Why stop this line of reasoning there? Why don't we all just agree to a draw at the opening position before either side has moved. It's pretty evenly matched at that point, and with perfect play I suspect it would ultimately result in one anyway....
Is chess conceptually flawed?
Sort:
I'm not usually one to do this but......
I'm just querying why it seems so relatively difficult to win a game of chess in the middlegame, almost as if it was meant to be that way
chessoholicalien wrote:
I'm just querying why it seems so relatively difficult to win a game of chess in the middlegame, almost as if it was meant to be that way
Because for every Art of Attack there is Art of Defence. It's a well balanced game.
chess is based on logic, geometrics and maths. That is why computers can calculate and play it well. Every attack actually requires a significant mistake or blunder on the defensive side (Kasparov has lived and kept his title for 15 years using this simple knowledge (lol))
Dec 18, 2011
0
#7
chessoholicalien wrote:
I'm just querying why it seems so relatively difficult to win a game of chess in the middlegame, almost as if it was meant to be that way
An easy game wouldn't appeal to the same sort of people that enjoy chess, would it?
As to the middlegame, if the games were winnable very often during that stage, we wouldn't call it the middlegame any more. It would be the endgame.
In fact, maybe what we now call the endgame was really meant by the chess gods to be the middlegame, but we're all so good at chess that nobody has to play all the way to the intended endgame and we erroneously call the proper middlegame the endgame.
RoseQueen1985 wrote:
You seem pretty ignorant of the origins of chess so let me educate you so that you don't ask silly questions anymore:
You seem to be a self important blowhard, so let me educate you so that you don't look like an ass anymore:
No-one likes a self important blowhard.
Angry? Bemused, maybe, but not angry.
Sorry to see you couldn't keep up and had to attack my nationality for lack of something relevant to say. It is in keeping with your character (caricature?) though.
Fair enough.
You were being a blowhard and I was being a Canadian....
Arctor wrote:
I'm not usually one to do this but......
Can I have one?
RoseQueen1985 wrote:
I have no idea on how to solve a rubix cube.
I'm sure you have some idea; you have to rotate things, and all the colours have to match.
Chess is chess... the flaw is contained within the humans.
theoreticalboy wrote:
RoseQueen1985 wrote:
I have no idea on how to solve a rubix cube.
I'm sure you have some idea; you have to rotate things, and all the colours have to match.
I still dont know what cube you are on about...
Dec 18, 2011
0
#16
RoseQueen travels through the forums like a dog through the park. Just quick little stops to dribble out a little invective tripe here and there, and then prances off to the next victim.
Chess might be conceptually flawed, but it is up to us to maximize our possibilities while simultaneously minimizing the options for our opponents
RoseQueen1985 wrote: I'm ignorant of many things myself. For example,I have no idea on how to solve a rubix cube.
It isn't all that hard. I can do it in less than 2 minutes. heres how http://www.rubiks.com/solving-center/3x3_guide/
Why do so many games continue to the endgame before they are resolved? And often require pawn promotion to resolve them.
Do you think the originators of chess intended it to be so difficult to checkmate a properly castled king in the middlegame, surrounded by all his defenders? Why do we see so little of frontal assaults on the castled king in chess literature. (The Art of Attack in Chess comes to mind as an obvious exception).