Den 2007-09-24 22:14:25 skrev Chess One :


"M Winther" wrote in message
newspty362ke13bzrao@kalroten...
Den 2007-09-23 14:42:30 skrev Chess One :

[...]


But for most players, chess is so far from being played-out, or
draw-infested, that no changes are necessary. In fact, very few people
can
even trot out the first dozen moves of relatively popular lines.

I think you address a real problem, Mat, but changing the way the game is
played to accommodate top GMs seems less acceptable to the great majority
of
players, than fiddling with the time controls or with the scoring.

Cordially, Phil Innes


But computers have ousted the masters. I can set up a tournament on my
computer between engines which generates better chess than most
tournaments in the world, and they will play perfectly in the openings,
and
endgames up to 6-pieces. What's the point, then, in including chess in the
Olympic games?

True! I can set up a race with Ferrari's in the 1000 metres, and no human
will win. Trouble is, Ferrari's are not allowed to compete, and neither are
computers, since they both cheat the rules.

But the point I think you do not understand is that most players of chess do
not compete in the olympics or the world championships, and are far from
being grandmasters. To them, there is no draw problem from their own
experience.

Why then do you suggest that rules need changing?

The chessmaster has lost his status, and he will continue
to lose status and creative freedom as the computers are designing the
remaining openings and endgames.

You do understand that that is as illegal as entering a Ferrari in the 1000
metres, right? You can't look up material during the game, and computers
do - so sorry - that's cheating.

We have a problem on the horizon.
I would like to play email chess, but half of my opponents are cheating by
using computers, at least intermittently.

I play lots of corres chess and experience a cheat rate of less than 10%.
Not half.

Had we played chess variants, or
used a swapping pawn move, then they couldn't cheat.

Sure.

So it's not a
problem only to the grandmasters.

You changed the subject ["its"] from Grandmaster draws to correspondance
cheating. Which is it you reference?

I also feel that modern people think that
chess is a little slow and tedious.

Really? To watch or to play? What's boring about a 2 minute game?

Adding flavour to the game could be
worthwhile. The swapping pawn assists the king attack as pawns are
harder to block.

A diversion from the issue.
What is your issue? Cheating or Grandmasters? Both are minor considerations
to the very great majority of chess play. And changing the rules to
accommodate suspected cheaters, ain't in the spirit of the game of chess,
nor any game.

Phil Innes

Mats





I am not out to change the rules. I simply say that *complementing*
the rules could enliven the game. I have chesssplayers in mind who
seem to suffer from an "anal neurosis". They play the same variant of
Bogo Indian defence, decade after decade, and become experts in
bloodless play. I have suggested the following idea:

In "Alternative Chess" the rules are the same as in orthodox chess,
except that one extra piece per player (or two) is placed in the
reserve. Standard chess is included as an option, thereby maintaining
the historical connection. In a tournament, by way of the initial
voting procedure, players can decide to play a traditional game.
Before starting, the players must decide whether they want to use the
extra piece. Practically any piece type can be used. To make a
decision, one can, for instance, turn over a marker, or place the
extra piece in a special way. 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. If players
have elected to include external pieces, they may either move a piece
or pawn, or drop the extra piece from the reserve. Pieces may only be
dropped on a friendly pawn on the second rank. The removed friendly
pawn must immediately be relocated two squares ahead of the dropped
piece. This position, and the position in between, must be empty. If
not, the piece cannot be dropped on the friendly pawn.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/alternativechess.htm

Comparatively, in table tennis they recently made the ball heavier to
improve the game. In soccer they have with time change the size of the
goal, etc. I don't quite understand why it evokes such irritation. It
is my contention that an enormous amount of time and energy is devoted
to chess with the mere result of bloodless draws. Had the game of
chess allowed it, all this time and energy would have resulted in
creative chess, instead of this form of cleanly perfection, what Freud
saw as an anal neurosis, i.e., to have perfect control at any price,
refusing to throw yourself into an unpredictable struggle. Modern
orthochess revolves too much around prediction. Korchnoi has played
Janus Chess, and he says that it allows for creative play to a much
higher degree than modern orthochess.

Is chess in the future only going to attract anal neurotics, who strive
after perfection and total control, or will it allow room for truly creative
fighters, like Spassky, who work from intuition, and not from
preparation? Unlike you guys think, this question involves amateurs,
too, because the nature of a game determines what kind of people are
attracted to it. We must enhance the scope of recruitment, and we can
do this by enhancing the game. I am not desperate to change chess,
I just input my ideas and see where they lead.

Mats