| |
Main
Date: 21 Sep 2008 07:46:09
From: M Winther
Subject: What is "chess"?
|
Some people think that chess is equal to Fide-chess. But Fide-chess is
merely one among many chess variants, the most popular being Xiangqi
(Chinese Chess) http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chinesechess.htm and
the most profitable being Shogi (Japanese Chess)
http://www.chessvariants.org/shogi.html
and the most popular among amateur players is Makruk (Thai Chess)
http://www.chessvariants.com/oriental.dir/thai.html ,
which is played everywhere on the streets in Thailand. Of course, there
are several more, like Changqi (Korean Chess)
http://www.chessvariants.com/oriental.dir/koreanchess.html .
In the historical perspective, an important variant is Shatranj Kamil
http://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/tamerlane.html ,
invented by Timur Lenk. It is a slow, strategical big board variant, still
played on the chessvariants server.
So it is high time to abandon the notion that Western chess is the
"only" chess variant. It is definitely *not* what most people on the
earth refer to as "chess". The most popular game in the world, far
surpassing everything else, is Chinese Chess. There must be a reason
for its popularity. Former women World Champion Xie Jun says that she
prefers it before Fide-chess. It is more fun and not at all as
tedious.
I want to point this out to make clear that chess is not Fide-chess, it
is variant chess.
Mats
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2008 15:36:09
From: Jeff Kology
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
Get real. Chinese chess?? Who has even HEARD of it! Thai chess?? That is
laughable!
Have you been drinking heavily??
"M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:opuhtgy7063bzrao@sn686101880231...
> Some people think that chess is equal to Fide-chess. But Fide-chess is
> merely one among many chess variants, the most popular being Xiangqi
> (Chinese Chess) http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chinesechess.htm and
> the most profitable being Shogi (Japanese Chess)
> http://www.chessvariants.org/shogi.html
> and the most popular among amateur players is Makruk (Thai Chess)
> http://www.chessvariants.com/oriental.dir/thai.html ,
> which is played everywhere on the streets in Thailand. Of course, there
> are several more, like Changqi (Korean Chess)
> http://www.chessvariants.com/oriental.dir/koreanchess.html .
> In the historical perspective, an important variant is Shatranj Kamil
> http://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/tamerlane.html ,
> invented by Timur Lenk. It is a slow, strategical big board variant, still
> played on the chessvariants server.
>
> So it is high time to abandon the notion that Western chess is the
> "only" chess variant. It is definitely *not* what most people on the
> earth refer to as "chess". The most popular game in the world, far
> surpassing everything else, is Chinese Chess. There must be a reason
> for its popularity. Former women World Champion Xie Jun says that she
> prefers it before Fide-chess. It is more fun and not at all as
> tedious.
>
> I want to point this out to make clear that chess is not Fide-chess, it
> is variant chess.
>
> Mats
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 16:37:30
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
M Winther wrote:
.
> I want to point this out to make clear that chess is not Fide-chess, it
> is variant chess.
>
> Mats
No no no no - Mats, it's Mathew isn't it in the Englisch..
Clearly chess has incensed you & made of you some sort of stupid turnip
- no?..
Chess is simply "chess" regardless of governing authorities & tediously
included variants thereof..
t.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 20:24:40
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
On Sep 21, 5:12 am, "M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> It's high time to [...] introduce changes in Western
> chess [...]
Perhaps (yawn), but why do YOU bother,
it has nothing to do with you.
Leave it to Sanny.
Wlod
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 09:55:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 21, 5:12 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> It's high time to [...] introduce changes in Western
>> chess [...]
>
> Perhaps (yawn), but why do YOU bother,
Yes - this is the right question. If the 99.9% of players have not exhausted
chess, and the great majority of those (99%?) are under 1800 rated players -
in the US the majority of rated players are scholastic players, and these
don't even average 1,000.
I would say the game has another 1,000 years in it yet.
The professional game [high estimate, 50 people make their living by
actually playing chess] is the area where draws occur - and if professionals
want to change the rules, or the scoring of results, then let them continue
to make experiments.
Strictly speaking, in terms of the topical header, a game can be defined by
its rules. Game-playing can be defined by who plays it, how and why.
Phil Innes
> it has nothing to do with you.
> Leave it to Sanny.
>
> Wlod
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 16:32:07
From: ChessVariant Inventor
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
'Chess One[_2_ Wrote:
> ;285745']
>
> Yes - this is the right question. If the 99.9% of players have no
> exhausted
> chess, and the great majority of those (99%?) are under 1800 rate
> players -
> in the US the majority of rated players are scholastic players, an
> these
> don't even average 1,000.
>
> I would say the game has another 1,000 years in it yet.
>
> The professional game [high estimate, 50 people make their living by
> actually playing chess] is the area where draws occur - and i
> professionals
> want to change the rules, or the scoring of results, then let the
> continue
> to make experiments.
>
> Strictly speaking, in terms of the topical header, a game can b
> defined by
> its rules. Game-playing can be defined by who plays it, how and why.
>
> Phil Innes
>
Phil, I have a question regarding the comment above.
Since you estimate 1000 yrs I assume you would be certain that Chess a
it is *currently played* will last for another 100 yrs.
What I mean by currently played - that GM tournaments/matches wil
feature chess games that start at move 1 with no balloting as a fe
people propose.
I think 1000 yrs is too much - It seems to me that every single openin
will be mapped out in that time. In fact, how many novelties do we ge
per GM game now ? Does anyone have statistics on that?
The novelty (never before seen move) starts at move X. What is move
now for high level GM play? Is it 20-30?15?
One thing to note: even though chess will never be exhausted for lo
rated players - what the GMs do will influence them. If the GMs hav
played out the openings and switch to balloting - then the low rate
players might lose interest in the game.
Anyway, essentially I am curious. Do you think balloting openings wil
become necessary in the near future
--
ChessVariant Inventor
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2008 11:10:45
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
"ChessVariant Inventor" <[email protected] >
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> 'Chess One[_2_ Wrote:
>> ;285745']
>>
>> Yes - this is the right question. If the 99.9% of players have not
>> exhausted
>> chess, and the great majority of those (99%?) are under 1800 rated
>> players -
>> in the US the majority of rated players are scholastic players, and
>> these
>> don't even average 1,000.
>>
>> I would say the game has another 1,000 years in it yet.
>>
>> The professional game [high estimate, 50 people make their living by
>> actually playing chess] is the area where draws occur - and if
>> professionals
>> want to change the rules, or the scoring of results, then let them
>> continue
>> to make experiments.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, in terms of the topical header, a game can be
>> defined by
>> its rules. Game-playing can be defined by who plays it, how and why.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
> Phil, I have a question regarding the comment above.
>
> Since you estimate 1000 yrs I assume you would be certain that Chess as
> it is *currently played* will last for another 100 yrs.
Another 100 or 1000?
> What I mean by currently played - that GM tournaments/matches will
> feature chess games that start at move 1 with no balloting as a few
> people propose.
> I think 1000 yrs is too much - It seems to me that every single opening
> will be mapped out in that time. In fact, how many novelties do we get
> per GM game now ?
Who is 'we'?
In 300 Sicilians in the past 18 months no 2 were the same til move 12, and
almost all of them departed from the book.
What does it matter to me if 100 top GMs know even more about openings? I
rarely play the 100 top GMs, or any GMs!
Even as a spectator, since I don't have their current opening knowledge,
then its mostly all news to me! Therefore the game is not played out for me
as a player or as a spectator.
Even if there are massive flow charts of openings to move 12, who will be
able to remember them so that they are actually useful OTB? Even watching
OTB?
> Does anyone have statistics on that?
> The novelty (never before seen move) starts at move X. What is move X
> now for high level GM play? Is it 20-30?15?
I know that Dave Rudel [a master] has come up with innovations in his new
book on the Colle-Zuk. Michael Adams told me recently he is still finding
innovations in the openings. Even Kasparov's anti Chelyabinsk h4! came at
move 16 or something.
> One thing to note: even though chess will never be exhausted for low
> rated players - what the GMs do will influence them.
As fashions, sure.
> If the GMs have
> played out the openings and switch to balloting - then the low rated
> players might lose interest in the game.
Really? I don't think so or see any evidence of that. Most of the players at
our chess club couldn't even name 4 players in the current top 50, nevermind
follow their opening innovations.
> Anyway, essentially I am curious. Do you think balloting openings will
> become necessary in the near future?
Not for me. Players don't seem to want it either = and I wonder therefore
why artificial changes to classical chess are suggested?
Cordially, Phil
>
>
> --
> ChessVariant Inventor
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 19:26:29
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
Den 2008-09-22 15:55:11 skrev Chess One <[email protected] >:
>
> "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sep 21, 5:12 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's high time to [...] introduce changes in Western
>>> chess [...]
>>
>> Perhaps (yawn), but why do YOU bother,
>
> Yes - this is the right question. If the 99.9% of players have not exhausted
> chess, and the great majority of those (99%?) are under 1800 rated players -
> in the US the majority of rated players are scholastic players, and these
> don't even average 1,000.
>
> I would say the game has another 1,000 years in it yet.
>
> The professional game [high estimate, 50 people make their living by
> actually playing chess] is the area where draws occur - and if professionals
> want to change the rules, or the scoring of results, then let them continue
> to make experiments.
>
> Strictly speaking, in terms of the topical header, a game can be defined by
> its rules. Game-playing can be defined by who plays it, how and why.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>> it has nothing to do with you.
>> Leave it to Sanny.
>>
>> Wlod
>
>
To investigate the properties of a new piece and to create a program,
is an expression of the inner urge for creativity which is typical of
the human species. It is creative and fun to explore the mathematical
properties of the chessboard, with cannon pieces, and catapult pieces,
too. It is the same kind of curiosity that we see in mathematics and
physics.
However, there is a serious side to the business. Had people not been
prepared to change the rules of chess then we would still be playing
Chaturanga. Changes are sometimes necessary. Soccer rules have
changed, goals enlarged. Table tennis is now played with a heavier
ball, and different scoring system, etc. This is done to improve the
game. I am just investigating different notions by way of
"brainstorming". This is the ideal use of a discussion group, if people
weren't so defensive all the time. 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. Watch out for the fundamentalist spirit!
Mats
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/index.htm (About boardgames)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 15:29:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
"M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:opuhv72fpw3bzrao@sn686101880231...
> Den 2008-09-22 15:55:11 skrev Chess One <[email protected]>:
>
>>
>> "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sep 21, 5:12 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's high time to [...] introduce changes in Western
>>>> chess [...]
>>>
>>> Perhaps (yawn), but why do YOU bother,
>>
>> Yes - this is the right question. If the 99.9% of players have not
>> exhausted
>> chess, and the great majority of those (99%?) are under 1800 rated
>> players -
>> in the US the majority of rated players are scholastic players, and these
>> don't even average 1,000.
>>
>> I would say the game has another 1,000 years in it yet.
>>
>> The professional game [high estimate, 50 people make their living by
>> actually playing chess] is the area where draws occur - and if
>> professionals
>> want to change the rules, or the scoring of results, then let them
>> continue
>> to make experiments.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, in terms of the topical header, a game can be defined
>> by
>> its rules. Game-playing can be defined by who plays it, how and why.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>> it has nothing to do with you.
>>> Leave it to Sanny.
>>>
>>> Wlod
>>
>>
>
> To investigate the properties of a new piece and to create a program,
> is an expression of the inner urge for creativity which is typical of
> the human species. It is creative and fun to explore the mathematical
> properties of the chessboard, with cannon pieces, and catapult pieces,
> too. It is the same kind of curiosity that we see in mathematics and
> physics.
absolutely! i am also a bridge player, and have played Monopoly...
> However, there is a serious side to the business. Had people not been
> prepared to change the rules of chess then we would still be playing
> Chaturanga. Changes are sometimes necessary.
absolutely! and for the past 800 years we have a powerful queen on the
board, and long-range bishops
> Soccer rules have
> changed, goals enlarged. Table tennis is now played with a heavier
> ball, and different scoring system, etc. This is done to improve the
> game.
This is done in answer to a perceived problem with the game as it used to
be.
> I am just investigating different notions by way of
> "brainstorming".
But not mentioning your own level of the mastery of the game so that you are
bored with it?
> This is the ideal use of a discussion group, if people
> weren't so defensive all the time.
I am aggressive! I want to win - if you don't want to defend your position
you can resign and go play any other game you want. Chess is a fight, and I
am far from exhausted! You cannot talk for me. As I see it, you can also not
talk for anyone else particularly. Why do you think you can do that?
It is one thing to say you gave up chess and want another chess-like game.
But without saying why you don't take up Go for example, it is curious why
you want to play something like chess.
> 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. Watch out for the fundamentalist spirit!
Its perfect for engaging anyone around the world in a culturally acceptible
means of ritual conflict - and as such is a world game, the only world game.
It doesn't need changing or adapting. If you want something else and can't
say why you don't pick another game, then you, may I say, confuse a natural
exhaustion with the game of chess with your reasons for playing games. These
are distinct items.
Phil Innes
> Mats
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/index.htm (About boardgames)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2008 06:28:24
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
Den 2008-09-22 21:29:10 skrev Chess One <[email protected] >:
> .....
>> However, there is a serious side to the business. Had people not been
>> prepared to change the rules of chess then we would still be playing
>> Chaturanga. Changes are sometimes necessary.
>absolutely! and for the past 800 years we have a powerful queen on the
> board, and long-range bishops
That's about 500 years, and not in all quarters.
>
>> Soccer rules have
>> changed, goals enlarged. Table tennis is now played with a heavier
>> ball, and different scoring system, etc. This is done to improve the
>> game.
>This is done in answer to a perceived problem with the game as it used to
> be.
>
>> I am just investigating different notions by way of
>> "brainstorming".
>But not mentioning your own level of the mastery of the game so that you are
> bored with it?
>
I had a modest Elo of around 2100 and 2170 at best in national rating, and
drawed against GM Marcovic as black once. I have played some good games,
certain of which are in the Chessbase databases. I hope to return to chess as
a senior citizen, but I'm afraid only the elite is left by then.
>> This is the ideal use of a discussion group, if people
>> weren't so defensive all the time.
>I am aggressive! I want to win - if you don't want to defend your position
> you can resign and go play any other game you want. Chess is a fight, and I
> am far from exhausted! You cannot talk for me. As I see it, you can also not
> talk for anyone else particularly. Why do you think you can do that?
>It is one thing to say you gave up chess and want another chess-like game.
> But without saying why you don't take up Go for example, it is curious why
> you want to play something like chess.
> ......
Makruk and Xiangqi, etc. are all part of our cultural heritage, something which
makes life colourful. It is hard to understand the resentment.
Mats
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2008 08:41:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
"M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:opuhw2pmmv3bzrao@sn686101880231...
> Den 2008-09-22 21:29:10 skrev Chess One <[email protected]>:
>
>> .....
>>> However, there is a serious side to the business. Had people not been
>>> prepared to change the rules of chess then we would still be playing
>>> Chaturanga. Changes are sometimes necessary.
>>absolutely! and for the past 800 years we have a powerful queen on the
>> board, and long-range bishops
>
>
> That's about 500 years, and not in all quarters.
That's right - Marilyn Yalom is probably the best analyst of what, when and
where.
>>But not mentioning your own level of the mastery of the game so that you
>>are
>> bored with it?
>>
>
> I had a modest Elo of around 2100 and 2170 at best in national rating, and
> drawed against GM Marcovic as black once. I have played some good games,
> certain of which are in the Chessbase databases. I hope to return to chess
> as
> a senior citizen, but I'm afraid only the elite is left by then.
I'm not much different, but in correspondance with others [especially in
England] see instead a decline in people's knowledge, overall ratings and
chess skill generally. I think a false-effect is achieved by the ease of
current reporting, so that we see much more high-level chess and necessarily
greater complexity. I do not see this is a general condition of things for
most players.
>>> This is the ideal use of a discussion group, if people
>>> weren't so defensive all the time.
>>I am aggressive! I want to win - if you don't want to defend your position
>> you can resign and go play any other game you want. Chess is a fight, and
>> I
>> am far from exhausted! You cannot talk for me. As I see it, you can also
>> not
>> talk for anyone else particularly. Why do you think you can do that?
>>It is one thing to say you gave up chess and want another chess-like game.
>> But without saying why you don't take up Go for example, it is curious
>> why
>> you want to play something like chess.
>> ......
>
> Makruk and Xiangqi, etc. are all part of our cultural heritage, something
> which
> makes life colourful. It is hard to understand the resentment.
I don't mind other games at all - but continue to be curious why changes to
chess are necessary when such a diversity of games exist.
What I do resent is people wanting to change chess because 'it' is worn out
or suggested to be overly familiar. I suspect these are [perhaps entirely
natural] individual expressions. Then the issue becomes not changing chess
for other people who are not bored with it, et cetera, but with identifying
something about the bored individual - to stop playing board games
altogether? or maybe find another complex game which meets some criterion
they have for games playing?
Therefore any real basis for changing chess is rarely discussed. The
resentment I have is for those people bored with the game suggesting that
their condition is general or universal, and speaking for other people,
while no such condition actually exists in other people.
Cordially, Phil
> Mats
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2008 20:53:43
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
Den 2008-09-23 14:41:08 skrev Chess One <[email protected] >:
>
> "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:opuhw2pmmv3bzrao@sn686101880231...
>> Den 2008-09-22 21:29:10 skrev Chess One <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> .....
>>>> However, there is a serious side to the business. Had people not been
>>>> prepared to change the rules of chess then we would still be playing
>>>> Chaturanga. Changes are sometimes necessary.
>>> absolutely! and for the past 800 years we have a powerful queen on the
>>> board, and long-range bishops
>>
>>
>> That's about 500 years, and not in all quarters.
>
> That's right - Marilyn Yalom is probably the best analyst of what, when and
> where.
>
>
>>> But not mentioning your own level of the mastery of the game so that you
>>> are
>>> bored with it?
>>>
>>
>> I had a modest Elo of around 2100 and 2170 at best in national rating, and
>> drawed against GM Marcovic as black once. I have played some good games,
>> certain of which are in the Chessbase databases. I hope to return to chess
>> as
>> a senior citizen, but I'm afraid only the elite is left by then.
>
> I'm not much different, but in correspondance with others [especially in
> England] see instead a decline in people's knowledge, overall ratings and
> chess skill generally. I think a false-effect is achieved by the ease of
> current reporting, so that we see much more high-level chess and necessarily
> greater complexity. I do not see this is a general condition of things for
> most players.
>
>>>> This is the ideal use of a discussion group, if people
>>>> weren't so defensive all the time.
>>> I am aggressive! I want to win - if you don't want to defend your position
>>> you can resign and go play any other game you want. Chess is a fight, and
>>> I
>>> am far from exhausted! You cannot talk for me. As I see it, you can also
>>> not
>>> talk for anyone else particularly. Why do you think you can do that?
>>> It is one thing to say you gave up chess and want another chess-like game.
>>> But without saying why you don't take up Go for example, it is curious
>>> why
>>> you want to play something like chess.
>>> ......
>>
>> Makruk and Xiangqi, etc. are all part of our cultural heritage, something
>> which
>> makes life colourful. It is hard to understand the resentment.
>
> I don't mind other games at all - but continue to be curious why changes to
> chess are necessary when such a diversity of games exist.
>
> What I do resent is people wanting to change chess because 'it' is worn out
> or suggested to be overly familiar. I suspect these are [perhaps entirely
> natural] individual expressions. Then the issue becomes not changing chess
> for other people who are not bored with it, et cetera, but with identifying
> something about the bored individual - to stop playing board games
> altogether? or maybe find another complex game which meets some criterion
> they have for games playing?
>
> Therefore any real basis for changing chess is rarely discussed. The
> resentment I have is for those people bored with the game suggesting that
> their condition is general or universal, and speaking for other people,
> while no such condition actually exists in other people.
>
> Cordially, Phil
>
>> Mats
>>
>
>
>
No, not changing chess, merely *complementing* it. It is not as dangerous as it
sounds. I am not out to conquer the world with my newfangles ideas. I make these
inventions because it interests me, and due to a need of intellectual stimulation, I
suppose. It's fun to discuss, too. On the Seirawan chess page
( http://www.seirawanchess.com/ ), Seirawan says:
"Seirawan chess, by introducing two new pieces, makes chess fun again!"
By the way , I still play standard chess often, when on the subway or
when going for a walk. I play blind chess against my own handheld computer
which lacks a board diagram.
Mats
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 15:53:16
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
Den 2008-09-22 05:24:40 skrev Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) <[email protected] >:
> On Sep 21, 5:12 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> It's high time to [...] introduce changes in Western
>> chess [...]
>
> Perhaps (yawn), but why do YOU bother,
> it has nothing to do with you.
> Leave it to Sanny.
>
> Wlod
>
Why do you bother that I bother? I happen to be interested in
boardgame history and in the development of boardgames. I am not
interested, anymore, in learning 20 moves of theory and mechanically
repeating them in a chess match. There is something about orthodox
chess that has always frustrated me. I have always wanted to be
creative, tactically and strategically. But the game allows this only
to a very little extent. It is mostly about wood-chopping. I have
always tried to be creative in the opening phase instead, but it got
tedious, too, because it doesn't allow much room for creativity,
either. So chess is foremostly for anti-intellectual wood-choppers.
That's why Petrosian said that chessplayers are seldom intelligent.
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.
Mats
http://tinyurl/boardgames
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2008 09:17:07
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
"M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:opuhvx62iy3bzrao@sn686101880231...
> Den 2008-09-22 05:24:40 skrev Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> On Sep 21, 5:12 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's high time to [...] introduce changes in Western
>>> chess [...]
>>
>> Perhaps (yawn), but why do YOU bother,
>> it has nothing to do with you.
>> Leave it to Sanny.
>>
>> Wlod
>>
>
> Why do you bother that I bother? I happen to be interested in
> boardgame history and in the development of boardgames.
Mats, I see you write elsewhere about Roman games - and some of those are
adaptions of Egyptian games. I wonder if you have the title: Games Ancient
and Oriental and How to Play Them. Written by Edward Falkener, and first
published in 1892. There was a Dover edition of this book in English
published 1961.
The first 100 pages contain Egyptian games. Rules, and even game scores!
There is besides, some interesting mathematical work on Magic Squares by
Euler 'and other eminent mathematicians have not despised the solution of
such problems.'
"Deficiet sensim qui semper tenditur arcus."
And the author continues to say, 'The utilitarian therefore is wrong in
declaiming against such recreations as a waste of time; as much as when he
affirms that classics and mathematics are useless in this age of science.'
> I am not
> interested, anymore, in learning 20 moves of theory and mechanically
> repeating them in a chess match. There is something about orthodox
> chess that has always frustrated me. I have always wanted to be
> creative, tactically and strategically. But the game allows this only
> to a very little extent. It is mostly about wood-chopping. I have
> always tried to be creative in the opening phase instead, but it got
> tedious, too, because it doesn't allow much room for creativity,
> either. So chess is foremostly for anti-intellectual wood-choppers.
> That's why Petrosian said that chessplayers are seldom intelligent.
>
> 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.
Yes - its a fair question. I hope there are fair answers to it.
At least one is that it is common when bored with the classical game to cite
its deficiencies, rather than one's own! <grin > Classical chess players
therefore resent people speaking in this way about the game itself.
One other possibility [I would be interested in your opinion] is that
game-playing skill does not seem to be necessarily transferable to other
games. One may /like/ to play board games, but skill levels vary. For me, I
am completely clueless at Go - even though I have tried to play it, I have
no insight whatever! I had a friend who could /always/ give me 9 stones...
He had some Dan level far beyond my comprehension. He also played reasonable
Chess, but never improved and admitted to me that other than mechanical
aspects of developing and understanding need for castling and so on - he had
no tactical or positional sense at all.
De Groot actually pointed this out about chess. Many people seem to know
what he said, but fewer seem to understand it in order to discuss it
properly. He uttered the HERETICAL statement [to educators] that it might
not be teachable! That is, that you cannot prescriptively make anyone an
1800 player, for example.
Interesting that Howard Gardner of Multiple Intelligence theory [now
non-heretical and mainstream] amplified on de Groot's chess work. Gardner
said that you can not prescribe a program that will achieve certain levels
of mastery of subjects for all people - including physical or kinesthetic
activites. Some people seem to have very small aptitude for such activities
which cannot be improved [other than temporarily, and to small extent] by
'cramming' or rote-learning and rote-practice.
> 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.
See - there you go! That is the very contention - is it something that only
works since it is a novelty? Many children are good at games to begin with,
and you think Ah!@ here is a prodigy! But 4 months later they transferred
their intense interest to kite-flying or skate-boarding.
Anyway - these are interesting subjects, and I presume to argue with you
here since I think one may not talk generically [sui generis] as if for all
people - and instead there is a need to speak for one's self, since there
are many types of creative expression, and even in gaming it is far from
clear if the same quality of creativity is transferable from game to game.
Ai Shah! do Rukh bidih, wa Dilaram ra madih ;
Pil was Piyada, pesh kun, wa zi Asp Shah-mat.
Sam Sloan who has a little Persian could translate that for you.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> Mats
> http://tinyurl/boardgames
>
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 14:12:52
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: What is "chess"?
|
Den 2008-09-21 08:37:30 skrev thumbody <[email protected] >:
> M Winther wrote:
> .
>> I want to point this out to make clear that chess is not Fide-chess, it
>> is variant chess.
>>
>> Mats
>
> No no no no - Mats, it's Mathew isn't it in the Englisch..
>
> Clearly chess has incensed you & made of you some sort of stupid turnip
> - no?..
>
> Chess is simply "chess" regardless of governing authorities & tediously
> included variants thereof..
>
> t.
>
It's high time to widen the horizons and introduce changes in Western
chess while it is approaching a crisis of creativity among
professionals and a crisis of popularity among amateurs. That's why my
proposal, for instance, is worthy of consideration:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/wintherschess.htm
Mats
|
|
