Author: Brack Nickrow
Date: 16:43:05 01/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
My thoughts exactly, I may be a purist but i'm against the promotion of alterations to the royal game! No human has ever mastered the game totally, not even Kasparov and no one ever will. There is no reason to alter it. Growth smoth it's destruction! Here should be no different than Frances body that tries to protect their language from being corrupted. Protect Chess. Out with variants they are for another forum! and yes yes this definitely includes FRC! >The first rule of the charter: > >(Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >messages:) > >1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess > > >Gothic "chess" has nothing to do with chess. >There are 80 squares and 2 new pieces, Chancellor and Archbishop. > >At the webpage the author smears chess in favour of Gothic "chess": > ># Once the Queens have come off of the board, the game tends to be drawish. >Not necessarily true. > ># The second strongest piece, the Rook, does not come into play until the end of >the game. >Not necessarily true. > ># The Queen is the only piece comprised of two pieces being fused into one (the >Rook and the Bishop). If you "complete the set" of all such fusions (Knight and >Bishop, Knight and Rook) you get the game as it was meant to be played. > >Who decides that the game is meant to be played this way ? > ># The World Champion from 1921-1927, who lost only 26 tournament games in 29 >years of active play, wanted to change chess in the manner we have prescribed! >His ideas seem to have been "too far ahead of his time", and now most tournament >chess players conceed that he was correct. > >The latter part not true. > >Martin.
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.