perfect bullet chess.
Sort:
We need a check mate only win for bullet chess. It prevents impulsive exchanges. It keeps people thinking about checkmates. Which are the most respectful and interesting reasons to play chess in general. If a 1 minute game required checkmates to win. Would it inspire better games? Or would people just try to stalemate the clock to prevent a loss of rating? If so. Then wouldn’t a mate be that much better too?
Nov 27, 2022
0
#2
I don’t agree with what you wrote about checkmates as “which are the most respectful and interesting reasons to play chess in general”.
When a player decides to play using any limited time game mode, whether it is 2 hours, 30 minutes, 5, 3, and 1 minute they know the rules in advance. If you suggest that winning on time in bullet is in some way “less respectful” or “less interesting” than winning by a checkmate, then why would you even play bullet in the first place? What about a player trying to get half of a point by attempting a stalemate or a draw in longer timed chess? Is that less respectful or fun than winning by checkmate? It’s not exactly easy to get 1/2 of a point either if your opponent is rated higher and is more knowledgeable.
You can look at it from the other perspective. Is it respectful or less fun if you play an opponent who memorized many more positions and knows the correct way of playing due to having spent more time on chess than you? Some people would say that being more skilled due to memorization is not the same as some sort of “natural” ability so they advocate random/960 chess to counter that.
Alternatively what about a child under 10 playing a player over 80. We could also argue it is unfair if the child was taught chess since the early age, and due to their brain plasticity they learned chess and know it much more intuitively, and the old guy may literally be slower due to aging synapses in the brain.
What I am trying to say with these hypothetical questions is that there no such thing as “more honorable” or “less honorable” in chess, just as there is no “more fun” or “less fun” way of playing because these concepts are very subjective and vary person to person.
I think you can argue for rule changes if don’t like the fact that you can win on time. Many people also don’t like that there is even such a thing as a draw or stalemate because too many professional games end with them.
When a player decides to play using any limited time game mode, whether it is 2 hours, 30 minutes, 5, 3, and 1 minute they know the rules in advance. If you suggest that winning on time in bullet is in some way “less respectful” or “less interesting” than winning by a checkmate, then why would you even play bullet in the first place? What about a player trying to get half of a point by attempting a stalemate or a draw in longer timed chess? Is that less respectful or fun than winning by checkmate? It’s not exactly easy to get 1/2 of a point either if your opponent is rated higher and is more knowledgeable.
You can look at it from the other perspective. Is it respectful or less fun if you play an opponent who memorized many more positions and knows the correct way of playing due to having spent more time on chess than you? Some people would say that being more skilled due to memorization is not the same as some sort of “natural” ability so they advocate random/960 chess to counter that.
Alternatively what about a child under 10 playing a player over 80. We could also argue it is unfair if the child was taught chess since the early age, and due to their brain plasticity they learned chess and know it much more intuitively, and the old guy may literally be slower due to aging synapses in the brain.
What I am trying to say with these hypothetical questions is that there no such thing as “more honorable” or “less honorable” in chess, just as there is no “more fun” or “less fun” way of playing because these concepts are very subjective and vary person to person.
I think you can argue for rule changes if don’t like the fact that you can win on time. Many people also don’t like that there is even such a thing as a draw or stalemate because too many professional games end with them.