Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 10:20:04 01/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2004 at 12:17:35, Sune Fischer wrote: >On January 07, 2004 at 11:43:24, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>>So naturally some are bound to feel, incl. me, that the opening theory is an >>>unfortunate side track and the game would be more enjoyable without it. >> >>But what we call "opening theory" is not really theory at all. It is >>a mixture of tradition and educated guesses, nothing more. > >That is what I call opening theory, stuff empiricly proven to be hard to refute. > >>There is lots >>of scope for creativity even in the first few moves of the game of chess, >>as is proven by all the novelties which keep appearing even in the most >>popular opening lines. If you don't like to follow the book lines, just >>play something different. You will not automatically lose the game or >>end up with an inferior position. > >I disagree, the unfortunate situation is that to become really good you must >know a lot of theory, you must stay current with development etc. > >Sure you can be a decent club player without studying hard, but probably not a >strong GM, and I wouldn't want to become a GM if that means hitting the books to >memorize long lines. Alexander Morozevich qualifies as a strong GM, I hope? Especially when he was younger, he used to crush average GMs with unusual and often completely ridiculous-looking opening lines. And below GM level, of course, opening theory is even less relevant. Besides, professionals in any intellectual endeavor must expect to do a lot of hard work. I don't see how the fact that top players need to study and learn from the games of their competitors makes the game less attractive. >>The only phase of the game where we have any precise knowledge is the >>endgame, which, ironically, is exactly the same in FRC as in normal chess. >>In contrast, by introducing new board shapes and/or pieces, you immediately >>get entirely new and unexplored endgames. You probably won't find any >>books which teach you how to mate with king and two knights against king >>in hexagonal chess! > >You are putting down FRC because it is different from chess but not quite as >different as hexagonal chess? :) In a way, yes I regard FRC as less attractive than normal chess for precisely the same reasons that you find it more attractive. To me, as I have pointed out earlier, opening theory is an important part of the culture and history of chess. When choosing to play any other chess variant than normal chess, we have to sacrifice this. I am willing to make this sacrifice, but only if I get something else in return. Thus Gothic chess and hexagonal chess are interesting, but FRC is not. Although FRC is a superset of classic chess in the mathematical sense, it feels more like a subset to me. It is what you get when you subtract opening theory from classic chess. Another point is that when advocating some chess variant instead of normal chess, it feels sad and unambitious to advocate something as mundane as FRC. With so many interesting chess variants out there, why not try something better? We should probably conclude that you are right, then: I put down FRC because it is different from normal chess, but not sufficiently different to be interesting. :-) >The point of FRC, IMO, is that you get the same game that everybody knows and >loves, namely chess, but completely void of boring theory. >Nothing more, nothing less. > >It's like taking chess and rewinding the clock a few centuries, to bring back >the original spirit of the game. > >It is true that the endgame remains the same, but the endgame is not associated >with as much knowledge, at least it is a more fuzzy kind about ideas and >principles. >That's the kind of theory I actually like, things will teach you something about >the game, it's not brain dead memorization of lines. What? Are we really talking about the same game? Endgame knowledge is often very exact, concrete and scientific, unlike opening theory. If you choose an inferior side line on the black side of the French defence, you will usually end up with just a slight disadvantage, and have lots of opportunities to fight back. If you know something about the general strategic plans and ideas of the opening (knowledge of the "fuzzy kind"), your practical chances may even be better than your opponent. On the other hand, if you make a mistake while defending a theoretically drawn KRPKR endgame against an opponent who has studied the endgame and memorized the necessary lines, you will never get a second chance in the game. Your opponent will win the game without any creative or intellectual effort at all. >I get the feeling we are not going to agree on this, and it's hard to convince >others if they simply "feel" differently about it :) We are certainly not going to agree, but this discussion would have been boring if we agreed about everything. :-) >Anyway, hexagonal chess, sure why not :) >Or how about super advanced chess on a 16x16 board, 3 rows of pieces..!!?? > >Of course one advantage over hexagonal chess is that FRC can be played using a >regular chess board, no need to go out and by new equipment :) Yes, this is a good point. >>This is the really big problem, of course -- but it applies to FRC >>as well as much as most other chess variants. > >Undeniably true. > >>>It's a shame, it would be nice if xboard supported more games. >> >>It would, but I'm afraid it will never happen. There are simply so >>few people who are interested in such extensions ... > >It could be the chicken or the egg. > >I don't think there will be much support for a game until there are servers that >support it and a GUI for the developers. > >And why would somebody develop a GUI if there is no interest in the game... :) > >Speaking for myself, the GUI has to come first! > >Alright I'm spoiled by being a winboard engine writer for too long now :-) I mostly agree with you, but I am in the unfortunate situation that my main OS doesn't even have a native GUI for winboard engines (I can use xboard under X11 in Mac OS X, but it is somewhat uncool). If I want to have a GUI for my own engine, I am forced to write it myself. And whan I have to do this work, I can as well add support for hexagonal boards and square boards of different sizes at the same time. Tord
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.