|
Chess discussion continues here |
On November 21 2013 04:43 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 04:03 RedFury wrote:
Players don't go crazy with "romantic play" of course but still I don't get why Anand keep chosing the Ruy Lopez.
Now it has been a while since I last played chess but isn't the Ruy Lopez one of the most explored (and thus drawish) openings?
Is it a case that Carlsen always chose more "interesting" openings when he had white pieces? Well as a chess-player it really gives you a huge boost if you play the systems and opening you know in and out. Anand is a super classical player, he plays e4 almost exclusively and the Ruy Lopez whenever his opponents let him. Carlsen is a lot more versatile, but he also prefers the classical systems. So i don't think you can say that Carlsen is a lot more interesting or dynamic when it comes to openings. He mainly shines at the endgame. If you'd ask for people who really play dynamic in the opening, Nakamura comes to mind. Ivanchuk also produces crazy games a lot of the time, but only if he's in a good mood. All in all dynamic play has become a little rare as most GM's seem to prefer positional games and grinding out endgame positions nowadays.
Anand's perfectly capable of playing d4 and he's employed it in important matches before. The match vs Kramnik comes to mind, probably the best match Anand ever played. He's also played more sicilians than ruys with black in his career.
I don't think the choice to go into the Berlin was a matter of comfort zone but a conscious decision that he was fine with a draw as black. The sicilian's fallen somewhat out of favour at the top level and he has to be afraid to run into some preparation by Carlsen, especially since Carlsen would probably steer away from any main lines that Anand knows best.
|
On the topic of Chess960,
Have any of you heard about Kasparov's suggestion for chess? He says that there should be cycles for starting positions. Let's say we start out with the current starting position, then after some years we pick a new starting position, and so on.
Kasparov thinks the advantage over Fischer random chess is that you can restrict the potential starting positions to only a dozen or so sensible positions unlike the pure madness of random chess. (since for instance Kramnik said that many of the initial positions are clumsy to play due to artificial looking piece placement) And it would simultaneously reward people for studying opening theory while cutting down on the theory you'd need to memorize.
Fischer himself has rejected this proposal though, since it basically defeats the purpose of the random starting positions (i.e. the inability to prepare).
Personally I quite like the idea. I think my favorite set-up would be to change the rules of chess globally as follows:
- teach children to play random chess, they will enjoy setting up the pieces without having to memorize the specific starting position or specific openings on a more advanced level
- slightly off-topic, but on changing the rules: change the promotion rule so that you can replace the promoting pawn with one of your lost pieces, e.g. you can't change into a queen if it's still on the board. This makes promotion more intuitive.
- after every world championship cycle you can change the initial position, as proposed by Kasparov, giving more prominence to the world championship
- don't force local chess clubs to switch to the new rules, but just give them a choice
Personally I'd like to continue playing standard chess because I'm comfortable with it. And the only real reason to change chess now is that there are some issues with it on a professional level. Drawing death might be a phantom problem, but the perception exists at least. Nevertheless, I think that for younger players the Fischer chess rules are more intuitive and that for that purpose it could be an acceptable transition.
Also, it's very typical for competitive games to have specific restrictions for professional play. For instance, the shot clock for basketball which doesn't exist for casual basketball play, or ignoring the offside rule for casual soccer play. You can create specific rules for professional, competitive chess without interfering with the chess played by average people.
|
I absolutely love the idea of fischer-chess and it feels like the future compared to drawheavy, analysed gameplay. I played chess on a pretty high level as a child and totally/instantly lost interest when I was forced to learn openings to keep competing.
There was nothing creative anymore and around that age (~13 years old) other things suddenly become important (real life, school etc), and maybe thats a big problem, since gameplay becomes very stale and yet you have to invest alot more time to keep up.
I was never able to really play fischer-chess but thinking about it makes me hyped for chess again. It requires new creativity/problemsolvingpatterns and we really have enough stupid textbooklearning in school already.
|
Fischer random isn't a terrible way to play chess, but I think it would need to be played in 2-game sets with the same starting positions in both games, because white's advantage varies tremendously.
|
Would a chess 2.0 ever succeed? Instead of making a different version of the same game, why not make an entirely new chess? I guess what chess is would be up to debate, but if you keep all the pieces and core concepts but add in some ideas in modern game design, could it work? I'm thinking things like making it online, giving pieces health and attack stats, and increasing the number of moves per player as the game progresses.
|
On November 21 2013 09:43 Kishin2 wrote:
Would a chess 2.0 ever succeed? Instead of making a different version of the same game, why not make an entirely new chess? I guess what chess is would be up to debate, but if you keep all the pieces and core concepts but add in some ideas in modern game design, could it work? I'm thinking things like making it online, giving pieces health and attack stats, and increasing the number of moves per player as the game progresses.
please no
|
your Country52798 Posts
On November 21 2013 09:43 Kishin2 wrote:
Would a chess 2.0 ever succeed? Instead of making a different version of the same game, why not make an entirely new chess? I guess what chess is would be up to debate, but if you keep all the pieces and core concepts but add in some ideas in modern game design, could it work? I'm thinking things like making it online, giving pieces health and attack stats, and increasing the number of moves per player as the game progresses.
yeah and we should give brood war players infinite map vision and make them take turns doing something.
maybe not
|
On November 21 2013 09:18 mTwRINE wrote:
I absolutely love the idea of fischer-chess and it feels like the future compared to drawheavy, analysed gameplay. I played chess on a pretty high level as a child and totally/instantly lost interest when I was forced to learn openings to keep competing.
There was nothing creative anymore and around that age (~13 years old) other things suddenly become important (real life, school etc), and maybe thats a big problem, since gameplay becomes very stale and yet you have to invest alot more time to keep up.
I was never able to really play fischer-chess but thinking about it makes me hyped for chess again. It requires new creativity/problemsolvingpatterns and we really have enough stupid textbooklearning in school already.
The same argument applies to other sports. You have to train in order to get better.
Chess is not just about playing on the board but also analyzing games and learning variations off the board. It is full time commitment. It's like saying let's keep varying rules of basketball so that a random kid from a high school can appear out of nowhere and own others... Chess, as many things in life, simply require patience and proper work ethic.
|
It really baffles me that so many people still think memorizing countless opening moves and staying ahead of theory is still critical when the current best player in the world is known for playing relatively weak openings and focusing solely on middle and late game play to derive his advantages and win games. And if you aren't playing at a grandmaster or super GM level the openings mean even less for you than they do for Carlsen.
I think it is more likely that players want to blame their failure to advance as a player on their refusal to study opening theory. It is the chess equivalent of imbalance whine.
|
On November 21 2013 14:31 jacevedo wrote:
It really baffles me that so many people still think memorizing countless opening moves and staying ahead of theory is still critical when the current best player in the world is known for playing relatively weak openings and focusing solely on middle and late game play to derive his advantages and win games. And if you aren't playing at a grandmaster or super GM level the openings mean even less for you than they do for Carlsen.
I think it is more likely that players want to blame their failure to advance as a player on their refusal to study opening theory. It is the chess equivalent of imbalance whine.
Do you play chess?
Carlsen knows a shit ton of openings and opening theory. He just seems weak in the opening because he hasn't memorized/ experienced as many lines as some might have.
Openings are substantial at any level above novice play. For example, do you know the best way to respond to a few English variations? The Queen's Gambit? There are many ways to reply and be in a competitive position, but there are many more ways to screw yourself over in the first ten moves. Even if it's not strictly necessary to memorize a ton of lines, you can't afford to allow an opponent to gain a significant advantage early simply because you didn't study the openings.
One of the reasons that I stopped playing competitive chess is because I hit a plateau in between, for my age, being a decent player and a good one. Part of that plateau involved learning more openings and responses. My tactics were adequate, I hardly ever made serious blunders, and I was pretty good at the endgame. However, I was losing the advantage handily in the first 10-15 turns because I hadn't studied openings. There's no other way to put it.
|
Is there anything other than the Spanish Anand could play against e5? Something like the Scotch or Bc4 and Ng5 against the two knights defense looks much more sensible in a must win situation. I don't know if that's true at the highest level as well though.
Or is Carlsen more likely to play Bc5 than Nf6 against the Italian?
|
On November 21 2013 14:48 Chocolate wrote:
Carlsen knows a shit ton of openings and opening theory. He just seems weak in the opening because he hasn't memorized/ experienced as many lines as some might have.
I am of the opposite opinion regarding this. Carlsen knowingly plays weaker openings to get out of the areas his opponent has prepared. It is his way of countering preparation chess which is played at the top level.
|
On November 21 2013 15:10 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 14:48 Chocolate wrote:
Carlsen knows a shit ton of openings and opening theory. He just seems weak in the opening because he hasn't memorized/ experienced as many lines as some might have.
I am of the opposite opinion regarding this. Carlsen knowingly plays weaker openings to get out of the areas his opponent has prepared. It is his way of countering preparation chess which is played at the top level.
Yes, that's exactly right. And he knows he might be slightly worse in the opening theoretically, but it doesn't matter unless his opponent can force their theoretical advantage into being, and that's what people who exaggerate the importance of openings do not understand. You can watch countless grandmasters games where the evaluation changes from one side to the other several times during a match, which illustrates how much more important the moves in the middle and late game actually are.
|
On November 21 2013 14:31 jacevedo wrote:
It really baffles me that so many people still think memorizing countless opening moves and staying ahead of theory is still critical when the current best player in the world is known for playing relatively weak openings and focusing solely on middle and late game play to derive his advantages and win games. And if you aren't playing at a grandmaster or super GM level the openings mean even less for you than they do for Carlsen.
I think it is more likely that players want to blame their failure to advance as a player on their refusal to study opening theory. It is the chess equivalent of imbalance whine.
Unfortunately playing quiet lines seems to be the best way to avoid opening preparation. I think people would love to play English attacks, KID pawn storms or Winaver Poisonned Pawn like positions without having to worry about facing decades of grandmaster analysis error checked by the best chess engines.
|
On November 21 2013 14:55 hypercube wrote:
Is there anything other than the Spanish Anand could play against e5? Something like the Scotch or Bc4 and Ng5 against the two knights defense looks much more sensible in a must win situation. I don't know if that's true at the highest level as well though.
Or is Carlsen more likely to play Bc5 than Nf6 against the Italian?
I just don't see it. I mean, Carlsen showed relatively recently that he can play the Ponziani and make it work, but to put your hopes into something like that in a WC match? I really don't see Anand doing it. If he's at all prepared to play 1. d4, I think today's the time to show it.
|
On November 21 2013 09:18 mTwRINE wrote:
I was never able to really play fischer-chess but thinking about it makes me hyped for chess again. It requires new creativity/problemsolvingpatterns and we really have enough stupid textbooklearning in school already.
This sounds eerily similar to people who were complaining during the mid BW era that builds were getting standardized. 'lack of creativity' is just an excuse for people who aren't good, its not like you will do better at all as the good players that learned(understanding why these opening moves are played) will still crush you because they have a deeper understanding of chess. Yeah some people just memorize the lines, but its easy to tell those people apart from those who have a deeper understanding of them.
|
How about draft chess? Kings go in the normal spot but you alternate placing the non-pawn pieces. Maybe black places first but white plays first. What do you think?
|
On November 21 2013 11:20 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 09:43 Kishin2 wrote:
Would a chess 2.0 ever succeed? Instead of making a different version of the same game, why not make an entirely new chess? I guess what chess is would be up to debate, but if you keep all the pieces and core concepts but add in some ideas in modern game design, could it work? I'm thinking things like making it online, giving pieces health and attack stats, and increasing the number of moves per player as the game progresses. yeah and we should give brood war players infinite map vision and make them take turns doing something. maybe not
I was thinking along the lines of chess with hearthstone mechanics.
|
On November 21 2013 15:38 JumboJohnson wrote:
How about draft chess? Kings go in the normal spot but you alternate placing the non-pawn pieces. Maybe black places first but white plays first. What do you think?
I'm sure drafts would become standardized too. It might give an additional layer of complexity and might be fun, but it wouldn't get rid of the 'problem' of preparation (if it's indeed a problem).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
