Sounds great.
A max elo, and then of course jail or fines to enforce it.
I suggest put Biden in charge.
He makes it really exciting...and the max elo changes to his cognition...ending at 100.
Heck youd be accused of cheating for e4...put your queen en prise, but you opponent couldnt take it. And the engine being the police. Are you sure you want to take his queen? Thats a 1000 move and will cost you $10,000.
Sounds great.
A max elo, and then of course jail or fines to enforce it.
I suggest put Biden in charge.
He makes it really exciting...and the max elo changes to his cognition...ending at 100.
Heck youd be accused of cheating for e4...put your queen en prise, but you opponent couldnt take it. And the engine being the police. Are you sure you want to take his queen? Thats a 1000 move and will cost you $10,000.
kudos to the comedy but you seem to be focusing on the technicalities again. rules, rules rules. why not enough rules? muse you.
the point is that the lack of rules is what brings out the creativity.
who cares about a max elo, or placing restrains on various facets of the game; that is the mindset aligned with competition, progress, etc etc.
My argument is: let progress happen naturally. the more draws the more losses the merrier, and yes defeat on the chessboard might be the sacrifice for excitement and variety in chess on the tournament level.
The same could be said of music. Why bother with notes and metrics, nothing beats banging bones on rocks like the good old days.
My chess theory is to invade the opponent's sovereign position when they least suspect it and watch my armies savagely brutalize their pieces. I promote pawns to conscript more armies to throw into the meat grinder.
I fuel my attack by bluffing large scale attacks other chess boards. After the game, I'm left completely isolated as no players want anything to do with me and my pieces eventually rot away.
why would that be their reaction to the unbridled creativity demonstrated in paragraph one of your comment?
The same could be said of music. Why bother with notes and metrics, nothing beats banging bones on rocks like the good old days.
lmao banging bones on rocks is all about creating bad music.
with chess, it appears theres a difference. in the case of chess, rules make for less stimulating play, as opposed to the opposite which is true in the case of music. rules, notes, are the name of the game in music. and music notes, the combinations therof, are virtually infinite, so employing rules in music isnt a detriment to creativity or variety.
in chess, in the real world, a chessgame is indeed a finite object. games beyond 60 moves are typically rare, so inserting rules into the picture actually narrows down an already narrow sphere of activity.
If you want to be creative then be creative. What's your problem?
when everybody insists on following the rules, like a queue in a public toilet, its hard to take a crap on the side of the street like the indians do.
chess is a bit like that. to ignore the rules is to lose altogether. if everybody just chilled and didnt follow the rules, and opted for a more informal punch up, it would be more fun
The moves in chess theory are not there to define what you should play. They are theory because they are considered to be the best moves by the best players. If you want creativity it's coming with a cost.
The moves in chess theory are not there to define what you should play. They are theory because they are considered to be the best moves by the best players. If you want creativity it's coming with a cost.
the cost is the rules, bozo.
If you want to be creative then be creative. What's your problem?
Well it's not in the list made by yusof Islam.
Op may need rules to break the rules.
The moves in chess theory are not there to define what you should play. They are theory because they are considered to be the best moves by the best players. If you want creativity it's coming with a cost.
the cost is the rules, bozo.
The cost is having to play inferior moves.
If you want to be creative then be creative. What's your problem?
Well it's not in the list made by yusof Islam.
Op may need rules to break the rules.
?
*Snip*. Why should rules and regulations play a part in a game where creativity dominates? *Snip* That's why Philidor's games are some of the most exciting. *Snip*
People take music and drawing lessons. The creativity comes out of some basic structure you call rules. Also are you really familiar with philidor's games? Because there really isn't a massive serious collection and they're mostly against NNs.
Why should rules and regulations play a part in a game where creativity dominates?
People misunderstand this all the time. Chess is not about creativity or intelligence, chess is first of all a skill.
Like any skill humans can apply creativity later, but only after they understand some basics. It's the same for anything, music, art, etc.
The notion that there was no theory before Morphy overlooks that Morphy had access to Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843), and also overlooks how two centuries earlier Guilio Cesare Polerio's work was copied by Alessandro Salvio, and the work of both was copied by Gioachino Greco. Greco's work was published in several editions in several languages. As a result, a portion of Greco's theory can be found in databases today.
Ruy Lopez also copied Pedro Damiano, and was copied by Polerio. Many of those who copied the works of their predecessors added to it and argued with some of the ideas.
With Morphy, we get not the beginning of theory, but rather the beginning of theory that still holds some validity and importance today.
The notion that there was no theory before Morphy overlooks that Morphy had access to Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843), and also overlooks how two centuries earlier Guilio Cesare Polerio's work was copied by Alessandro Salvio, and the work of both was copied by Gioachino Greco. Greco's work was published in several editions in several languages. As a result, a portion of Greco's theory can be found in databases today.
Ruy Lopez also copied Pedro Damiano, and was copied by Polerio. Many of those who copied the works of their predecessors added to it and argued with some of the ideas.
With Morphy, we get not the beginning of theory, but rather the beginning of theory that still holds some validity and importance today.
Nice detailed history. People often forget there have been chess books for hundreds of years, and also that great players of any era studied the published games of their contemporaries. This includes Morphy, of course.
creativity comes out of some basic structure you call rules.
People also often miss this fact. Without structure there can be no creativity. Painters are limited to colors and canvas, musicians to certain frequencies and insturments, etc.
The notion that there was no theory before Morphy overlooks that Morphy had access to Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843), and also overlooks how two centuries earlier Guilio Cesare Polerio's work was copied by Alessandro Salvio, and the work of both was copied by Gioachino Greco. Greco's work was published in several editions in several languages. As a result, a portion of Greco's theory can be found in databases today.
Ruy Lopez also copied Pedro Damiano, and was copied by Polerio. Many of those who copied the works of their predecessors added to it and argued with some of the ideas.
With Morphy, we get not the beginning of theory, but rather the beginning of theory that still holds some validity and importance today.
Nice detailed history. People often forget there have been chess books for hundreds of years, and also that great players of any era studied the published games of their contemporaries. This includes Morphy, of course.
There’s more at http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2022/03/classic-bishop-sacrifice-early-history.html
*Snip*. Why should rules and regulations play a part in a game where creativity dominates? *Snip* That's why Philidor's games are some of the most exciting. *Snip*
People take music and drawing lessons. The creativity comes out of some basic structure you call rules. Also are you really familiar with philidor's games? Because there really isn't a massive serious collection and they're mostly against NNs.
the creativity comes out the basic rules, snip.
not true. well, if by basic rules you mean how the peices move, THAT basic, then yeah. But how many of philidors games consistently demonstrate stuff like pawn chains etc? occasionaly certainly. but not consistently. yet his creativity, when matched with other peoples creativity, well, that was the battle, one of creative wit versus creative wit.
philidor vs NN (a term associated in modern parlace with 'NN= no rule boy/weak at rule manipulation) was a battle of philidor creativity vs NN creativity
those NNs though ruleless, lawless scallywags, were grandmasters in that matter of creativity.
those NNs though ruleless, lawless scallywags, were grandmasters in that matter of creativity.
Seems awfully convenient to define skill-less people as brilliant simply for the fact that they have no skill.
I've never played golf in my life. Wouldn't it be nice to show up to a major golf tournament and claim I'm such a creative genius because I suck so bad.
Chess theory is about rules and regulations. Why should rules and regulations play a part in a game where creativity dominates?
If not for the common idea that the kings gambit is an opening, or that positional dominance is paramount to victory, there would be a lot more variety in chess.
Today one can actually predict what the first forty five moves in the world chess championship match one will be.
There was a time when there was no chess theory. Pre Paul Morphy, people played chess like whatever.
No doubt in some of the hypermodern games, chess theory does appear randomly, but not by choice. That's why Philidor's games are some of the most exciting.
And if Chess theory had never been a thing, then even today, even if nobody knew that square control and pawn chains and so forth were the fundementals of winning at chess, chess would no doubt be played more haphazardly than otherwise, but it would be a lot more exciting.
The peak ratings might max out at an ignoble 2200 or therabouts, the world champion might end up with a 2250 rating and 2300 might be the new coveted 3000, but, chess would be a lot more exciting.