Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old April 6th 17, 08:23 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 569
Default The desiccation resulting from opening science

On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 8:42:25 AM UTC-6, M Winther wrote:

It's called "blitz chess". It is not chess proper. It is utterly boring
and meaningless. When are people going to realize that it's not the same
game?


It has the same rules, so it is "the same game" in the sense most
people would use the phrase. It may well be boring and meaningless
when played under those time controls... but that's a separate
question.

But even there, "boring and meaningless" has to be qualified.

The people who are playing it might find it enjoyable and fun,
rather than stressful. What is meaningless, as it would be boring,
would be for others to study the moves of such a game. That is the
dimension that gets lost.

John Savard
  #12   Report Post  
Old April 8th 17, 01:40 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 111
Default The desiccation resulting from opening science




GMs can play faster because they have better technique and, above all,
vast opening knowledge thanks to databases. Amateurs make no effort to
collect such knowledge, because there's no point. But much shorter time
controls will impact amateur chess so severely that it becomes
meaningless to play. It is simply no fun to win a game when the opponent
plays badly. GMs and amateurs live in different chess worlds.

Mats


I write a bit with Adorjan and he said he thought there might be as many as 30 people in the world who make a living by playing, rather than by teaching, eg, which means 1,000GMs are 'amateur' and millions of the rest of us.

But I think this is a false dichotomy about playing 'better' if you can't understand the moves that the 30 professionals make! It is a literally absurd standard.

I don't see how faster, 90 minute games become "meaningless" — to whom? Not the players, nor likely other players within a few hundred points of them. I am only talking about reducing the amount of time to less than it takes to run a marathon, that's all.

What people arguing for long time periods want is computer chess — they do not admit the logic of this, but they want 'perfect chess' measurable by the computer down to the last digit, and they want the computer to help them understand the game.

They want safe scientific 'boxing' not a bruiser like Nakamura or Fischer either. "At the end of control, there is creativity." [Ivanchuk]

Phil Innes



  #13   Report Post  
Old April 9th 17, 06:36 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2015
Posts: 26
Default The desiccation resulting from opening science

On 08/04/2017 14:40, wrote:



GMs can play faster because they have better technique and, above all,
vast opening knowledge thanks to databases. Amateurs make no effort to
collect such knowledge, because there's no point. But much shorter time
controls will impact amateur chess so severely that it becomes
meaningless to play. It is simply no fun to win a game when the opponent
plays badly. GMs and amateurs live in different chess worlds.

Mats


I write a bit with Adorjan and he said he thought there might be as many as 30 people in the world who make a living by playing, rather than by teaching, eg, which means 1,000GMs are 'amateur' and millions of the rest of us.

But I think this is a false dichotomy about playing 'better' if you can't understand the moves that the 30 professionals make! It is a literally absurd standard.

I don't see how faster, 90 minute games become "meaningless" — to whom? Not the players, nor likely other players within a few hundred points of them. I am only talking about reducing the amount of time to less than it takes to run a marathon, that's all.

What people arguing for long time periods want is computer chess — they do not admit the logic of this, but they want 'perfect chess' measurable by the computer down to the last digit, and they want the computer to help them understand the game.

They want safe scientific 'boxing' not a bruiser like Nakamura or Fischer either. "At the end of control, there is creativity." [Ivanchuk]

Phil Innes




90 minutes isn't exactly rapid chess. I was polemizing against rapid
chess and blitz. Myself, I'm only playing rapid chess these days, on the
net. It is fun, but there's an enormous waste of creative opportunities,
because time and again me and my opponents miss brilliant moves. Truly
qualitative chess cannot be achieved with rapid chess time limits.

Mats
http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/chessvar.htm

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 April 23rd 06 05:21 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 March 22nd 06 05:35 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 March 7th 06 05:30 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 February 4th 06 05:25 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 3rd 05 05:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017