We already have a new style (ehi! Hi, Arun):
See you in our board: for us, solving chess is not an issue 
Is a new School of thought in chess possible to arise?!
Sort:
Dec 14, 2013
0
#4
Brilliant post Saint_Just! 
.. Any specific players who characterise the Thinkers, Dynamists and the Concrete..
On a side note, didn't the hypermodernist arise after the classical..may be the arrow marks need to be interchanged.. And yeah, as for the game, may be I should pay more heed to hypermodernists (clue:Tarrasch)
Well I think Borislav Ivanov figured out a new school of though. Sort of............................
Gangnam style is missing.
Why not just apply the Botvinnik scientific style? Yes winning in fine style with a flashy sacrifice is nice, but let's be realistic, your opponent is trying to find their best moves too so you likely aren't going to have that too often. Play safe, sane, and correct chess
A.R.B Chess System.
Yes, and it will arise right here from these pages!
I think there is place for more schools, you can never know. maybe the future of chess will be 1.h4, 1.b4, etc.
Dec 14, 2013
0
#11
Mine was obviously a joke, but in any case I believe that "lo stile magnus" will be the standard in the coming years. I mean someone who knows openings well without being an expert at it, someone who knows how to play perfectly middlegame and who is merciless in the endgame.
P.S.: obviously we need to wait for what computers will be able to do in order to know how it will be (as you know my english is embarassing, consequently for this post I thank my sister).
From my recent research I have discovered that the Daeth Opining represents the future durection of chess. For an explanation of how I arrived at my conclusions please go to this link:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/daeth-opining-the-future-of-chess
I think it's possible that Carlsen is himself ushering in this "new" school when you consider that he is the first world champion to have come of age mostly in an era in which computers are better at chess than humans are. It stands to reason that in this environment, developing players will depend more and more on computer analysis in their training, which will in turn inevitably shape their particular "style" in some way. I believe you see some of this in Carlsen's play -- what some call "boring" is in most cases very technical and very safe, not dissimilar at all from the playing style of many strong engines. It won't be long before the strongest players on Earth will have never moved a piece in a world in which a human could defeat the best chess computers and it stands to reason that their play will come more and more to resemble that of the computers themselves.
Tripp_H wrote:
I think it's possible that Carlsen is himself ushering in this "new" school when you consider that he is the first world champion to have come of age mostly in an era in which computers are better at chess than humans are. It stands to reason that in this environment, developing players will depend more and more on computer analysis in their training, which will in turn inevitably shape their particular "style" in some way. I believe you see some of this in Carlsen's play -- what some call "boring" is in most cases very technical and very safe, not dissimilar at all from the playing style of many strong engines. It won't be long before the strongest players on Earth will have never moved a piece in a world in which a human could defeat the best chess computers and it stands to reason that their play will come more and more to resemble that of the computers themselves.
That's why I say that anti-engine strategies such as the A.R.B Chess System may have relevance in this 'brave new world'.
Dec 16, 2013
0
#15
@ Watcha, just curious what is the A.R.B Chess system, can you elaborate.
Arun_1986 wrote:
@ Watcha, just curious what is the A.R.B Chess system, can you elaborate.
Anthony R. Brown has developed a system which he claims is capable of beating the leading chess engines ( like Houdini, Komodo etc. ). He launched several threads here at the chess.com forums in connection with his system. These are some forum search results for a start:
http://www.chess.com/forum/search?keyword=A.R.B+Chess+System
The author claims that his system is different from well know anti-engine openings ( like the Hippo ).
In a post he gave the following definition of his system:
(The A.R.B Chess System)
(1) Is a System Based on Rules.
(2) Always Starts with the Two Centre Pawns
E7-E6 then D7-D6 Unless Stopped by White?
Then the Next Pawn in the System is Played.
(3) Has a Main set of Moves for Any Opening
Played by White that is Solid.
(4) Castling is Not! part of the System Unless
For a Big Positional + or Forced!
(5) The A.R.B Chess System does Not allow
White to Dominate!
(6) The Pawn Structure is the Most Important
Thing! Other than the King Not being Mated.
(7) Important!! The Values of the Pieces...
King Value = Greater Than All Other Pieces.
Queen Value = 9
Rook Value = 4.5
Bishop Value = 3.5
Knight Value = 3.5
Pawn Value = 1.5
(Normal Chess Values)
King Value = Greater Than All Other Pieces.
Queen Value = 9
Rook Value = 5
Bishop Value = 3.1
Knight Value = 3
Pawn Value = 1
Explanation For The (A.R.B.C.S) Values.
The Rooks can be used as Sacrificial Pieces because the Pawn structure that develops weakens them...and of course if the reason is Good any Piece.
The Pawns are the Soul of the System!...Important the Value used 1.5 Does not Mean for Sure that Two Pawns will be Given up for a Bishop or Knight Etc. Because ( The Pawn Structure is the Most Important Thing! Other than the King Not being Mated.) Computers would find this Difficult to Totally Understand! ? Because the Pawn Structure is a Long term Important Condition..Not just for a Quick Buck!
(8) The A.R.B Chess System Evolved from Strong
Chess Computers showing the Way to Play!
(9) Computers do Not! Destroy the (A.R.B.C.S) .
(10) The Main (A.R.B.C.S) Opening line...
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d6 3. Nf3 h6 4. Nc3 a6 5. Bd3 g6
6. O-O b6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Qd2 Bb7 9. d5 e5
No Official Chess Data Base has the
Main (A.R.B.C.S) Opening line! :)
(11) The (A.R.B.C.S) Opening is Balanced!
Strengths on Both Sides of the Board.
It is really not my job to form judgement on this very much debated system but I have brought it up in this thread because its principles seem to be different from all established schools of thought in chess.
Dec 16, 2013
0
#17
The Principles of Carlsenism: A School of Thought
1.Play the man more than the board.Avoid any theoretical discussions.
2.Avoid chaos and stick to intuition based plans in the middlegame.Burn the clock of the opponent.
3.Endgame the opponent to death
in this test, you can find out the several "schools" in chess. That are only 20 questions, and I am the type of "barbarian" who is representet by Nakamura:
http://www.chesspersonality.com/
I think we'll get to the point when "having the move" will be a problem. The game will get sophisticated enough that the first player who has to "declare his intentions" will lose.
-Ted
Hi Friends,
Post the romantic style of chess period (attacks of Andersson, Morphy etc.), just when the principles of chess were evolving by the likes of Steinitz, Lasker etc. from the Classical chess school (ideas like occupy centre with pawns etc.), it is quite fascinating to note that a radical school of thought like the hypermodernism championed by Reti, Nimzowitch and others came into being.
For eg. hypermodern ideas like centre can be controlled with pieces from behind and not necessarily with pawns etc. have stood the test of time even till now.
It has been almost a century since then. Do you think another evolutionary step is possible in chess giving rise to a new school or a style of playing or is it that much everything is figured out about chess (apart from solving it of course
).
Would be nice to have your views on this. Thanks.