MATRIX CHESS

This is one of many threads where someone makes claims about a 'completely new' and 'exciting' approach to chess*, nor is it the first one where those challenging this 'discovery' would be warned against being 'dogmatic, conservative and shallow-minded'. I shall call these threads 'Magic Discovery Threads' or MTD's.

I've come to dislike MTD's because

1. I usually find myself forced to side with those labelled 'dogmatic' (and so on), and I don't like the label 
2. in multiple instances the OP turns out to be either intellectually lazy or just plain obnoxious. 
3. MTD's usually lead nowhere

Well Windingshu, you have shown some care not to be plain obnoxious (even if the effort is cosmetical) but I still think your thread is a classic MTD.

My argument behind labeling your thread as a MTD runs as follows:

1. You claim to have 'discovered' something new, very interesting and chess related:

1.  'Matrix chess' is a distinct system of playing chess
2. The ideas behind 'Matrix chess' are interesting and warrant further investigation
3. Professed 'Matrix' players have been succesful, and importantly so because they played 'Matrix chess'. 

Now these are definitely claims about 'something new and exciting', and Windingshu, you definitely warned those who challenged you against being 'dogmatic, conservative, etc..'.

2. I am attracted to the arguments against your ideas. I have found no trouble formulating some alike arguments for myself. (bringing the queen out as early as possible seems too narrow to be 'a system', using 'matrix calculations' to play sounds vague and ineffective, there are no very strong proponents, etc..)

Now this doesn't mean I have to be dealing with your typical run of the mill MTD yet - there is one last requirement - the original poster should be either obnoxious or intellectually lazy. 

3. I think you are being intellectually lazy, possibly just obnoxious.

I think the case against you is particulary strong on the second point. Let me clarify that as well.

You, windingshu, are being intellectually lazy because:

Being intellectually engaged is when you accept the following criteria:

1. The honorable thing to do when making a claim is to accept the burden of proof. (providing at least some supporting arguments.)
2. If one of your claims is challenged, the appropriate thing to do is to subject that claim to a honest discussion (arguments VS counter-arguments)
3. With regard to arguments, one should strive for being clear, concise and above all substantially engaged.

Your behaviour falls short on all three points. I have no trouble pointing out how:

1. You provided almost no initial arguments to support your claims. (and they are claims - you called it 'extremely interesting' and 'extremely successful', and you obviously believe it is a specific way of playing, different and new)

2. When challenged you don't seem to welcome a honest discussion. Instead, you have used personal attacks to denounce most of your critics as 'afraid', 'shallow-minded' etc..

3. You havent put in any effort to be clear and concise. In fact, most of your replies can be described as deflecting - you just say "I can't answer that but someone really trustworthy could". Those few posts where you are providing 'original' arguments are anything but clear and concise. In fact they are highly confusing.**

To conclude - this thread you created is nothing but an MTD, and it indeed seems to lead nowhere. (Though I can use this reply I created on other MTD's too, so for me it has done something at least.)

P.S.

Not to feel like you would want to redeem yourself now, but I can give the arguments why I think your claims are nonsense:

1. The whole idea of calling Matrix chess 'a specific system' is quite absurd. The rules of the game remain exactly the same - it is still chess. Some new principles are not enough.***

2. The ideas behind matrix chess, which you have not articulated very clearly, have no quality of looking interesting. This is because using a matrix is just another way of calculating - and humans aren't calculators by nature. In fact the huge number of positions even a few ply deep firmly assures us that our primary tool for chess prowess is selecting candidate moves. The claim that matrix calculations are simple enough to perform manually while yielding the best move(s) is a very steep one, for which there is no evidence. If it would be true an engine based on it would destroy rybka. The ideas behind matrix chess sound ineffective, and if they are not that is very steep claim whereas the description is suspiciously vague - this all makes it sound more like a hoax than anything else.

3. Those who play 'Matrix chess' have been successful, and this because they play 'Matrix chess'? First of all, I hardly believe 'Matrix chess' to be a valid system, so if they have been successful I would say it is 'just' because they are good chess players. Second of all, if it really worked it wouldn't have only a few proponents. There must be enough GM's willing to be interested by something that really works, and if it does it would eventually catch on. (as happened to many controversial scientific ideas that proved valid - and 'Matrix Chess' does not even have to overcome the middle ages).

* Be it the entire game, the opening, endgame or anything chess related. 

** You are being very unclear / vague, and I wonder if it is on purpose. A good example is made by quoting the following non-answer you gave: "to answer your question, imagine the geometrical pattern created when you combine an X, #, *, +, and diamond on an 8X8 matrix. If you run through this pattern for each piece you will find unique squares referred to as "coincidence squares". When these squares are occupied they interlock specific pieces' geometries in ways that would exploit your opponent's weakness." 

*** It is hard to take 'Matrix chess' serious as a system. All the rules of the game remain the same, so how distinct can it be? You seem to think that 'Matrix chess' stands opposed to 'classical chess'. But Classical chess incorporates playing styles as varied as those exhibited by Karpov, Tal, Capablanca etc. If all that is one system, than I can't believe Matrix chess is distinct enough to be another system. (It is funny that Nimzowich called his famous book 'My System', but I'm sure he would have happily agreed that most of his system is every GM's system, like getting rooks on the 2nd/7th rank etc...)