NelsonMoore wrote:
1. Between really boring slow chess and bullet / blitz chess
Personally, I find slow chess stimulating...
chess is so boring, i picked up recently and i am glad i am done with it before i look back 40 years
Sort:
NelsonMoore wrote:
Usual comments.
1. Between really boring slow chess and bullet / blitz chess there is the sensible speed known as rapid. Why is rapid always overlooked?
2. There is chess960. Fischer Random Chess - designed to get rid of opening theory and on this site where we can use games explorer I am often still in a previously played game as late as move 16 when I play standard. I actually once previously created a form of scrambled position chess but where the players at the start place the pieces. You take it in turns to do so. Black goes first and places one bishop. White places the other bishop on a square of a different colour then places the first knight. Black places the second knight and also the queen. Note: when your opponent places you must also put yours opposite. Then of course white plays the first actual move.
3. There are other variants. If only this site supported them properly.
There are clearly not enough people who play 960. On this site having matches is complicated, and tourneys are scarce unfortunately.
Jun 6, 2018
0
#24
TadrodderTots wrote:
And, if you think that you have to be good at something to enjoy it -
Try spending time at a public golf course.
or having sex.
_
That made me laugh!
Ok, there's a serious point about how the effect the sheer amount of theory is having on the game. For me and a number of others who like chess, I think the sheer amount of theory that is now out there is off-putting and takes away some of the pleasure in the game. I would love it if 960 really took off, though I've not played it myself. However, I just can't see how this can be a lower-rated player's issue, when everyone is usually out of book by move 4.
A number of other comments here, though, equally apply to any game. Does football, golf, league of legends, rocket league etc. etc. *really* matter? I guess that what's true about chess is some of don't play for fun but for some kind of satisfaction in improving our brains, for the challenge of doing something difficult. For my part, that chess is still going strong -- at least online -- in this supposed age of instant gratification is something that kind of warms my heart.
It must suck to suck
Jun 6, 2018
0
#28
I guess I'll never understand why people have to post how much they hate chess or Chess.com before they leave. Bye.
GoodBoyRiley wrote:
bobby fischer said it was a good game 200 years ago now it sucks
there have been few people in the history of mankind who have made as many idiotic statements as Bobby Fischer. amazing chess player, but a complete and utter fool otherwise.
also, bye. we are all very sorry that you leave 
well no, not really. also, you suck at chess.
Jun 6, 2018
0
#30
RG621 wrote:
When Fischer said that chess was so predictable he wasn't talking about patzers like us.
#1
Don't blame the game for your lack of skill in playing it to its fullest.
Don't blame the game for your lack of skill in playing it to its fullest.
fischerrook wrote:
To each their own. There are lots of games that are just not my thing. If you just watched a chess movie or something and decided you was the next Bobby Fischer, you probably found you are not very special on the board, so move on. If you quit at the first sign of diversity, its not your game. You have to accept losing is common and is the only way to get better.
i picked up chess because i thought it was a game where you can use your head, i didnt realize many virgins lock themselves in rooms reading chess books
You don't pick up chess. Chess picks up you.
#48
Just persevere with it. Once you get to around 1000 you can actually use your brain.
Or try chess960, a variant made to avoid people learning opening strings.
And if people did use their brains they would still go for the common openings. Why? AS THEY WORK. If someone knows an opening it is because it is effective. If someone doesn't know their openings they will make rubbish first moves anyone could counter.
I haven't done that much study. Just learn a bit. Find out a few openings, tactics, a few traps.
Then once you go up a few levels and actually try the game at a slightly decent level, if you still don't like it after maybe 50 games, then stop and complain all you want.
Just persevere with it. Once you get to around 1000 you can actually use your brain.
Or try chess960, a variant made to avoid people learning opening strings.
And if people did use their brains they would still go for the common openings. Why? AS THEY WORK. If someone knows an opening it is because it is effective. If someone doesn't know their openings they will make rubbish first moves anyone could counter.
I haven't done that much study. Just learn a bit. Find out a few openings, tactics, a few traps.
Then once you go up a few levels and actually try the game at a slightly decent level, if you still don't like it after maybe 50 games, then stop and complain all you want.
Like if it is good enough for several hundred million people, many of whom are the smartest of our time, then I'm sure it's good enough for you.
Arankaaa wrote:
that is not a god strategy if you want to beat better players
Really ? I prefer going with spicy non common opening lines as it gives me a technical advantage over someone who isn't as well aware of the opening theory behind it.
It's not necessarily the strongest one to play but cause you are facing humans it leads to opportunities. Those are fun, not the dry heap of theory
Jun 7, 2018
0
#38
GoodBoyRiley wrote:
what is it about beginners, and using words like "theory" when they have no clue.
i am 21 and i picked up chess recently and i am already bored from it, its so boring, i am always ending up in the same positions because of theory, if i dont play these lines my oponnent gets into them if they are playing white, i am glad i quit now before i am 50 years old regretting wasting my young days obsessing over this stupid game, the only thing that sucks us into this game is the feeling of winning and destroying our opponent, there is no creativity in this game because everything is so predictable, just like what bobby fischer said it was a good game 200 years ago now it sucks
Jun 7, 2018
0
#39
Would be a LOT NICER if 50 percent of players here would NOT be lousy CHEATERS. Unfortunately it seems that site is powerless against this re-emerging phenomenon, Once it was toralable. Nowadays again the situation is CRITICAL !
Arankaaa wrote:
Vantaaman wrote:
Would be a LOT NICER if 50 percent of players here would NOT be lousy CHEATERS. Unfortunately it seems that site is powerless against this re-emerging phenomenon, Once it was toralable. Nowadays again the situation is CRITICAL !
I am curious to see which games you thought another player cheated. I looked at several of your games and it's clear both sides just make bad mistakes.
Concluding I think your rating does reflect your strength of play.
I also looked at several of your games--blunders and errors by both sides--no sign of any cheating.
You need to accept that your rating reflects your strength.
There are ways you can become a better player without having to resort to calling your opponents "cheaters".
I actually once previously created a form of scrambled position chess but where the players at the start place the pieces. You take it in turns to do so. Black goes first and places one bishop. White places the other bishop on a square of a different colour then places the first knight. Black places the second knight and also the queen. Note: when your opponent places you must also put yours opposite. Then of course white plays the first actual move.
Very nice! You said you invented this ? If not, what's the name of this variant? I'm quite interested