960 random thoughts
Sort:
fwiw both chessdb and scid can be downloaded from here and they're both essentially identical. The "material/pattern" dialog is what you use to do queries, and its sort of convoluted. (Then use 'game list' to display games - sometimes you have to hit reset and arbitrarily change query params it seems for it to do another query, so some sort of bugs.)
(Actually go to SourceForge and download the latest release.)
Mar 15, 2010
0
#103
Good Discussion,
I'll think that I'll try 960 sometime for something new.
However, I disagree with a theme that players who study openings are lesser players or doing a disservice to chess.
I think the beauty of chess is what we make of it. If someone can memorize 30 moves into multiple lines I find them no better or worse than someone who can see a 12 move mating combo.
Just my opinion.
I wonder if football had this debate when the forward pass was introduced.
Whatever folks - please enjoy standard chess if you choose to do so. If I were at 1800 after a year here instead of 1400 I might be devoted to it as well - I never denied that.
Over and Out.
Apr 22, 2010
0
#106
Eberulf wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
Fischer, although a brilliant player, should be taken with a grain of salt when not OTB. He called chess dead in the 70s, but part of his illness was after becoming the best to do away with chess altogether so he wouldn't have to live in fear of losing anymore. That he retired immediately after winning the WC match is not a surprise, and I say that with no ill will, I'm sure it was a merciful retirement.
He called chess dead in the 70's? Where's the documentation? He was playing Spassky in iceland in '72. Also, calling him mentally ill for promoting 960 and just afraid of losing seems kind of slanderous (to me).
Don't understand digging up a month old thread to add nothing to it. You realize posting it bumps it to the top right :p
Eberulf wrote:where do i play online
AnthonyCG wrote:
I'll always like classic chess better but 960 can be good fun. It requires you to think from move one. Most players don't do that even though you should do that whether you're playing classical chess or not.
Many will detest to 960 solely for the dissaperance of openings. Face it - it's the only difference. The problem of certain positions being better for a certain side is offset by playing two games with colors reversed. Yes there are some that spend time in opening books for an advantage in the hopes that their opponent will blunder because they don't trust themselves in an equal postion. Why do you think people prefer White? With Black you're trying to equalise for most of the game and that must be torture for some.
I find it interesting that in many games where I play 1.b3, I always gain a pawn by 1...e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd7. It's happened countless times because people are going by rote. In 960, you can't do that. You could have a hanging pawn on move 1 in some positions and that requires you to make your own way. Opening theory has made people less adept at this unfortunately. It's why I rarely play 1.e4. Why go for an advantage when I could play 1.Nc3 and make them play on their own? It's just too effective to ignore.
Just wanted to acknowledge this because you made some really worthwhile comments.
As far as opening knowledge being irrelevant in 960, over time I think a vast compendium of knowledge will be developed on 960 as well. However it will be a more complex and nuanced theory than for standard chess because 960 is a more complex game. I guess essentially we're at the point with 960 where chess was 200 years ago or something. Back then there wasn't a lot of theory for standard chess either (I'm assuming - or relatively speaking anyway - I guess the Ruy Lopez existed, etc.) But in the information age things will develop a lot quicker with 960 presumably (I guess it will have to develop quickly given the current end-times prognostications of some.)
And also your remarks about 960 changing how you think about standard chess, that as well I think is true.