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

Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 15th 16, 10:44 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Andy Walker[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On 13/12/16 18:15, Quadibloc wrote:
[...]
The problem that I am trying to address - [...]
is that Chess isn't all that popular with the general public.
Supposedly, during the Romantic era of Chess, during the years of Morphy and
Staunton and so on, Chess was more popular than it is now.


Do you have any evidence for this? How many leading players were
there? How many clubs? How many teams in local leagues? It's true that
there was much more chess news in the papers, inc chess problems, but what
other chess activity was there? Esp outside Europe and NAmerica.

Then, as Chess became less exciting in the post-Steinitz era, the only thing
that saved Chess from dying out was Soviet sponsorship of the game.


??? I don't see any signs of this. There was an Euwe boom in the
Netherlands before the war, and post-war chess was popular in Argentina,
Germany, Yugoslavia, Iceland, ....

And then Bobby Fischer came along, stimulating American interest in Chess for
the same reason that van Cliburn stimulated American interest in classical
music; hey, we've got somebody who can beat the Russians at their own game!


'Tis true enough that there was a Fischer boom. Locally, chess went
from 16 teams in the league to over 80, and the local players from 100 or so
to around 500, ...

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, though, Chess has gone into free-fall.


..., and is now down to around half of that. But still more than at
any time pre-Fischer. But that's organised, over-the-board chess. Meanwhile,
chess has spread around the world, with world-class players from India, China
and other places not previously noted for GM chess. There is also on-line
chess, and many more people who play against their computer or mobile 'phone.
More people are playing chess than ever in history, more are doing so as
professionals, more books are being written, more tournaments are being
held, there is more money in the game.

It's not just chess. Nottingham has recently acquired [at least]
three games cafes, where people can play board games [inc chess], card
games, dice games or video games over a cup of coffee [wine/beer/food].
Our newspapers are full of Sudoku and other "mind games". The games scene
seems to me to be booming as never before; chess may not be the principal
beneficiary of this, but I don't see it as in decline -- *except* for the
old-fashioned "turn out in the cold of winter to play at the club" sort of
chess. It may be different elsewhere in the world.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
  #22  
Old December 16th 16, 12:25 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 534
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:45:10 PM UTC-7, Andy Walker wrote:
I don't see it as in decline -- *except* for the
old-fashioned "turn out in the cold of winter to play at the club" sort of
chess.


It's certainly true that the Internet doesn't just give people a lot of other
things to do besides playing Chess, it also lets them play Chess with each
other in a convenient fashion.

You may *well* be right, though, that I'm trying to solve a nonexistent problem.

On further reflection, what I may have been encountering is gripes from people
who have IM or GM status, but who aren't in contention for the World
Championship, who think that being a chess-player at that level should be *a
full-time paying job*. For _that_ to be the case, Chess would have to be quite
popular indeed... and my suggestions are aimed at giving Chess potential mass
appeal.

So draws in the World Championship are deadly *for the mass-media popularity of
the World Championship* which draws money both for the prize fund to those
players and *also* to FIDE (let's ignore the fact that a corrupt buddy of Putin
apparently is in charge of that now; presumably a different world chess
federation can be organized to supplant them if need be) and that money goes to
stuff like the prize funds for the Interzonals which suddenly become big enough
for the good players to *make a living* from them.

Something like how the money from major league baseball subsidizes the farm
teams.

So it's not that I'm trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist: most IMs and
GMs have to have day jobs. Rather, the idea that the problem *could* be solved
is... well, a dream and a fantasy.

But since chess players would be the ones who *benefit* from a solution, the
fact that it makes them _work_ for their money is hardly unfair.

John Savard
  #23  
Old December 17th 16, 07:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 5:45:10 PM UTC-5, Andy Walker wrote:
On 13/12/16 18:15, Quadibloc wrote:
[...]
The problem that I am trying to address - [...]
is that Chess isn't all that popular with the general public.
Supposedly, during the Romantic era of Chess, during the years of Morphy and
Staunton and so on, Chess was more popular than it is now.


Do you have any evidence for this? How many leading players were
there? How many clubs? How many teams in local leagues? It's true that
there was much more chess news in the papers, inc chess problems, but what
other chess activity was there? Esp outside Europe and NAmerica.


What Staunton did was change chess from the game of attitudes to a game of the people _ especially working and middle class people in the north of England.

Then, as Chess became less exciting in the post-Steinitz era, the only thing
that saved Chess from dying out was Soviet sponsorship of the game.


??? I don't see any signs of this. There was an Euwe boom in the
Netherlands before the war, and post-war chess was popular in Argentina,
Germany, Yugoslavia, Iceland, ....


In fact if you look at depth of playing strength, who won the Olympiads before the 2nd world war — Soviets didn't, it was the USA

It's true the USSR took over after the war with state sponsorship of players, but amazingly this didn't pan out perfectly either, since who beat em as a team? It was little [comparatively] Hungary in 1978 with Adorjan, Portisch, Ribli and Sax.


And then Bobby Fischer came along, stimulating American interest in Chess for
the same reason that van Cliburn stimulated American interest in classical
music; hey, we've got somebody who can beat the Russians at their own game!



"Their own game?"

What was incomprehensible to Soviet Officials was the lone wolf with no seconds, no state or other sponsorship who simply smashed them up.

Phil Innes


'Tis true enough that there was a Fischer boom. Locally, chess went
from 16 teams in the league to over 80, and the local players from 100 or so
to around 500, ...

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, though, Chess has gone into free-fall.


..., and is now down to around half of that. But still more than at
any time pre-Fischer. But that's organised, over-the-board chess. Meanwhile,
chess has spread around the world, with world-class players from India, China
and other places not previously noted for GM chess. There is also on-line
chess, and many more people who play against their computer or mobile 'phone.
More people are playing chess than ever in history, more are doing so as
professionals, more books are being written, more tournaments are being
held, there is more money in the game.

It's not just chess. Nottingham has recently acquired [at least]
three games cafes, where people can play board games [inc chess], card
games, dice games or video games over a cup of coffee [wine/beer/food].
Our newspapers are full of Sudoku and other "mind games". The games scene
seems to me to be booming as never before; chess may not be the principal
beneficiary of this, but I don't see it as in decline -- *except* for the
old-fashioned "turn out in the cold of winter to play at the club" sort of
chess. It may be different elsewhere in the world.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

  #24  
Old December 17th 16, 08:15 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar


It would be interesting if Black won more games by trying to
win; not so if it was simply a result of random blunders.


I don't think we are so very far apart Andy, both of us liking the older or current English league system.

Personally I think if you can provoke more interesting games between people, rather than computer analysis, this is also a skill, and besides is more interesting to viewers.

I am still talking a game of 90 mins each, or 3 hours — an hour more than a marathon. And this is more exciting I think, while allowing for adventurous play.

As before, if you want perfection go watch 2 computers play each other over 24 hours.

I think something like this will also change the draw rate, and give black a chance to pull off some stuff.

I'm sure that some of the top players would be very pleased to
play at a much faster rate, confident in their ability to intuit moves
better than most/all other players of a similar standard. But I'm also
sure that most of them would like as much time as is consistent with
finishing the games in one session -- already significantly faster than
the time limits of the WC matches [and top tournaments] of history.


I'm not sure of that, or perhaps to allow you your point, 'some top players' might.


I am not talking about blitz but proposing a game still lasting 3
hours for which there could be 30 hours of preparation.


Well, that's fine. There's no reason why we shouldn't have
events at various rates, and the skills required are sufficiently
different that we should not be surprised if the world champions at
5-minute chess, 30m chess, 90m chess and 4h chess are all different,
and all comparatively weak at the other rates, just as no-one is in
the least surprised that neither Usain Bolt nor Mo Farah is [as far
as we know] world class at the 800m.

[...] Time in chess is probably a factor resulting from an historic
lack of preparatory materials, so much more needed to be figured out
OTB.


Nevertheless, modern players still tend to use up as much
time as they have available in order to reach move 40. Is there
any sign that top players really would prefer to have substantially
less time?


Is there any sign that the game should be derived from the 99.999 percentile? Don't ask Nakamura.


If people really want to see 'Best Chess' which they cannot
understand I propose people watch computer games, which logically
provide them exactly what they are looking for, and even give them
analytics along the way! What is anyone's objection to that?


Personally, I don't particularly want to watch long games
at all. Chess is not a spectator sport. My own interest is piqued
primarily by playing through deeply annotated games, esp if these
include evidence from the players about what they were thinking at
the time.


I agree with you. In fact my favorite chess book is just such, and based on Correspondence games.

But we are interested in something else are we not? We are interested
in the best player who incidentally, makes fewer mistakes, and also
can capitalize on mistakes of others, or like Nakamura or Tal or
Morphy, provoke mistakes or complex trade-offs of initiative and
material — over time.


Yes, but I have not the foggiest why anyone should suppose
that this works better at faster rates. It has always been the case
that some players operate by trying to avoid mistakes and others by
trying to provoke them; some by dampening the game down and seeking
to exploit minute advantages, others by sharpening it up and taking
the fight to the opponent.


it was always the case before computers. Now the top 30 players play each other without much intrusion by others, and the amount of investigation of this small field of opponents is very large. This is especially true in WCh formats. So things are no longer as they used to be.

At faster rates of play you are encouraged to play dynamically and not so safely, no? Who is more interesting, Nakamura or Karpov?


This is just as true -- indeed, perhaps
more so -- in correspondence chess as in 5-minute chess, suggesting
that it has little to do with the rate of play.


I do not see why it is as you say. On the contrary, playing gambits which need be sorted out in more time than it takes to run a marathon seem to have deadened the game, and the personalities of the players — and ensured that the game does not achieve greater public acceptance.

Phil Innes


--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

  #25  
Old December 17th 16, 09:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Offramp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,152
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

Botvinnik didn't use a second.
  #26  
Old December 18th 16, 12:11 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Andy Walker[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On 17/12/16 20:15, wrote:
I am still talking a game of 90 mins each, or 3 hours — an hour more
than a marathon. And this is more exciting I think, while allowing
for adventurous play.


This happens to be the time allowance in the local league, and
I find it significantly too fast. Well, that's for evening play, and
there are limits to how much time is possible if it takes an hour after
work to travel to the match and an hour after the match to get home at
a reasonable time. I don't think having to play moves without having
analysed them properly makes play more adventurous; if anything, it
leads to cautious, safe play. With blunders. My own most exciting
games are in correspondence chess -- despite computers.

[...]
Nevertheless, modern players still tend to use up as much
time as they have available in order to reach move 40. Is there
any sign that top players really would prefer to have substantially
less time?

Is there any sign that the game should be derived from the 99.999
percentile? Don't ask Nakamura.


"The game"? No. WC matches? Yes.

[...]
At faster rates of play you are encouraged to play dynamically and
not so safely, no?


No. Quite the opposite, actually. You are "encouraged" to
play without proper thought. I don't see why anyone should suppose
this to be good for the game.

Who is more interesting, Nakamura or Karpov?


When they play a match and we can compare directly, we'll be
in a position to know. Until then, you're comparing styles rather
than time limits. Note that Kasparov was much more "interesting" than
Karpov before their first title match, but pretty soon he'd clocked
up five losses and had to change his style -- which, of course, he
turned out to be well capable of doing.

[... P]laying gambits
which need be sorted out in more time than it takes to run a marathon
seem to have deadened the game, and the personalities of the players
— and ensured that the game does not achieve greater public
acceptance.


I don't pretend to know any of the top 30+ players well enough
to comment on their personalities. If you tell me that they're all in
bed by 9pm, stone cold sober and tucked up with a hot water bottle,
then I believe you. But I suspect that in truth they are as varied as
ever they used to be. I suspect also that they are, as a body, more
professional than formerly, and that they need to be. I hope further
that the days of fighting proxy wars by supporting Fischer or Spassky,
Karpov or Korchnoi, Karpov or Kasparov, with interventions by FIDE and
national officials, are over; that may account for a lack of stories
about the players.

As for "public acceptance", that sounds as though you support
John's claim that chess "isn't all that popular with the general public"
and "has gone into free-fall". If so, then I ask you the same question
I asked him -- do you have any evidence? You can refer back to my reply
to John for my reasons to assert that chess has, world-wide, never been
so popular. [That's not an argument for complacency, of course.]

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
  #27  
Old December 31st 16, 02:10 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
The Horny Goat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:37:03 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

And then Bobby Fischer came along, stimulating American interest in Chess for
the same reason that van Cliburn stimulated American interest in classical
music; hey, we've got somebody who can beat the Russians at their own game!



"Their own game?"

What was incomprehensible to Soviet Officials was the lone wolf with no seconds, no state or other sponsorship who simply smashed them up.


In many ways (we're talking only about chess here not Fischer's views
outside the game) Fischer was a prototypical Soviet grandmaster in the
way he studied games and prepared himself for competition.

These days "Soviet school" techniques are far better known due to the
works of Dvoretsky and others but chess-wise what did Fischer do in
his training methods that were substantially different from Tal or
Spassky?

Sure there was great collective effort in Soviet chess but the "Soviet
school of chess" was known long before Kotov and Yudovich's book of
that name.

I do NOT say the "Fischer as protypical Soviet GM" metaphor tells the
whole story by any means but it does describe a lot of FIscher's chess
behaviour particularly in the 1967 (e.g. the Sousse interzonal)
through 1972 era.
  #28  
Old January 9th 17, 08:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 7:12:04 PM UTC-5, Andy Walker wrote:
On 17/12/16 20:15, wrote:
I am still talking a game of 90 mins each, or 3 hours — an hour more
than a marathon. And this is more exciting I think, while allowing
for adventurous play.


This happens to be the time allowance in the local league, and
I find it significantly too fast. Well, that's for evening play, and
there are limits to how much time is possible if it takes an hour after
work to travel to the match and an hour after the match to get home at
a reasonable time. I don't think having to play moves without having
analysed them properly makes play more adventurous; if anything, it
leads to cautious, safe play. With blunders. My own most exciting
games are in correspondence chess -- despite computers.

[...]
Nevertheless, modern players still tend to use up as much
time as they have available in order to reach move 40. Is there
any sign that top players really would prefer to have substantially
less time?

Is there any sign that the game should be derived from the 99.999
percentile? Don't ask Nakamura.


"The game"? No. WC matches? Yes.

[...]
At faster rates of play you are encouraged to play dynamically and
not so safely, no?


No. Quite the opposite, actually. You are "encouraged" to
play without proper thought. I don't see why anyone should suppose
this to be good for the game.


Well, you must admit strong personal predilection to offer such a statement, Andy. I don't understand from your answers here if you are speaking as a player, or someone who would watch playing long games, or the even longer analysis thereafter.

What is this term 'proper' to mean? In the boxing ring there are guys who are sluggers not scientific boxers, right? The game belongs more to them than your scientific type, even after 15 3 minute rounds.


Who is more interesting, Nakamura or Karpov?


When they play a match and we can compare directly, we'll be
in a position to know. Until then, you're comparing styles rather
than time limits.


No I'm not. I'm asking of anyone interested who they prefer to watch in real time.

Note that Kasparov was much more "interesting" than
Karpov before their first title match, but pretty soon he'd clocked
up five losses and had to change his style -- which, of course, he
turned out to be well capable of doing.

[... P]laying gambits
which need be sorted out in more time than it takes to run a marathon
seem to have deadened the game, and the personalities of the players
— and ensured that the game does not achieve greater public
acceptance.


I don't pretend to know any of the top 30+ players well enough
to comment on their personalities. If you tell me that they're all in
bed by 9pm, stone cold sober and tucked up with a hot water bottle,
then I believe you.


I do happen to know 10 of them, but I don't accept your premises. You don't think you are describing Tal, do you?

And what is this thing about best chess? You keep cutting my comments about computer perfection. Why? Why not just 'study' that? The answer is that it is profoundly boring, and who on earth actually does this? We want personality in the game. We don't want some perfectionist who get floored by Nakamura at any time level. We want someone who can deal with whatever happens in real time, which is why we have liked active players since Morphy.


But I suspect that in truth they are as varied as
ever they used to be. I suspect also that they are, as a body, more
professional than formerly, and that they need to be.


You merely say by 'professional' that they do what they do because of the money.

I hope further
that the days of fighting proxy wars by supporting Fischer or Spassky,
Karpov or Korchnoi, Karpov or Kasparov, with interventions by FIDE and
national officials, are over; that may account for a lack of stories
about the players.


?


As for "public acceptance", that sounds as though you support
John's claim that chess "isn't all that popular with the general public"


?


and "has gone into free-fall".


?

If so, then I ask you the same question
I asked him -- do you have any evidence? You can refer back to my reply
to John for my reasons to assert that chess has, world-wide, never been
so popular. [That's not an argument for complacency, of course.]


Chess world-wide is not conducted upon a marathon 5 hour game basis, neither is it's popularity based on 5 hour attention.

We have to determine if 'best chess' for players or viewers has to do with the extent of time allowed for the game, or if their are other qualifying criteria. You do not admit, John, other than the current status quo. Even in the English leagues which we both engaged coming up, interest in this is radically reduced.

In terms of quality of play, I dispute if Great Preponderance is all there is.

Cordially, Phil Innes


--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

  #29  
Old January 9th 17, 08:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 9:10:11 PM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:37:03 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

And then Bobby Fischer came along, stimulating American interest in Chess for
the same reason that van Cliburn stimulated American interest in classical
music; hey, we've got somebody who can beat the Russians at their own game!



"Their own game?"

What was incomprehensible to Soviet Officials was the lone wolf with no seconds, no state or other sponsorship who simply smashed them up.


In many ways (we're talking only about chess here not Fischer's views
outside the game) Fischer was a prototypical Soviet grandmaster in the
way he studied games and prepared himself for competition.


Nonsense. Soviets individually and collectively could not understand how any individual without GM seconds or financial support from State or other could possibly best their System.


These days "Soviet school" techniques are far better known due to the
works of Dvoretsky and others but chess-wise what did Fischer do in
his training methods that were substantially different from Tal or
Spassky?


He was like Einstein, who said of himself that he wasn't more intelligent than other people, he just studied things more. And Tal and Spassky were not obliged to go to this psychological extreme.

Sure there was great collective effort in Soviet chess but the "Soviet
school of chess" was known long before Kotov and Yudovich's book of
that name.

I do NOT say the "Fischer as protypical Soviet GM" metaphor tells the
whole story by any means


In fact it is just a fallacious sentence, rather than any story, heh?

but it does describe a lot of FIscher's chess
behaviour particularly in the 1967 (e.g. the Sousse interzonal)
through 1972 era.


?

Phil Innes
  #30  
Old February 21st 17, 01:53 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
RayLopez99
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,528
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:34:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:

The chess community is very fortunate to have a dynamic World Champion in Magnus Carlsen, one who attracts the most attention from the mainstream media since Bobby Fischer. It is a pity if the chess community does not capitalize on his broad appeal to further chess. The current system is boring and does not attract adequate sponsorship.

This is just my personal opinion 🙂


What will save chess is gambling. As we speak, there's a somewhat secret project (details on the web, Google it) that will 'crowd source' a prediction market that can be tweaked to support 'predicting' (or crudely, if not inaccurately, 'gambling') on who will win a chess match. This, not kind hearted sponsors, not Magnus Carlsen, will raise interest in chess and save chess.

You read it here first.

Why is 'crowd-sourcing' important? Because, like with uTorrent, you cannot stop the gambling via threats like are made now with 'online gambling being illegal in the USA' and other such nonsense.

The only bad news to the above is that it's inevitable that throwing games for money will become even more common in chess matches, but that's unavoidable (and even happens now at the lower levels anyway, for titled norms, rating points, etc).

RL
 




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
Polgar Opposition to Motion to Dismiss MrVidmar rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 5 September 10th 09 03:17 AM
Polgar Opposition to Motion to Dismiss MrVidmar alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 5 September 10th 09 03:17 AM
Polgar Opposition to Cross-Motion MrVidmar alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 September 9th 09 06:11 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.