10 Nov 08
Originally posted by Tsekos the punkI think(not sure) that there are some positions where white almost wins by force...
The point is this..
Fischer suggested his new variant of chess, the so-called "fischerandom chess".
The advantage of fischerandom chess when compared with orthodox chess has been mentioned and explained by Fischer himself.
Now what disadvantages does Fischerandom have when compared with orthodox chess?
Does it have any?
And if it does ...[text shortened]... t have any, wouldn't it be wise to replace orthodox chess with fischerandom once and for all?
10 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Tsekos the punkIt's too radical a change. I prefer Dvoretsky's more proportional suggestion...
Now what disadvantages does Fischerandom have when compared with orthodox chess?
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/dvoretsky88.pdf
In short, Dvoretsky suggests changing the initial position based on a random "one step" pawn move by either side. This is enough to counter the memorisation of opening theory, while maintaining the character of chess as we know it today.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by Varenkanah, I like FR better...
It's too radical a change. I prefer Dvoretsky's more proportional suggestion...
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/dvoretsky88.pdf
In short, Dvoretsky suggests changing the initial position based on a random "one step" pawn move by either side. This is enough to counter the memorisation of opening theory, while maintaining the character of chess as we know it today.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by vipiuFair enough. 🙂
nah, I like FR better...
Although many people don't like having to memorise opening theory in order to compete with their peers, I believe there is still a desire to maintain familar characteristics of chess such as fianchetto bishops; common pawn structures; having to develop all pieces to unite rooks; etc.
What problem does FR solve that Dvoretsky's suggestion doesn't? None. But FR solves the problem over and beyond.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by VarenkaI have a feeling that this would even increase the number of draws at high level...
Fair enough. 🙂
Although many people don't like having to memorise opening theory in order to compete with their peers, I believe there is still a desire to maintain familar characteristics of chess such as fianchetto bishops; common pawn structures; having to develop all pieces to unite rooks; etc.
What problem does FR solve that Dvoretsky's suggestion doesn't? None. But FR solves the problem over and beyond.
the nice part of the FR is that brings new position that the humans are not used to...and when they are not used they play with many flaws and blunders...
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by Tsekos the punkthe blatantly obvious disadvantage is that it doesn't have hundreds of years of opening theory. without it, every game starts with a desperate scramble for piece coordination and sensible position. but the problem is, nobody is able to come up with sound positions by analysing just a couple of minutes for every move. the result is a messy blitz-like ad hoc game, which could as well be described as 'ugly crap'. and very few people can see much beauty in that sort of thing. which I suppose is the reason why practically nobody plays 960 except for checking it out once or twice.
Now what disadvantages does Fischerandom have when compared with orthodox chess?
Does it have any?
And if it does not have any, wouldn't it be wise to replace orthodox chess with fischerandom once and for all?
10 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Tsekos the punkNot at all. Opening theory is a natural and intriguing part of chess. It is much, like a general studying previous battles and contemplating new strategies or improvements. It's one of the most interesting aspects of chess and gives the game even more depth and personal flavor while allowing us to explore like scientists if we choose. Another plus side is that these theoretical positions tend to be more complex and interesting than I could ever come up with in a typical game with no knowledge of theory. It's true it raises the learning curve a bit but this is negligible for an amateur and most that is worth doing is going to require some effort. Moreover, I find even involved theoretical openings to be a minor problem to learn. Just going through the database and a few key games will impress on me the character of the positions and I will find remembering theory simple. Of course, playing equally well as in my other openings will take longer. However, serious opening study is by no means essential unless your playing level is incredibly high and you can take advantage of small nuances or minuscule advantages in that stage. Even then, a sufficient difference in strength will negate the opening stage. For example, if Rybka started with no book as well as a pawn and move handicap against a typical GM, she would still have excellent chances to win (this has happened and is well-demonstrated). Opening theory is really only relevant in the context of similar playing strengths.
In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorization is en tion and prearrangement like it is today.
Bobby Fischer at a Radio Interview, June 27 1999
Thus, I don't think FR is a solution since there isn't a problem to solve. Moreover, FR takes away from chess's universality and elegance. In the normal chess position after 1. e4 and 2. d4, the pieces have maximum scope and a myriad of plans exist. FR positions are more awkward and nonsensical - such as with a bishop on h1 where only one real development plan exists. It seems like half the game is trying to reach the scope offered by chess's starting position. Moreover, it ads to the complexity and makes the games less relevant to us since we're unlikely to reach any similar positions.
BTW: While now I find learning openings simple, when I was just starting out, it seemed difficult. Even in the Accelerated Dragon, I'd need to refer to the book to see if I should play Bg7 first or Nc6. It seems that the importance of opening theory and one's ability to learn it is correlated with strength. Most strong players I know have not found theory to be a hurdle except when they were starting out. After that, maintenance was easy and sometimes not even necessary since they understood the positions well. Although, I do know a few people that have put a lot of effort in memorizing theory and managed it successfully but can't even touch an 1800 player because the rest of their game is so much weaker.
10 Nov 08
I disagree that chess is dead, look at the noveltys that topolov and anand have unleashed on kramnik in the last year. Also a lot of openings just don't get used at the top level, leaving scope for creativity in them.
On older players it is said that Morphy had a perfect memory so one look at MCO and he'd be fine!
10 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jonrothwellEven if there weren't any serious novelties, that wouldn't mean chess is dead. It would mean that chess has progressed to new heights of precision and we are all closer to understanding its inner mysteries, elegance and beauty. Although, I'm sure there will always be low theory alternatives which give reasonable positions.
I disagree that chess is dead, look at the noveltys that topolov and anand have unleashed on kramnik in the last year. Also a lot of openings just don't get used at the top level, leaving scope for creativity in them.
On older players it is said that Morphy had a perfect memory so one look at MCO and he'd be fine!
Additionally, we should not forget that the opening is only one part of the game and there is plenty of scope to outplay your opponent elsewhere. Even with 3200 ELO engines, we are still far from perfect chess and it's probably impossible for a human to play perfect chess consistently.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by Tsekos the punkI think, in his own delusional mind, that he needed chess to 'die' after he quit playing it. It was his way of rationalizing away the achievements of future champions [along with alleging match-fixing].
In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorization is en ...[text shortened]... tion and prearrangement like it is today.
Bobby Fischer at a Radio Interview, June 27 1999
There are still opening novelties being discovered and Black cannot just draw every game at will even at the highest level. The 'old' chess is not dead yet.
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamRuss said there will be Fischerandom sometime in the future. The task is quite complex because RHP has to develop an entire new rating system and that takes time.
Oh come on. Some kid that's looked at modern openings could outplay Morphy or Capablanca?
Fischer was in bad health and obviously suffering from dementia when he said that.
The statement is ridiculous.
But once available, it will be a great option for players who don't want to waste time with opening theory.