14227 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Then why don't you go to your little Japanese chess forums and talk about how there is no skill involved in real chess
I wouldn't worry unduly about it all....
Everything gets old after a couple of hundreds of years.
Ask any Shogi master and they tell you the same. They prepare their openings as much as Kasparov, Carlsen, others do, they know by heart the best moves, yet every single game evolves differently.
If you really really think, learning book moves is enough ... go ahead and try to memorize every single deviation line of every existent opening! xD.
After some time you will burn your chessboard out of frustration because you realize that study is endless, even if it's just the opening stage.
There is no Japanese chess forums. Besides, I'm talking about chess openings, bot Japanese chess openings.
Those of you who only keep insisting that I have a low rating and not say anything else, I'm pretty sure that article is written by someone who has more knowledge about chess than me. Also, I was just given my reasons for what I think, and instead of logically telling me what's wrong with my reasons, you leave me a "your rating is low so you don't understand" and leave. That is definitely not an argument.
Now TheBigDecline there is analyzing this much more carefully than those of you who only say that I cannot express my thoughts because I'm not good...
I'm pretty sure that article is written by someone who has more knowledge about chess than me.
I wouldn't bet on it.People have given you logical arguments. However it seems some of them have been ignored and it is plausible to suggest you may not have enough experience to understand the role openings play and to what extent they influence the game.I used to be really into studying openings, I had a repertoire as white based on Avrukhs 1.d4 series, which is huge if you have never seen it.Then one day, I notice something...not a single one of my opponents seemed to be following theory past move 7. It sounds crazy but they would always deviate with some weird side move before then, I very very rarely had a game go past that point.After this experience I understood just how little impact openings really have on the game for people at our level. Maybe you will argue that it has lost this aspect of skill at the top levels where people do play theory. Maybe you would be right. However it is replaced with some deep analysis and forcing top players to produce novelties, which I think is interesting and easily compensates for the lost 'novelty' factor.
What? I'm sorry, but could you repeat that? And that article isn't linked.
Here's what YOU said, Changgi:
"The openings are played to the degree where chess is like a game where you just memorize the opening and endgame moves and skills don't play as much."
Generally, your rating is indicative of your knowledge of the game. That is why your rating matters. Your knowledge of the game of chess(real chess) is not confined to your rating, since people with low ratings may be very knowledgable of chess. But the above quote of yours is an example of your knowledge corresponding with your rating. Many times throughout your thread people refer to "understanding" over "memory". If you decide to improve your knowledge of chess then that may become clear to you.
Also, criticism of your thoughts on chess does not negate your freedom to express them.
Much like any strategic game that has been known for any length of time, there are some fundamental concepts that have been proven to work well (I.E. Openings)
This doesn't make chess less interesting, on the contrary it makes chess more interesting.
In World War I in the trenches, each military commander did not go into battle making up strategy as he went along. Each side had prepared for the confrontation in their own way, and each side brought their own strategy to the table. Ultimately this is what brought victory to the superior side, struggling through the perceived stalemates.
I think the fact that Chess can be prepared nowadays may not be in the spirit of the original game, but this is OK because chess is evolving and at least in my opinion, it is evolving in a positive direction.
(Keep giving us a good laugh, it's healthy).
The problem is that here you make no effort to understand the others' point of view. Your #39 answered the only post in ten or so where you could find something to attack, and you left all the rest unanswered.
And yes, the "article" you quote is just ridiculous. See the previous posts. If you accept the authority argument coming from that article, you should accept it coming from players here, shouldn't you ?
The rise of computers has created an interesting phenomenon. Casual players get the sense that they are closer to masters than they really are, and masters are learning that more and more openings that were once considered bad are in fact quite playable.
Right now, top players are finding new openings just about every week. Currently, lines of the d3 Spanish are extremely popular among grandmasters because the battle is too complex to be memorized in advance.
So no, the complaint of the OP is not correct. Today, chess is far more complex and beautiful than ever before. The illusion that casual players have that chess is being played out is just that, an illusion.
Well I'm not gonna read those comments who only keep insisting that I have no right to express my thoughts cause my rating is not so high and laughing at how naive I am.
I was praising you there, TheBigDeline...
But what Fear_Itself said there is interesting.
"you should accept it coming from players here, shouldn't you ?"
I do accept what people like TheBigDecline, SmyslovFan said, cause they did tell me about the things logically and not just saying "you have a low rating so you don't understand! It's hilarous!"
Well you're entitled to your thoughts even though they have very little in common with reality here. Maybe if you knew what you were talking about you might not be drawing such absurd conclusions based on the fact that your beliefs = everyone else's reality
1- it's me, not Fear_Itself
2- You cannot accept what pleases you and reject the rest. (well, you can). When you want to talk about something, there is a chance people may disagree with you, and even worse that you might be wrong and not them. Terrible, isn't it ?
I accept them not cause they please me. We have opposing views there, but it's cause they actually looked at the problem instead of just saying "you have low rating" and just go, since those people have not contributed to the argument. Nothing to support their views.
And you're the one who I didn't accept cause you laugh at me. I do believe I've been clear on that, stop being arrogant...
I'll just stop reading posts like this which do not give any points...
I mean I'm here to discuss this problem. If you disagree, give your reasons instead of "You have low rating! Hahaha!"
Some arguments against your thesis have been given in posts 2, 7, 10, 11, 13, maybe 19, 26, 29, 34, 35, maybe 36, 41, 45, 47, maybe 49 and 50 and eventually 52. Which means between 40-50% of post.
When you add your posts and the few posts that support your point of view, that makes for a higher ratio (posts strictly about the subject / total posts) than the usual chess.com forum topic, and incredibly higher that what trolling you would have deserved for such a thought. You did not answer any of those except for complaining that we thought you were a weak player because of your rating.
The reasons have been given. If you don't want to hear them, that's your choice, but don't blame us for your ignorance.
chess.com insufficient mating material rule
by wanmokewan 2 minutes ago
Opponent has abandoned game but I am not getting the win
by chesed1973 3 minutes ago
Another King's Gambino
by LotsofSnuff227 10 minutes ago
help-mate in 4 (hard)
by Phocsi 11 minutes ago
What's a snare in chess?
by RonaldJosephCote 15 minutes ago
5/27/2016 - Straight Checks
by BlargDragon 16 minutes ago
how does 2. e5 fare against the sicillian?
by jengaias 16 minutes ago
Want to get from 1300 to 1400. Games here. (Quitting Blitz)
by JackOfAllHobbies 18 minutes ago
Post your Travel Chess Sets
by fightingbob 18 minutes ago
Magnus vs Fisher, who would win
by wayne_thomas 21 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!