Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 01:46:05 01/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2004 at 14:28:32, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. I completely agree. The existence of the opening forces both chess players and computer chess programmers to spend additional time on basically menial tasks, ie. memorizing variations or hand-tuning an opening book. I think most programmers would prefer to concentrate their effort on their engine. Aside from FRC, there are other creative solutions like starting computer chess matches from pre-selected positions. In theory something like this could be done in human tournaments as well. Realistically speaking though none of this will happen anytime soon. Vas
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.