I completely realize the potential absurdity of my next statement but, It still has it's merits. If chess players were payed like football players, under contract with performance incentives, you would see far more creativity in chess, if they could play for pride and reputation, knowing their bills would be paid no matter how they played.
The top GM's can. They are paid appearance fees that may often exceed the top prize.
Kingpatzer wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
I completely realize the potential absurdity of my next statement but, It still has it's merits. If chess players were payed like football players, under contract with performance incentives, you would see far more creativity in chess, if they could play for pride and reputation, knowing their bills would be paid no matter how they played.
The top GM's can. They are paid appearance fees that may often exceed the top prize.
If I would have only known at 10...
Mathematical analysis of Monopoly? Memorizing endless opening lines and variations- whats the point? It seems to be a bit like buying autographs of people you never met. I'm sure that at a professional, GM level its part of the price of being there, but seriously... I think I will just stick to my level and have some fun with it.
Kingpatzer wrote:
And he was clearly and demonstrably wrong.
Yes, that was my point in posting it:)
Ah, sorry PawnPromoter, I took it a different way than you intended.
I dont said that study theory is a bad thing,many GM make great contribution to the game and same of then was innovators in the best lines,But is a huge number of players today who prepare themself memoririzing opening lines Just a case in my club,a player who knows a lot of theory is telling that certain line in certain openning is refuted but he dont know why is refuted. At top level many players just repeat the lines who other players created and many games finish in a boring draw after 20 moves.there is not to many games as in the pass,that we can said is a piece of art.
The notion that "theory" is killing the game is ludicrous and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how games work in general.
I guess no one is disputing that this is how many games work and indeed how chess works. But we are questioning whether is is really healthy for chess, given the amount of theory having been developed. Btw, the difference from many other games is that chess is so deterministic - you can actually predict what is going to happen, or prepare an answer for whatever your opponent does. For non-grandmasters this is not really an issue since your opponent will rarely know a great number of lines in each opening. But still, I think you can discuss whether the game should really be as predictable as it is, given that the setup is the same every time. You can argue that there is still a game to play after move ~ 25, but my question would then be: Why would you prefer to have this heavily theoretical phase of the game where both sides know exactly what possible counterplay there is to virtually every move? Which often leads to simplification of the game, which was never the intention with the game (I guess) from the beginning. I would argue that something like chess960 would start to be more interesting, with 1000 times as many combinations from the opening making memorization so much more impractical.
I completely realize the potential absurdity of my next statement but, It still has it's merits. If chess players were payed like football players, under contract with performance incentives, you would see far more creativity in chess, if they could play for pride and reputation, knowing their bills would be paid no matter how they played.