Chess is not dead. I am trying to give chess a facelift with my new innovative idea of Double Chess. No special pieces, and no special moves, just Double Chess on a bigger board. Check out my site to view my game
Is Chess Finally Dead?
Sort:
Do you manufacture those boards??
tigerprowl wrote:
I feel the opposite. I didn't really get into the idea of tournaments until now and I am almost 40. Saying computers make playing chess less fun or less rewarding is like saying trains, cars, and planes make running or active sports less than what they are.
Now, we can watch 2 players and see if they can match wits with the computer. We can evaluate players based on their performance. If they draw in a game, the computer could analyze who had the better moves. Even a draw could give extra points to a player. So, instead of .5, they would get .75 if they had most of the good plays. Or, get more specific and calculate using a better formula.
Fischer left the chess world after getting the title. If it is prearranged, then what I said about the computer calculating points for draws would discourage prearranged games and memorization.
I agree with you. Who cares if engines can beat Magnus? Fischer was cracked anyhow! lol
I think professional chess is slowly dying. Even patzers nowadays comments and criticize plays of super GMs. On the other hand, more people are playing chess than ever. And many have become strong players thanks to abundance of chess informations like chess books. Chess software and databases also contributed to the growth of chess players.
Yes and i think that Magnus carlsen is doing a lot to populalize the game
Jan 21, 2014
0
#47
FirebrandX wrote:
The only real negative impact of computers is when people cheat like Ivanov. If it gets to where cheating in OTB tournaments becomes easier and easier to get away with, that will be the thing to kill competitive chess. Just look at how many people chess.com has had to ban for cheating just in the past 5 years.
And this people were not even playing for money prizes.
Sheesh. The only way for chess to be "dead" is if everything chess-related in the world would be destroyed and no one would be alive who remembers anything about it.
So long as I'm still interested in it, I could care less how "dead" people think it is.
Conspiracy theorists know that chess is dead, and has been for a long time. We are all being kept in the dark about it - too much money at stake, the computer industry, FIDE even (some whisper) Chess.com itself.
The truth is that chess was killed by the discovery of ultimate winning opening line, a line against which there is no possible defence.
The story is that such a line does exist and was first discovered around 1896 in Berlin. The young challenger repeatedly beat (some say) Lasker, others that it was Stienitz. In truth no one is sure who it was. In the end the young upstart explained the opening line. The champion studied it for a long while. He realised that chess was dead, that his living would be over, his next move was to kill the young challenger and destroy all evidence of the line.
If you rediscover the line for yourself you will immediately be granted the title of grandmaster. It will be explained that you must make none sensical moves in pre-arranged games to obscure the secret and should you ever be foolish enough to reveal it...
video killed the radio star.
Lol, Tigerprowl!
Chess have to be dead.
Now I understand the sentence "post mortem".
Jan 21, 2014
0
#53
If computers are conjuring up new lines and strategy's and there's something left to beat, there's still chess to be played.
LOl tigerprowl. Good one. :)
Jan 22, 2014
0
#55
tmpacc2012 wrote:
besides, it is always possible for a GM to beat a computer program. he just has to play it many times and find out its strengths and weaknesses. thats why the programmers keep changing their code and coming out with new releases to prevent this from happening.
Well, this is just because they need to keep selling.
Chess will never be dead.
Dead? You view computers enhancing chess play as a bad thing... But chess has advanced to new levels thanks to the use of computers. Computers have raised so many things to completely new levels. "Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Saying that computers killed chess is like saying computers killed the human race. Sure, computers can beat humans at chess. But human chess still has value and is augmented by computers. The day human chess holds no value is the day we (or they) decide humans hold no value. Until that day, computers will continue to enhance our lives, hobbies, passions, culture, art, medicine, and race exponentally more than we would have naturally evolved without them. Chess isn't dead; it's finally getting played at the level it deserves, no longer being artificially handicapped by, well, us.
FirebrandX wrote:
tubebender wrote:
Mandy711 wrote:
I think professional chess is slowly dying. Even patzers nowadays comments and criticize plays of super GMs. On the other hand, more people are playing chess than ever. And many have become strong players thanks to abundance of chess informations like chess books. Chess software and databases also contributed to the growth of chess players.
They can intelligently criticize because they have Fritz and Houdini programs.
Not really. All they can do it point out such-and-such move was a mistake, but they have no idea other than the computer telling them this. They can't for example, understand the difference between a difficult "equal" position from any other position the computer evaluates that way.
I like an anecdote Aagaard tells about a tournament where Quality Chess was hosting and holding post-game audience talks and such.
A journalist criticized a move by GM Nick Pert in front of Aagaard, on the grounds that it missed the "obvious solution" pointed out by Fritz. Andrew Martin then held the group post-mortem, where it took the audience full of class, expert, and lower-titled players 24 guesses out of 37 legal moves to come up with the correct "obvious solution."
"NotAGM wrote:
Conspiracy theorists know that chess is dead, and has been for a long time. We are all being kept in the dark about it - too much money at stake, the computer industry, FIDE even (some whisper) Chess.com itself.
The truth is that chess was killed by the discovery of ultimate winning opening line, a line against which there is no possible defence.
The story is that such a line does exist and was first discovered around 1896 in Berlin. The young challenger repeatedly beat (some say) Lasker, others that it was Stienitz. In truth no one is sure who it was. In the end the young upstart explained the opening line. The champion studied it for a long while. He realised that chess was dead, that his living would be over, his next move was to kill the young challenger and destroy all evidence of the line.
If you rediscover the line for yourself you will immediately be granted the title of grandmaster. It will be explained that you must make none sensical moves in pre-arranged games to obscure the secret and should you ever be foolish enough to reveal it..."
Who is Adolph Hitler
I always find this topic interesting because if chess is dead because machines do it better and the chess board reflects the current paradigm of thought than what will happen when all the jobs a human can do, are done better and cheaper by robots? If chess is dead than civilization is doomed too. Personally I welcome our new robotic overlords and hope to be kept alive as a house pet or agent to round up any usurpers against the dawn of the new robot age
Chess IS NOT DEAD; It just smells funny!