Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 11:28:32 01/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2004 at 13:20:04, Tord Romstad wrote: >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. The idea as you know come from Robert James Fischer, his comment (as I heard it on one of the radio interviews) was that games now a days are "fixed". What he meant was that world championship games like Kasparov-Kramnik is effectively decided off the board. It is all about who has the best preparation, all games are analyzed in full till move 20, probably a lot deeper than that even. The question is if this is the kind of sport we want, a sport where you are chanceless without a team of strong GM's to help you analyze. It seems to me this is a very big factor in who becomes the world champion and it should be no factor at all. >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. Playing through games is great, I just don't like it when others try to repeat them in a mindless fashion. A game should be unique and a product of your own strength and creativity, a real piece of art :) What we have now is that everybody playes like a super GM for the first 10 moves or however long they can remember the theory. After that the level drops like a rock with hanging pieces and forks everywhere, depending on rating of course. I find these first 10 moves to be very artificial compared to the rest of the game. In FRC the game begins at move 1 and this creates a good performance coherency throughout the game. >>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. Subset/superset, variant or whatever, let's not get cought up in what to call it, that's not important IMO. >It is what you get when you subtract >opening theory from classic chess. Yes, precisely! Of course I see you like opening theory, so you will not ever be a fan of FRC I think. :) >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. :-) Don't get me wrong, I think a 16x16 chess variant would be a lot more fun than even FRC, but comparing chess to FRC I'd prefer FRC. Only "problem" is that chess has 1000x more players, so for that reason it's still a lot more important. >>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. IMO, endgames are more about applying the proper heuristic, e.g. take the opposition of the kings to hold the draw. I do not have any endgames memorized the same way I remember openings, nor do I know of any book that teaches it, though there probably are some studies of concrete positions. -S.
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.