Don't want 960
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
I think a good comparison would be 2020 cricket.
ppera011 wrote:
Atos wrote:
Steinwitz wrote:
Some good comments here. I think one of the reasons most players are bad at the middle and endgames is that they spend so much effort on the opening theory and lines. And let's be honest - sure it's good to know, but is it fun? We now have lines running into dozens of moves. Just watch any tournament kibitz: "Is it still book?"
With Chess 960 you're smack into the intricacies of the game, and as stated above, if you're good it will show. But for beginners and others just getting into the game, it's a wonderful way of getting enthusiastic about the game and its possibilities, while learning.
And then you can graduate to the classical game, and know that after you have mastered the opening theory you'll be well equipped to handle the challenges following that ... instead of having spent most of your time learning openings, and not getting around to endgame intricacies.
Actually I would love to get rid of having to memorize endgame patterns, but no luck.
Go and play tic-tac-toe then.
You accuse those who disagree with you of arrogance but you have quite of bit of it yourself. As I recall I have beaten you in (normal) chess ? Yes, I don't like studying endgames but this is not the reason I defend 960 as that part of the game will be the most similar to 'normal' chess.
I think you are putting forward a false dilemma. If we had to choose between standard chess and 960 I would choose standard chess. But I don't see the necessity to choose.
Atos wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Atos wrote:
Steinwitz wrote:
Some good comments here. I think one of the reasons most players are bad at the middle and endgames is that they spend so much effort on the opening theory and lines. And let's be honest - sure it's good to know, but is it fun? We now have lines running into dozens of moves. Just watch any tournament kibitz: "Is it still book?"
With Chess 960 you're smack into the intricacies of the game, and as stated above, if you're good it will show. But for beginners and others just getting into the game, it's a wonderful way of getting enthusiastic about the game and its possibilities, while learning.
And then you can graduate to the classical game, and know that after you have mastered the opening theory you'll be well equipped to handle the challenges following that ... instead of having spent most of your time learning openings, and not getting around to endgame intricacies.
Actually I would love to get rid of having to memorize endgame patterns, but no luck.
Go and play tic-tac-toe then.
You accuse those who disagree with you of arrogance but you have quite of bit of it yourself. As I recall I have beaten you in (normal) chess ? Yes, I don't like studying endgames but this is not the reason I defend 960 as that part of the game will be the most similar to 'normal' chess.
I think you are putting forward a false dilemma. If we had to choose between standard chess and 960 I would choose standard chess. But I don't see the necessity to choose.
I hope you're not implying that people can only state their opinion when they have a high enough rating, or have beaten you.
Atos wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Atos wrote:
Steinwitz wrote:
Some good comments here. I think one of the reasons most players are bad at the middle and endgames is that they spend so much effort on the opening theory and lines. And let's be honest - sure it's good to know, but is it fun? We now have lines running into dozens of moves. Just watch any tournament kibitz: "Is it still book?"
With Chess 960 you're smack into the intricacies of the game, and as stated above, if you're good it will show. But for beginners and others just getting into the game, it's a wonderful way of getting enthusiastic about the game and its possibilities, while learning.
And then you can graduate to the classical game, and know that after you have mastered the opening theory you'll be well equipped to handle the challenges following that ... instead of having spent most of your time learning openings, and not getting around to endgame intricacies.
Actually I would love to get rid of having to memorize endgame patterns, but no luck.
Go and play tic-tac-toe then.
You accuse those who disagree with you of arrogance but you have quite of bit of it yourself. As I recall I have beaten you in (normal) chess ? Yes, I don't like studying endgames but this is not the reason I defend 960 as that part of the game will be the most similar to 'normal' chess.
I think you are putting forward a false dilemma. If we had to choose between standard chess and 960 I would choose standard chess. But I don't see the necessity to choose.
Removed my "tic-tac-toe" comment before you posted this. Nevermind. I don't remember playing against you but if you say so let it be. It is irrelevant to this discussion. I am sure many players who play 960 are better chess players than me, but that does not make 960 any better and their claims about chess less preposterous.
Also to me you have to choose. You will either play chess or you will abandon a beautifull game to play inferior copy which 960 is. Because by playing and promoting 960 you hurt and devalue the real chess. You can't sit on two chairs.
Unless you're phat.
ppera011 wrote:
Also to me you have to choose. You will either play chess or you will abandon a beautifull game to play inferior copy which 960 is. Because by playing and promoting 960 you hurt and devalue the real chess. You can't sit on two chairs.
Do you have any evidence of this happening ? It seems to me that, if any 960 player argued for abandoning standard chess, this would be a contradiction since they would then be arguing for 960 - 1 chess. (There aren't actually 960 positions but never mind.)
ppera011 wrote:
Atos wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Atos wrote:
Steinwitz wrote:
Some good comments here. I think one of the reasons most players are bad at the middle and endgames is that they spend so much effort on the opening theory and lines. And let's be honest - sure it's good to know, but is it fun? We now have lines running into dozens of moves. Just watch any tournament kibitz: "Is it still book?"
With Chess 960 you're smack into the intricacies of the game, and as stated above, if you're good it will show. But for beginners and others just getting into the game, it's a wonderful way of getting enthusiastic about the game and its possibilities, while learning.
And then you can graduate to the classical game, and know that after you have mastered the opening theory you'll be well equipped to handle the challenges following that ... instead of having spent most of your time learning openings, and not getting around to endgame intricacies.
Actually I would love to get rid of having to memorize endgame patterns, but no luck.
Go and play tic-tac-toe then.
You accuse those who disagree with you of arrogance but you have quite of bit of it yourself. As I recall I have beaten you in (normal) chess ? Yes, I don't like studying endgames but this is not the reason I defend 960 as that part of the game will be the most similar to 'normal' chess.
I think you are putting forward a false dilemma. If we had to choose between standard chess and 960 I would choose standard chess. But I don't see the necessity to choose.
Removed my "tic-tac-toe" comment before you posted this. Nevermind. I don't remember playing against you but if you say so let it be. It is irrelevant to this discussion. I am sure many players who play 960 are better chess players than me, but that does not make 960 any better and their claims about chess less preposterous.
Also to me you have to choose. You will either play chess or you will abandon a beautifull game to play inferior copy which 960 is. Because by playing and promoting 960 you hurt and devalue the real chess. You can't sit on two chairs.
I beg to differ. I myself have managed to enjoy playing both 960 and Regular Chess, and I personally havent seen a decrease in Chess activity from my actions.
ppera011 wrote:
Also to me you have to choose. You will either play chess or you will abandon a beautifull game to play inferior copy which 960 is. Because by playing and promoting 960 you hurt and devalue the real chess. You can't sit on two chairs.
Also to me you have to choose. You will either play chess or you will abandon a beautifull game to play inferior copy which 960 is. Because by playing and promoting 960 you hurt and devalue the real chess. You can't sit on two chairs.
Wait, what is this I don't even
I like them both, I fully support understand the arguement about why chess960 avoids theory. I also feel that there is a lot of theory.
I play both types, mainly normal but do not see how chess960 is destroying real chess.
I only play chess 960, it´s a part of my path to ruin regular chess. As part of my evil masterplan I also do drugs and kick small puppies.
Welcome to the dark side.
Tricklev wrote:
I only play chess 960, it´s a part of my path to ruin regular chess. As part of my evil masterplan I also do drugs and kick small puppies.
Welcome to the dark side.
You're a disgrace to 960. I paint puppies different colours and then kick them.
Thread should be applauded for its studious delineation of hysteria. Foucault needn't have bothered writing anything.
Jan 11, 2010
0
#134
Atos wrote:
Actually I would love to get rid of having to memorize endgame patterns, but no luck.
I should have been clearer - with 960, beginners will actually get to the endgame, instead of paying the price for opening errors by getting blown up as the middle game starts ...
There's room for both.
Whatever - I'm in a good mood. Nakamura was fortunate today!
(And puppies must always be painted in a chequered pattern before being kicked, please. Let's have some decorum.)
Jan 11, 2010
0
#135
960 is chess on steroids,the middlegames that occur are unusual,beautiful,counterintuitive and highly tactical....I can't see why some people don't like it.
CerebralAssassin wrote:
960 is chess on steroids,the middlegames that occur are unusual,beautiful,counterintuitive and highly tactical....I can't see why some people don't like it.
Those characteristics in my eyes are not 100% good.
Jan 12, 2010
0
#137
tryst wrote:
staggerlee wrote:
What ridiculous statements from all of you. How can you be so offended just by the existence of a fun chess variant? If you don't like it, don't play it. If you're offended by its existence, get your head checked.
If you don't like people having dissenting opinions on 960, don't read it. If you're offended by the existence of dissent, get your head checked.
LOL, nice.
I agree that chess 960 is lame and a waste of time.
Most of the "dissenting" opinions are completely daft, unfortunately.
FUN, people, FUN. Lord, chessplayers are a curmudgeonly lot. Freaking loosen up.
There's a little child inside of you who doesn't mind the idea of 960 at all. It is immediately creative and fresh.
Reb wrote, earlier in the thread: "Why would anyone who has spent decades learning chess opening theory want to discard their effort/work/experience by throwing all that away and playing Fischer Random Chess ?!"
BECAUSE IT'S FUN. You chessplayers have your collective heads up your asses if you can't relax and let yourselves shake it up once and awhile. Does this resistance apply for other games too? You don't want to play one computer game because you've spent hours investing in another?
I guess once people find their comfort zone they solidify like quick-dry cement. Read some freakin' Zen.
The worst thing about chessplayers is how freakin' stringent and self-satisfied they become with their "rating", how self-identified. Like it would be soooo awful for Reb or any of you to let some childlike wonder out and be like "Whoa, wouldn't it be wacky if we randomized the back rank? Let's see what it's like!"
Yeah, big threat, big freakin' deal guys.
What a bunch of whiney babies. I can hear you blubbering about how scared you'd be if you didn't have your 10-move advanced Caro-Khan yippidy-yew with you. Sheesh. Like regular chess won't be right there for you to go back to.
Rae1 wrote:
Most of the "dissenting" opinions are completely daft, unfortunately.
FUN, people, FUN. Lord, chessplayers are a curmudgeonly lot. Freaking loosen up.
There's a little child inside of you who doesn't mind the idea of 960 at all. It is immediately creative and fresh.
Reb wrote, earlier in the thread: "Why would anyone who has spent decades learning chess opening theory want to discard their effort/work/experience by throwing all that away and playing Fischer Random Chess ?!"
BECAUSE IT'S FUN. You chessplayers have your collective heads up your asses if you can't relax and let yourselves shake it up once and awhile. Does this resistance apply for other games too? You don't want to play one computer game because you've spent hours investing in another?
I guess once people find their comfort zone they solidify like quick-dry cement. Read some freakin' Zen.
The worst thing about chessplayers is how freakin' stringent and self-satisfied they become with their "rating", how self-identified. Like it would be soooo awful for Reb or any of you to let some childlike wonder out and be like "Whoa, wouldn't it be wacky if we randomized the back rank? Let's see what it's like!"
Yeah, big threat, big freakin' deal guys.
What a bunch of whiney babies. I can hear you blubbering about how scared you'd be if you didn't have your 10-move advanced Caro-Khan yippidy-yew with you. Sheesh. Like regular chess won't be right there for you to go back to.
It sounds like "there's a little child" writing that post whose demanding that we have "FUN".
Oh yes, Tryst, I demand it. Dude, no one is saying you have to play it - it's a response to the thread saying that people would rather it not even be around.
By the way, in the future you don't have to copy the whole text, you can just respond. Yeesh.
/and don't worry, you can have as little fun as you like, I'm sure you're great at parties
Some good comments here. I think one of the reasons most players are bad at the middle and endgames is that they spend so much effort on the opening theory and lines. And let's be honest - sure it's good to know, but is it fun? We now have lines running into dozens of moves. Just watch any tournament kibitz: "Is it still book?"
With Chess 960 you're smack into the intricacies of the game, and as stated above, if you're good it will show. But for beginners and others just getting into the game, it's a wonderful way of getting enthusiastic about the game and its possibilities, while learning.
And then you can graduate to the classical game, and know that after you have mastered the opening theory you'll be well equipped to handle the challenges following that ... instead of having spent most of your time learning openings, and not getting around to endgame intricacies.
Actually I would love to get rid of having to memorize endgame patterns, but no luck.