I think chess needs to be updated

Sort:
50Mark

Whether people would be unwilling to play the board game  if there is no variety in this game ? Could be.

It seems people needs a new challenge or escape from the routines.

Try this variant:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/functional-exchanged-chess

IMKeto
DeirdreSkye wrote:
50Mark wrote:

Whether people would be unwilling to play the board game  if there is no variety in this game ? Could be.

It seems people needs a new challenge or escape from the routines.

Try this variant:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/functional-exchanged-chess

   There are a lot of variants already  and speed chess in all forms and plenty of sites that support them.

    People don't want a variant , they want to make even chess a variant because it's too difficult to understand it as it is. They want to see the world champion blundering like them in world championship matches. That is what will make them happy.He is too good for us so instead of trying to stuyd and be better , the only other solution we can find is make him play worst.

     It's like saying Messi , "don't wear shoes you are too good with them , play barefoot". It's like saying Usain Bolt "don't wear shows , you are too fast with them , run barefoot". That is an abolute nonsense in every sport but not in chess. In chess we want to say Carlsen , "don't think too much , you are too good , think less".

   And it is supposed to be a game that attracts the clever. I seriously doubt that!

   

Well said Deirdre!

The game is fine.  Its some of the people that are attempting dumb it down that are the problem.  I guess there isnt "an app for that"

LionVanHalen

No, we don't need mickey mouse variants... but a little faster for classical would be good.

Main argument against serious change... we could no longer compare modern GMs with like of Capablanca or Morphy, even Greco.

bong711
LionVanHalen wrote:

No, we don't need mickey mouse variants... but a little faster for classical would be good.

Main argument against serious change... we could no longer compare modern GMs with like of Capablanca or Morphy, even Greco.

Old Master games use longer time control. They don't have Chessbase, Stockfish and Dvoretsky books. And life was slow that time. No traffic, no deadlines.

50Mark
DeirdreSkye wrote:
50Mark wrote:

Whether people would be unwilling to play the board game  if there is no variety in this game ? Could be.

It seems people needs a new challenge or escape from the routines.

Try this variant:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/functional-exchanged-chess

   There are a lot of variants already  and speed chess in all forms and plenty of sites that support them.

    People don't want a variant , they want to make even chess a variant because it's too difficult to understand it as it is. They want to see the world champion blundering like them in world championship matches. That is what will make them happy.He is too good for us so instead of trying to stuyd and be better , the only other solution we can find is make him play worst.

     It's like saying Messi , "don't wear shoes you are too good with them , play barefoot". It's like saying Usain Bolt "don't wear shows , you are too fast with them , run barefoot". That is an abolute nonsense in every sport but not in chess. In chess we want to say Carlsen , "don't think too much , you are too good , think less".

   And it is supposed to be a game that attracts the clever. I seriously doubt that!

   

It have been demonstrated that classic chess is a pattern recognition game. So it may have bored up generations.

I think it is good to enliven other chess variant by which any rich companies to promote variants.

50Mark

@deirdreskye

You have acknowledged that it is a pattern recognition game. See at your sentence.

As the pattern memorization have been too far to be reached (see at a lot of draw games and needs engines aided to gain new novelties) by others it have created the gap in generations.

I think it is good if classic chess and the variants to have mutual success. 

LionVanHalen

Can't believe i agree with Deardrie?!

We don't want silly new variants.

Chess has a huge opening variety

Remember that games were near exclusive 1e4 v 1e5... and when d4 was reluctant accepted the QGD Orthodox was used for decades?!

 

50Mark
GothicChessInventor wrote:

Chess has evolved over a span of about 2300 years. The game was not always the “packaged game”
that it is today. Its origins are traceable to Indian ashtapada boards commonly used among diceplaying games of that time. This game spread from culture to culture via several different means,
periodically undergoing revision. Most chess players are aware of the radical reforms that shaped
the game of chess during the Medieval Era, but probably only a few players are aware of the
changes proposed by former World Champion José Raoul Capablanca in the 1920s. There's no reason why an 80-square extended version could not be the next logical step in its "evolutionary stage."

If i have a rich company i will throw out my money  to promote an OTB tournament for my variant.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/functional-exchanged-chess

People might be happy for the variation.

 

ACESYK101

i agree

 

ACESYK101

that chess needs to be updated but depending on if the people like the updates 

AndBell
GothicChessInventor wrote:

Chess has evolved over a span of about 2300 years. The game was not always the “packaged game”
that it is today. Its origins are traceable to Indian ashtapada boards commonly used among diceplaying games of that time. This game spread from culture to culture via several different means,
periodically undergoing revision. Most chess players are aware of the radical reforms that shaped
the game of chess during the Medieval Era, but probably only a few players are aware of the
changes proposed by former World Champion José Raoul Capablanca in the 1920s. There's no reason why an 80-square extended version could not be the next logical step in its "evolutionary stage."

Chess is perfectly complex as it is for the millions of people who play it.  Maybe a Magnus Carlsen or Bobby Fischer can make an argument that changes need to be made or that they are bored of chess and have it all figured out.  Anyone else under a 2600-2700 rating has no business making that argument.  Its absurd , because you kicked a soccer ball in your back yard as a kid are you going to propose changes to soccer? No one is expert at chess enough to be able to "improve" it unless they are one of the few world class super-GMs.  

 

samrubinstein

i like it the way it is

LionVanHalen

Hmm... dude might be on to something? 

How about something like... players get an extra bishop and knight pair, with extra pawns... that would be ranks of 12...  how about we get the elephant back... to honour the games Indian roots and make things more colourful? 

Elephant could sit beside the Rook... not too sure how he would move? Maybe vertical, straight up and down... like a charging elephant? 

Elephant could rival Knight as most popular piece?

So that would be ranks of 14, or 28 pieces per side...

Give them a straight 2hrs per side... SuperChess?!

50Mark

I think the comparison between classic chess and variants are the same as the comparison of soccer and foot ball or with base ball.

There is nothing wrong to have the favor of it.

People only addicted to one of it and over rated it.

LionVanHalen

Yeah, but not talking about a replacement... SuperChess would be a different game.

Can you imagine some of the crazy positions? 

50Mark
LionVanHalen wrote:

Yeah, but not talking about a replacement... SuperChess would be a different game.

Can you imagine some of the crazy positions? 

While you might enjoy your status quo try one of those variants and see if you would mastered it.

50Mark
GothicChessInventor wrote:

Chess originally had Bishops that could only take 2 steps. The Queen was one of the weakest pieces on the board. The king could not castle. There was no en passant. The rules change by general consensus, not by one, two, or even 1000 people say. Even in Capablanca's day, chess at the topmost level was heading towards a vast majority of draws. As time goes on, the "theory" trickles down. Chess has suffered a bit from its own popularity. It will eventually change, again. And it probably won't be the last time either.

Theoretically engines could expand human skill in chess. But there is no decisive conclusion about it.

50Mark
GothicChessInventor wrote:
50Mark wrote:
GothicChessInventor wrote:

Chess originally had Bishops that could only take 2 steps. The Queen was one of the weakest pieces on the board. The king could not castle. There was no en passant. The rules change by general consensus, not by one, two, or even 1000 people say. Even in Capablanca's day, chess at the topmost level was heading towards a vast majority of draws. As time goes on, the "theory" trickles down. Chess has suffered a bit from its own popularity. It will eventually change, again. And it probably won't be the last time either.

Theoretically engines could expand human skill in chess. But there is no decisive conclusion about it.

If that was true, the last World Chess Championship would not have ended with 12 draws in the regulation time control.

Yes. We don't know how they treat the engines and how much the human capacity to learn from the engines. 

LionVanHalen

Hahaha, that is one of funniest pic ever...

A horse with roller skates...

Oh gawd, am near crying with laughter?!

LionVanHalen

Seriously though... am liking the larger board, but a hybrid knight... on wheels?!

Larger board, but with elephant, maybe sultan or archer too?

Lion will copyright...