I wondering sometimes if Bobby Fischer was right when he make this sattement long time ago and bring to us the new chess version of chess960 or FischerRanmdon.we see today games in GM tournaments who follow lines to the 25 move o even more ,and with the computer help is the chess loosing his magic? what will happeng to the chess game in maybe 20 years? Maybe for the mayority of us,we are far from that,but at top level there is mayority of boring games and repeated memorized lines. What do you Think?
I may have an answer. My friend developed a game with many of the same pieces, but a different move order and expanded board. Perhaps this would revitalize the game. Right now we're looking for funding, and will be posting on indiegogo.com.
I do not think theory is killing the game, after the theory has been played up to move 20 - 25 there is still a game to play.
I think that at top levels that much of theory beyond move 15-20 in most openings is more tradition or something than anything else.
Oh my god! The choice of the opening at the GM level has nothing to do with a tradition, it's the optimum based on their preparations and experiences even for 30 moves opening prepared.
The notion that "theory" is killing the game is ludicrous and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how games work in general.
If one is playing Backgammon, has a first roll of 3 and 1 and you make any other move other than 8/3, 6/5 you're making an inferior move. This was known long before computer simulations proved it to be true. How? Because years of practice demonstrated that there was simply a best move (or a couple of limited options for moves) for every possible first roll.
If you're playing Monopoly and you don't buy any properties on your first time around the board, you're not likely to win. Why? Because the best first moves for Monopoly are well known.
Pretty much every game out there has a "best" move or set of options for a best move. And people who regular play those games tend to know those options.
If you consider the theory as a set of best moves, well, playing the best moves just by following the theory until the 35th move is what the OP calls killing the beauty of chess games.I would say it's the natural course of events. We learn from the past and we accumulate knowledge. Nothing surprising thus the theory increases over the years.
Gattaca, it's not just necessarily making the best move. There may be many possible equally good moves in a game, or moves which are close enough to equal to be more about personal style and preference. But each choice changes the situation in the game, and future choices are going to be driven by the state changes that precede it.
Opening theory is simply the accumulation of knowledge of how those choices relate to each other.
To me, the idea that knowledge about the game kills the beauty of the game is sophistry. And given your last sentence, I think we're in agreement on that notion.
If anything...it's my poor tournament play.
Theory is to a large degree what makes chess chess, the openings with their individual history and traditions, novelties and refutations etc.
in my opinion analyzing the llines in such a great depth by computer is what i think kills chess because if everybo plays the correct move(although not everybody does that)then it would always end up a draw...so it will startlosing its interest....
Players seem understand that the "best" move by the computer standards isn't the same as the "best" move from a practical standpoint. Players don't play against the pieces, no matter how much they claim they do, they play their opponent. That's what preparation is all about.
yes but when you memorize every variation till move 20 and you just play like sleepy till middlegame then i think there's the problem....
I've not played many titled players, but I'm pretty certain that you could set up just about any mainline position at move 20, and no matter which side you hand me, I'd lose against even an NM. I'm not a very good player, but I"m good enough to know that you can't just make automatic moves and draw against good players.
but you get more possibilities to win than by moving pieces randomly and for no reason...cause you may fall into traps or tactical tricks...
THe point is that in games that we amateurs label as "boring draws" there are often very complicated variations that aren't played precisely because the good players aren't "play[ing] like sleepy." They're keenly aware of nuances of move-order, and tactical potential in the position that are well above the average class player.
Pre-arranged draws ARE a problem, but that is not the fault of people having a deep and profound knowledge of the opening.
If you're playing Monopoly and you don't buy any properties on your first time around the board, you're not likely to win.
Not true. People are now studying Monopoly's mathematical component and it is actually wiser to buy properties sparingly.
Buying sparingly isn't the same as not buying at all. Failure to buy on the first time around the board correlates very strongly with a low winning percentage unless the first pass around the board happens because of rare events such as particular chance cards sending you back to Go.
However, the nuances and semantics of how one describes the best monopoly strategy isn't the point of my post. The point is that every game has optimum or near optimum strategies to start the game.
Capablanca complained/predicted the "drawing death" of chess nearly 100 years ago
Basically saying the game was becoming played out
And he was clearly and demonstrably wrong.