When I play a video game and after some time I defeat the final boss, I end up getting tired of the game, and hence, I play a new one or an expansion. Until I can defeat chessmaster/rybka/etc I assume I still need to learn more chess and I haven't exploited it at max, so I don't need a new version. New versions would just divide chess players.
Do you think a new chess version is needed?
Sort:
Jan 4, 2014
0
#3
There are more possible positions than electrons in the universum so I don't think that it is gonna happen soon :)
Take up Go or if all else fails Arimaa ...
960.
Wilbert_78 wrote:
960.
That pretty much sums it up. If you've gotten to the point where chess being "solved" affects you (once you hit 5000 ELO?), then go for 960.
I really dont think it makes a difference whether chess is solved or not. After all no human would be able to remember the solution... Checkers is solved and people still play it
ifoody wrote:
I like chess, i think it's a very beautiful and enjoyable game. But let's admit guys, in a couple years, with today's technology and theory knownledge, chess will maybe get just solved
I like Chess the way it is once you start tinkering with rules I don't like castling I don't like enpessant if you keeping making changes Chess becomes unrecognizable.
Making the board bigger and adding more pieces in the game messes with the symmentry and unbalances the game.
I like chess, i think it's a very beautiful and enjoyable game. But let's admit guys, in a couple years, with today's technology and theory knownledge, chess will maybe get just solved, the best available moves will be founded, and maybe even zermelo's sentence will be proved as right.
If we look at the situation, maybe if we want to keep having fun a new version of chess should be invented? More pieces, more types of pieces, bigger board, etc.?
Have a nice discussion :D