I see we have a thread here now where the OP claims that Chess is dying and improvements are needed ? Well OTB Chess may have slowed down a bit however on-line Chess games have become quite popular, things change over time.
You just need to run it through Google Translate.
Chess needs I suck to be changed at chess
Exactly!
I see where someone wants to get rid of the Stalemate ? The answer is NO NO NO !!! Chess is a perfect game as is !
--- They want to get rid of the Stalemate again ( still NO NO NO lol ).
If your name is AyushMChessMator, you should win every game.
--- Interesting.
If your name is AyushMChessMator, you should win every game.
Agreed
--- Well of course any major match ( eg: World Title ) should be played to an even number of games in total so that both players have the same chances on the White side of the board.
Well in what about when there are draws for those even number of games eventually one will be a tie breaker which not necessarily on an even game.
--- Well as the World Champ has the title he should keep the title if the score is even between the players after the match. What I mean by that is the challenger has to beat the Champ in order to be able to claim the title.
I think it should be the opposite if you're the champion you should have to prove you're the best by besting your opponent
Sorry but I disagree. The Champion has in the past beaten a World Champ in order to get the title and therefore should keep the title until a Challenger is able to beat the reining Champ. Of course we had the case where Fischer did not defend his title but that was a very rare case.
Chess is by far a perfect game. Alone if you count all the advantages of White over Black, it should be pretty clear that it is not. Also computers changed preparation more than ever before making preparation way more important than it has been in the past, which stands contrary to intuition and game understanding aka playing the game. Who did not face a loss in Blitz (against Stockfish) on chess.com because your opponent studied Stockfish moves. Actually it is also huge thing in classical chess. Denying that things exist in chess culture that seems controversial or the like, is one-dimensional thinking imho, or 'idealistic' to say the least.
How about the first move advantage! This makes the game unbalance making it imperfect competitively. Of course this is a minor flaw however white will always start with a few centi-pawn lead.
--- Well of course any major match ( eg: World Title ) should be played to an even number of games in total so that both players have the same chances on the White side of the board.
--- Therefore if you are playing a match of say 10 games against someone and you have Black in the first game you will of course have White in the last game. The matches must be played in a even number in total to be fair.
I think it should be the opposite if you're the champion you should have to prove you're the best by besting your opponent
no. the onus is on other to beat you. if one is the champ, they've already proven themselves by becoming champ, right?
I think it should be the opposite if you're the champion you should have to prove you're the best by besting your opponent
no. the onus is on other to beat you. if one is the champ, they've already proven themselves by becoming champ, right?
I disagree If someone is the champ they should be able to continually prove themselves against their challenger.
--- Well of course any major match ( eg: World Title ) should be played to an even number of games in total so that both players have the same chances on the White side of the board.
Well in what about when there are draws for those even number of games eventually one will be a tie breaker which not necessarily on an even game.
--- Well as the World Champ has the title he should keep the title if the score is even between the players after the match. What I mean by that is the challenger has to beat the Champ in order to be able to claim the title.
I think it should be the opposite if you're the champion you should have to prove you're the best by besting your opponent
--- Well we are of course drifting away from how the games are played and instead debating the format that the FIDE uses for the WC title matches. I would assume that the FIDE would have a web-site for comment from the public. If people just direct their ideas to the FIDE President I'm sure swift action will follow lol.
I also disagree that chess is perfect as it is. This does not mean that it should be modified, which is not possible anyway without changing its nature.
1) White has an advantage and there is no possibility to offset that advantage.
2) Because of the advantage of the first move, you have to follow different strategies depending on your color. (You can like that, but I think most players would like black and white to have the same opportunities and chances.)
3) A lot of games are draws which can be boring.
4) Openings are thoroughly analyzed, many have to be learned by heart or are simply read from a database in chess programs.
5) The late endgame itself can be ugly, and similar to the opening, there are databases from which you can easily read the result.
6) The 50-move rule is somewhat arbitrary, it feels to be artificial and isn‘t exactly elegant.
Except for the 50-move rule you cannot change anything without getting a different game than the classic chess we know.
How about the first move advantage! This makes the game unbalance making it imperfect competitively. Of course this is a minor flaw however white will always start with a few centi-pawn lead.
--- Well of course any major match ( eg: World Title ) should be played to an even number of games in total so that both players have the same chances on the White side of the board.
--- Yup
I see where someone want to change the 50 move rule into a 75 move rule. Bad Idea as no changes are needed !
I agree. Chess is perfect because it's the version I play therefore there are no flaws!