.
>
> If that is your stance, I really don't see your argument as valid.
>
> There is plenty of room in "FIDE" chess for at home creativity. What
> seems to irk people are those who can be more creative at home, thus
> they want to change the rules so that they can catch up.
>
>
I really don't see your argument as valid.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2008 14:19:13
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: Routinization of chess
|
Den 2008-10-13 13:29:55 skrev Quadibloc <[email protected] >:
> On Oct 10, 10:41 pm, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nobody has argued that Fide-chess, as such, is
>> about to die, but *creativity* risks perishing.
>
> This is a problem with Chess, I agree.
>
> And it has stimulated people, time and again, to propose changing the
> chessboard a little; Capablanca Chess is one example of many. Yet none
> of these ideas has ever caught on.
>
> Of course, the great inertia in favor of the established game which so
> many have spent so much time studying is a major factor. If that was
> all, however, as there is room for many other kinds of game besides
> Chess, a new Chess-like game could take root and grow, gaining
> enthusiasts, if it offered what Chess as it is lacks.
>
> I think that one of the problems is that the insights of Steinitz
> which led to the more systematic and objective approach to Chess which
> has deprived it of the excitement, at least in a superficial sense, of
> the Romantic era *are equally applicable to any chess variant with
> changed or added pieces*. So it won't take long for the opening in
> Capablanca Chess to be analyzed to death.
>
> If Capablanca's Chess and all the other ideas like it must fail, what
> else is left?
>
> Fischer Random Chess, or Chess 960 as it is also known, comes to mind.
>
> And I've put my own mind to work, such as it is.
>
> If a random initial array is inaesthetic, how about a Chess in which
> one chooses at random a Chess variant from a large pool? I've devised
> an example of that on my web page.
>
> Then I learned of how _komidashi_ was successful in invigorating the
> game of Go (or Wei Ch'i) from a game with a pre-ordained result
> deriving from defensive play (in the case of Go, a win by the first
> player, who is Black in that game, instead of a draw) to one where
> both players must fight for the win - and I made an effort to
> translate this to the game of Chess in a robust fashion that would
> have a chance of working without depending on a precise valuation of
> White's first-move advantage.
>
> But while I think my ideas are a bit more original that what usually
> gets proposed, I don't want to go ahead and claim that they are what
> will "save" chess. I don't have the inflated idea of my self-
> importance to think they're likely to be adopted as is.
>
> I know that there are still other factors they do not address.
>
> Even if I had fully succeeded in my proposals in finding a scheme
> which would make Chess as exciting as in the Romantic period, would
> that lead to Chess games gaining widespread public interest, leading
> to money coming in to support a corps of grandmasters as in the Cold
> War days of yore? Why?
>
> For how many people is Chess as much fun to watch as football? (Given
> that football has cheerleaders, and Anna Kournikova effectively
> promoted interest in Tennis, some of Sam Sloan's posts about this or
> that lovely young chessplayer may _not_ be as totally off the beam as
> they might seem, but there really isn't much for Chess to achieve in
> this department!)
>
> And then there's the problem posed by the ability of computers to play
> Chess quite well (whereas they are still lagging in Go).
>
> John Savard
>
To my mind, it's simply too much to allow players to choose between many
different variants. Chessplayers want to take a scientific approach to the game
and to study it in advance. Creativity can also take place in home studies.
I have proposed a very modest change to Fide-chess in my Reformed Chess:
a pawn situated on the sixth rank can change place with an enemy pawn standing
before it, i.e. they swap place. Otherwise regular rules apply.
Although the pawn, in a sense, is stronger, it is also more vulnerable, while it
has lost some of its blocking capability. It's now more rewarding to expand your
territory, and it can be dangerous to play too passively with your pawns.
Endgames are more likely to end in a win.
This will create great problems for the computers, too, while the pawn
advancement is so hard to foresee. Reformed Chess:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/reformedchess.htm
Mats
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2008 08:07:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Routinization of chess
|
"M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:opuiufb4xp3bzrao@sn686101880231...
> The problem today is the mechanizing effect of theory and computers
> among professionals. Nobody has argued that Fide-chess, as such, is
> about to die, but *creativity* risks perishing.
Interesting post Mats, but actually Andras Adorjan has argued this - both in
his Black-is-OK book series, and also more recently in his response to
Kasparov's survey he addressed this exact point.
> If a professional is
> going to devote his whole life to this game, then creativity is to
> prefer before a routinization of the game. Routinization is a
> phenomenon we see in all enterprises that initially were brimming with
> enthusiasm and creativity. It is especially true about religious
> revelation, which with time turns grey and stale. It becomes a ritual
> with only one motivation, namely to obtain money.
Yes- the balance point between routine and charisma is currently as you say.
Phil Innes
> Mats
> http://tinyurl/chessvariants
|
|
