A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Will Internet chess impact chess as such?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 25th 12, 04:10 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
M Winther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default Will Internet chess impact chess as such?

Internet chess is a different experience than table chess. I
conjecture that it will with time influence both its development and
the rules of chess. Table chess is typically slow. It is a much more
psychological and instinctual experience. You can see the terror in
the opponent's face when you sacrifice the bishop with check. Chess is
by nature very strategical and, in the opening phase, very
theoretical, spiced with tactical themes. It demands deep analysis, a
sincere effort, both during the game and before, not to become boorish
wood-chopping.

However, Internet chess is essentially rapid chess, yet without the
psychological atmosphere of table chess. What's more, the very
valuable ingredient, which is the hard toil to produce a memorable
game, is lacking, too. This means that the experience of chess is
devaluated and the game is experienced as somewhat monotonous. Sooner
or later it grows slightly dull. It is as if chess isn't really
designed for Internet play, while it isn't a superficial game. You
must dig deep into it to really appreciate the game. You need good
play from both parties, and a true effort, in order for it to be
really engaging.

I have also played Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) on Internet servers.
Xiangqi is really cut out for the Internet. It is, by nature, a fast
and very intuitive game. It is all about tactics, while strategical
planning plays no part at all. Compared with chess, it is superficial.
Yet it is entertaining as tactical intricacies start immediately and
it goes on until either party is mated. You never get a breather,
because it is all about grabbing the initiative and to attack, before
your opponent does the same. It is fast-paced, since you never have to
find out how to solve difficult problems by devising a deep plan.
Instead, you solve problems by devising short tactical lines involving
some finesse. Sometimes the tactical situation is so impermeable that
you cannot possibly calculate it, even if you have loads of time. At
these occasions one must resort to intuition, which draws on
experience.

Xiangqi opening theory is much different from chess theory. In
Xiangqi, it's like all the variations are thrown into the same bucket.
It's more or less the same themes, which means that you cannot benefit
much from studying theory. There aren't really different lines that
differ radically in opening strategy. Some are more aggressive and
some are slower, that's all. In chess, if a player decides to change
opening from, say, the Stonewall to the Benoni, it's like learning a
different game. If he has played hundreds of Internet games in the
Stonewall, he is becoming slightly bored, and that's why he has
decided to change opening. The "Stonewall universe" of variations is
quite interesting, provided that players make an effort of strategical
planning. But this seldom happens in Internet play. So he decides to
change to the Benoni and finds that he has regressed to amateur level.
This is yet another nail in the coffin for his chess passion.

This never happens in Xiangqi. In opening play anything goes. Provided
that the move isn't immediately refutable, it is wholly playable. As
Xiangqi isn't partitioned into different "opening universes", like the
Benoni and the Stonewall, the whole field of tactical themes are
always present, which is always the same as all other openings. So
there are no constraints and no monotony, which often occurs in
Internet chess, especially when you have played the French Exchange
for the umpteenth time. There is no such thing as a boring or a
drawish opening in Xiangqi.

As Xiangqi opening theory isn't essential, cheating is not a big
issue. Xiangqi softwares are weaker than human players. They seem to
pose no threat at all to Grandmasters. I don't know why it is so. I
don't think the game is more complex. It could have to do with the
ramification of variations, i.e. how the search tree looks, as it is
not partitioned into smaller "opening universes". More importantly,
there is always a tactical trap beyond the search horizon, since
tactical traps are always present.

A feature of Internet chess is that some games are boring while some
are engaging, it's up and down all the time. Games are engaging when
they are well-played, especially when they are theoretically correct,
and no player blunders. However, many games degenerate into dreary
wood-chopping that is essentially meaningless as there is a lack of
intellectual content, only the monotony of realizing a material
advantage. This never happens in Xiangqi. A loss of a pawn in Xiangqi
doesn't mean anything, and even if a player blunders a whole piece the
game often continues, as there is no monotonous way of realizing a
material advantage, but the player must resolve the problems by
tactical measures. Sometimes you can blunder a whole rook. The
tactical complexity is such that the opponent can miss out on one of
the many tactical traps, and then you're back in the game. The
conclusion is that the game is fun even if there has earlier been very
bad play. The search after tactical finesses continues. There is no
such thing as a boring game of Xiangqi. Monotony doesn't exist.
However, the game can be accused of being superficial. Chess is much
deeper.

I fear that Xiangqi will continue to expand on the Internet at the
expense of chess, if Internet chess cannot transform and adapt. We
must begin to differ between Internet chess and table chess. These two
arenas endow chess with very different qualities. A suitable variant
for Internet rapid chess should be developed; a variant, perhaps, that
has some of the characteristics of Xiangqi. For instance, a Xiangqi
pawn cannot be blocked. It might be enough to change the rule for the
pawn, so that it cannot be blocked so easily, what contributes to the
slow and strategical character of chess, so unsuitable for Internet
rapid chess. Such a variant will not make Fide-chess obsolete. As a
belligerent complement to drawish and strategical Fide-chess it will
contribute to the popularity of chess.

M. Winther


  #2  
Old April 25th 12, 04:16 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
M Winther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default Will Internet chess impact chess as such?

"M Winther" skrev i meddelandet
...
[...] For instance, a Xiangqi pawn cannot be blocked. It might be
enough to change the rule for the pawn, so that it cannot be blocked
so easily, what contributes to the slow and strategical character of
chess, so unsuitable for Internet rapid chess. Such a variant will
not make Fide-chess obsolete. As a belligerent complement to drawish
and strategical Fide-chess it will contribute to the popularity of
chess.


"Crab Chess" (Chess4) is specially designed for rapidchess, since it
makes the game more aggressive and less monotonous. Aggressive play on
the flanks is facilitated as pawns cannot easily be blocked, something
which greatly enhances attacking play.

If positioned on a knight- or a rook file a pawn (denoted 'Crab') can
jump like a knight to an empty square, east-north-east or
west-north-west. A condition is that the pawn (Crab) is blocked by an
enemy pawn. Compared with standard chess, this means that a flank pawn
is endowed with an extra jump move. Hence the flanks cannot easily be
blocked, something which greatly enhances attacking play.

There are three different variants of Crab pawns. The pawn is endowed
with the extra jump move to an empty square (1) if blocked anywhere on
the file (2) if blocked on the 4th rank onwards(3) if blocked on the
enemy side. Arguably, this variant is a challenge to Fide-chess for
online play.

A Zillions program, a preset for online play, and more information is
he
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/crabchess.htm

M. Winther





  #3  
Old April 26th 12, 09:21 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
M Winther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default Will Internet chess impact chess as such?


"M Winther" skrev i meddelandet
...
"M Winther" skrev i meddelandet
...
[...] For instance, a Xiangqi pawn cannot be blocked. It might be
enough to change the rule for the pawn, so that it cannot be
blocked
so easily, what contributes to the slow and strategical character
of
chess, so unsuitable for Internet rapid chess. Such a variant will
not make Fide-chess obsolete. As a belligerent complement to
drawish
and strategical Fide-chess it will contribute to the popularity of
chess.


"Crab Chess" (Chess4) is specially designed for rapidchess, since it
makes the game more aggressive and less monotonous. Aggressive play
on
the flanks is facilitated as pawns cannot easily be blocked,
something
which greatly enhances attacking play.

If positioned on a knight- or a rook file a pawn (denoted 'Crab')
can
jump like a knight to an empty square, east-north-east or
west-north-west. A condition is that the pawn (Crab) is blocked by
an
enemy pawn. Compared with standard chess, this means that a flank
pawn
is endowed with an extra jump move. Hence the flanks cannot easily
be
blocked, something which greatly enhances attacking play.

There are three different variants of Crab pawns. The pawn is
endowed
with the extra jump move to an empty square (1) if blocked anywhere
on
the file (2) if blocked on the 4th rank onwards(3) if blocked on the
enemy side. Arguably, this variant is a challenge to Fide-chess for
online play.

A Zillions program, a preset for online play, and more information
is
he
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/crabchess.htm

M. Winther






I decided to rename it "Dynamic Chess" and the pawn to "dynamic pawn".
New link:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/dynamicchess.htm

Mats


  #4  
Old April 28th 12, 07:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
The Master
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,147
Default Will Internet chess impact chess as such?

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 11:10:02 AM UTC-4, M Winther wrote:

Internet chess is a different experience than table chess. I
conjecture that it will with time influence both its development and
the rules of chess.



A safe 'prediction,' since this no doubt has already happened.


Table chess is typically slow.



Whenever I go to a local club to play chess, the favored time control seems to be either five or ten minutes per player, for the entire game. This is hardly slow. Even the local chess tournaments, many of them rated by the USCF, have much faster time controls than in days of old. And I might add that the increment for time-delay clocks is fairly short as well, not quite adequate for the job of preventing the practice of deliberately clock-beating the opponent.


It is a much more
psychological and instinctual experience. You can see the terror in
the opponent's face when you sacrifice the bishop with check.



Or befuddlement. As Clint Eastwood said in one of his many famous movie one-liners, 'You're not going to believe what happens next, even while it's happening.'


Chess is by nature very strategical and, in the opening phase, very
theoretical, spiced with tactical themes. It demands deep analysis, a
sincere effort, both during the game and before, not to become boorish
wood-chopping.



It's easy to criticize my play, but the real question is, can you refute my boorish, wood-chopping moves with superior moves of your own? (See Em. Lasker's famous quip)


However, Internet chess is essentially rapid chess



After receiving an invitation to play at one of the many newer websites a year or so ago, I participated in an online correspondence style chess tournament. The time control was something like two days per move, which hardly fits the above unfounded assertion. On the other hand, whenever I hear others talking about playing chess online, terms like 'bullet-chess' and 'blitz' are tossed about with reckless abandon, so it seems probable that those forms are much more popular on the whole.



yet without the
psychological atmosphere of table chess. What's more, the very
valuable ingredient, which is the hard toil to produce a memorable
game, is lacking, too.



I recall that in one of these correspondence style games, I went awry in the opening and noticed that I was going to be subjected to an unstoppable attack on my castled king, which was basically defenseless. So I immediately sacrificed a piece on the other wing to force simplifying trades-- including a trade of queens. This stopped the attack cold and forced my opponent to shift gears, from his full-on attack mode to endgame finess mode-- a shift he failed to handle smoothly. I systematically advanced my extra pawns further and further up the board, and he refused to give back his extra minor piece to stop them, even when doing so would have left him with a clear advantage. I somehow managed to win (by the hair on my chinny chin chin)..


This means that the experience of chess is
devaluated and the game is experienced as somewhat monotonous. Sooner
or later it grows slightly dull. It is as if chess isn't really
designed for Internet play, while it isn't a superficial game. You
must dig deep into it to really appreciate the game. You need good
play from both parties, and a true effort, in order for it to be
really engaging.



The psychology of online chess is different. You don't always know who --or what-- you are playing. But your crazy idea that online chess is simply 'fast' while OTB chess is best suited to more serious play seems unfounded. Serious chess is best suited to correspondence style time controls, with the rules allowing for analysis on other boards. But many, perhaps most, chessplayers settle for OTB chess, with severely limited thinking times and multiple games contested in a single day, as in weekend Swiss tournaments.. Online, you can usually choose your own time control, but you may have limited chocies of opponents if you are only willing to play at very slow time limits.

But even if fast time controls are much more popular than slow ones online, there is no sense in recklessly leaping from that observation to the assertion that online is fast while OTB chess is slow or more serious. There is plenty of casual blitz chess as well as bughouse played over the board, not to mention offhand odds games, such as Paul Morphy vs. Phil Innes-- but that's a story for another day.
  #5  
Old April 29th 12, 10:04 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
M Winther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default Will Internet chess impact chess as such?

"The Master" skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 11:10:02 AM UTC-4, M Winther wrote:

Internet chess is a different experience than table chess. I
conjecture that it will with time influence both its development
and
the rules of chess.



A safe 'prediction,' since this no doubt has already happened.


Table chess is typically slow.



Whenever I go to a local club to play chess, the favored time
control seems to be either five or ten minutes per player, for the
entire game. This is hardly slow. Even the local chess
tournaments, many of them rated by the USCF, have much faster time
controls than in days of old. And I might add that the increment
for time-delay clocks is fairly short as well, not quite adequate
for the job of preventing the practice of deliberately clock-beating
the opponent.


It is a much more
psychological and instinctual experience. You can see the terror in
the opponent's face when you sacrifice the bishop with check.



Or befuddlement. As Clint Eastwood said in one of his many famous
movie one-liners, 'You're not going to believe what happens next,
even while it's happening.'


Chess is by nature very strategical and, in the opening phase,
very
theoretical, spiced with tactical themes. It demands deep analysis,
a
sincere effort, both during the game and before, not to become
boorish
wood-chopping.



It's easy to criticize my play, but the real question is, can you
refute my boorish, wood-chopping moves with superior moves of your
own? (See Em. Lasker's famous quip)


However, Internet chess is essentially rapid chess



After receiving an invitation to play at one of the many newer
websites a year or so ago, I participated in an online
correspondence style chess tournament. The time control was
something like two days per move, which hardly fits the above
unfounded assertion. On the other hand, whenever I hear others
talking about playing chess online, terms like 'bullet-chess' and
'blitz' are tossed about with reckless abandon, so it seems probable
that those forms are much more popular on the whole.



yet without the
psychological atmosphere of table chess. What's more, the very
valuable ingredient, which is the hard toil to produce a memorable
game, is lacking, too.



I recall that in one of these correspondence style games, I went
awry in the opening and noticed that I was going to be subjected to
an unstoppable attack on my castled king, which was basically
defenseless. So I immediately sacrificed a piece on the other wing
to force simplifying trades-- including a trade of queens. This
stopped the attack cold and forced my opponent to shift gears, from
his full-on attack mode to endgame finess mode-- a shift he failed
to handle smoothly. I systematically advanced my extra pawns
further and further up the board, and he refused to give back his
extra minor piece to stop them, even when doing so would have left
him with a clear advantage. I somehow managed to win (by the hair
on my chinny chin chin).


This means that the experience of chess is
devaluated and the game is experienced as somewhat monotonous.
Sooner
or later it grows slightly dull. It is as if chess isn't really
designed for Internet play, while it isn't a superficial game. You
must dig deep into it to really appreciate the game. You need good
play from both parties, and a true effort, in order for it to be
really engaging.



The psychology of online chess is different. You don't always know
who --or what-- you are playing. But your crazy idea that online
chess is simply 'fast' while OTB chess is best suited to more
serious play seems unfounded. Serious chess is best suited to
correspondence style time controls, with the rules allowing for
analysis on other boards. But many, perhaps most, chessplayers
settle for OTB chess, with severely limited thinking times and
multiple games contested in a single day, as in weekend Swiss
tournaments. Online, you can usually choose your own time control,
but you may have limited chocies of opponents if you are only
willing to play at very slow time limits.

But even if fast time controls are much more popular than slow ones
online, there is no sense in recklessly leaping from that
observation to the assertion that online is fast while OTB chess is
slow or more serious. There is plenty of casual blitz chess as well
as bughouse played over the board, not to mention offhand odds
games, such as Paul Morphy vs. Phil Innes-- but that's a story for
another day.




Thanks for your comments. My standpoint is that correspondence chess
is dying on account of the computers. What's the point in playing
against a huge opening database, and after the opening, what's the
point in playing against a multi-core computer running Rybka, etc.?

Bullet and blitz isn't chess, really. Nobody takes it really
seriously, although it is fun. Chess will be played in rapid form over
the Internet. However, my argument is that today's chess rules don't
suit this development. Something must be done to make the game more
tactical and aggressive, like Shogi and Xiangqi.

Rapid chess on Internet servers isn't very engaging in the long run,
because chess isn't designed to be played at this rapid pace. With
Xiangqi it works very fine, however. One is always presented with
tactical problems, from the first to the last move. There is no
monotonous wood-chopping, so it's suitable for rapid play. Rapid chess
would be much more fun if the tactical vistas were to be opened up,
although slow standard chess at amateur level is a different matter.
In this Chessbase article series "Give up the sissy version - play
Chinese chess!" prof. David H. Li expounds on his love of Xiangqi.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2455

Don't let yourself be fooled, chess is the superior game. The
difference is that Xiangqi is never boring, because there are always
clever little tactics, sometimes involving the cannon. Cannon tactics,
unknown to Western chess players, is very peculiar. The conclusion is
that Xiangqi is more rewarding when played over the Internet, with the
exception of blitz and bullet games, which involve a race against the
clock. Chess in this form is exciting but not very sophisticated.

Chess involves many standard methods, like realizing a passed pawn on
a wing, thereby forcing the enemy king to hunt it down, whereupon you
can enter his position, capture his pawns, advance your own pawn and
promote to queen. Such methods don't exist in Xiangqi. You always have
to figure out how to mate the other party before he mates you, with
whatever little material there is left. Pawns don't promote.

Chess, when played rapidly, always boils down to standard methods of
tactics, standard piece exchanges, standard mating methods, standard
positional plans (taking control of an open file with the heavy pieces
is a theme repeated over and over again). It is a matter of technique
and opening knowledge. I admit that rapid chess is slightly fun, but
Xiangqi is much more exciting when played over the Internet, because
one cannot apply monotonous standard techniques. A player who tries,
will lose immediately. You always have to be on your guard.

Chess is deep and must be played deeply. However, since chess is so
extremely methodical, it also lends itself to blitz and bullet games.
It occupies the extremes, that is. It is not possible to play blitz
and bullet games in Xiangqi. There are too many exacting moves to be
done. Too a high-degree chess can be played with the auto-pilot
switched on. This is not possible with Xiangqi. But when chess is
played with the auto-pilot you soon get tired of the wood-chopping,
although there is a nice combination now and then.

Compared with chess, Xiangqi and Shogi overflow with tactics, which is
why these games are never boring and monotonous. I am arguing that we
are doing chess a disservice when we refuse to provide chess players
with an alternative variant in which they can get an outlet for their
creativity and tactical imagination. It would function as a complement
to Fide-chess, and would serve to enrich chess, in order for it to
remain popular.

M. Winther


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chess Books for Sale! William Bybel rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 April 6th 10 10:14 AM
Computer Chess; Chess Books Sanford rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 December 6th 05 08:34 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 4th 05 05:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2014 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.