"mapped chess"
Sort:
I'm sure there are plenty of comments on their way, but in short this just isn't true :)
chambachamba wrote:
Chess nowadays is already "mapped" if that's the right word. Most of the variations played today are already in the maps or trees of analysis. Games from all over are "banked" in giant databases. I think pure chess talents will be snuffed out by these things. Fischer's random chess is the answer.
What you wrote is only part true. You see for now the computers have in their databases all of the opening moves that human beings have found. But, there is a hidden geometry on the board that our organic, human, brains can't see and the machines can.
To give you a specific example, for 300 years it was believed that the position of King + 2 Bishops vs. King + Knight was a draw. It turns out that the computers found a forced win for the side with the 2 Bishops. It takes a minimum of about 60 moves and a maximum of about 200 moves to checkmate the King of the side with the knight. But, there is no doubt about it is a forced win.
The example above illustrates that the machines may some day completely revise our human created Chess Opening Theory. In other words, we believe that the, "book moves",
Oops, hit the submit button by accident.
Anyway, continuing. We believe that the books moves are the absolutely correct ones. But someday the machines, I believe, will show us otherwise. It may be that the right moves in the Ruy Lopez opening that we know may not be the right moves at all.
Just to give you an idea about this hidden geometry that I mentioned, in a book titled, "Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings", by John Nunn; the method by which the K + 2 Bishops vs. K + Knight is a forced win is explained in detail, complete with all of the algegraic notation of all the variations. What is really interesting is how the bishops use a method of telescoping off of the edge of the board. It turns out that the new diagonal that the bishop is on when it comes off the edge of the board is exactly the diagonal is has to be on to make progress against the King and Knight setting up a well known defensive position known as the Kling-Horowitz position.
There are lots of cool examples like the one above in lots of endgame books nowadays.
I guess, what I'm trying to say is there is still alot stuff about chess to be discovered. And, even when we have done all of that there will be Fischer Random chess waiting for us.
We went to the Moon. Now we are trying to get to Mars. The human race is going to the stars and we are bringing our machines with us.
chambachamba wrote:
Chess nowadays is already "mapped" if that's the right word. Most of the variations played today are already in the maps or trees of analysis. Games from all over are "banked" in giant databases. I think pure chess talents will be snuffed out by these things. Fischer's random chess is the answer.
I agree with you almost entirely. I really do sympathise with Fischer, and it's why I can't really respect post-computer chess. Unless it's a pure meeting of two human minds with an unknown position, well, I dunno, it detracts from what I'm really after. Fortunately, I'm not Bobby so chess proper is still an enigma to me, but I do dislike it very much that computers/databases are simply unavoidable in training these days.
Whenever I play a game of Fischerrandom I feel giddy all over again. It's the butterflies in the stomach that I felt when I first played chess. Anyone who hasn't tried - please do! Fischerrandom feels like teleporting right into the middlegame. On the first move, you're calculating!
It also transports you to that beautiful beginner's mind. Since I'm the "chess" friend of my group, I lose a lot of face if I get beaten by one of my pals - and from their vantage point, why play Rael when Rael is always on chess.com honing his skill anyways?? So Fischerrandom returns everything to where it ought to be - it reminds everyone that we're just having a game, I don't have to worry about proving myself and my friends feel we've equalized it moreso.
Right from the very first move, the word I think describes Fischerrandom best is refreshing. It takes you back to innocence again.
Honestly, I work to learn what I can about opening systems and all the rest, but I tell you, chess fatigue does set in after a while, when you've played long enough as that you're like, okay, yeah yeah, I played Nc3 and now he has my knight pinned to my king, yeah yeah.
Kk, just to show you guys how sexy this can be, I'll post 2 images here right away, and ask you what your first moves would be.
White to move.
White to move.
I think it was either Karpov or Kasparov who said
"People dont play chess, they play variations" paraphrased
Perhaps someone can tell/correct me on who actually said it.
Doesn't that give you a weird sense of delerium? Euphoria? As if the very physics of the world have changed? It's falling in love all over again, for the first time.
p.s. thanks for your "yawn" comment, NM Ozzie. Sounds like someone feels a little threatened.
Jul 2, 2008
0
#11
re: Rael's images of random chess. As white, I'd play 1.g4 and 1.f4, respectively. Opens up attacking pieces right away. Dunno if that'd be good, though, never played random for some reason. I'll have to try it at my local club sometime.
This is actually not the point. Honestly, tell me, that once you've played over 300 games, that you don't get annoyed with the repetitious nature of our game?
Rael wrote: This is actually not the point. Honestly, tell me, that once you've played over 300 games, that you don't get annoyed with the repetitious nature of our game?
In a word: no.
Strangely enough, I've gotten bored and fed up with the repetitious nature of euchre, poker, and blackjack - even though I've played far fewer games of those than I have of chess.
transpositions wrote: chambachamba wrote:
Chess nowadays is already "mapped" if that's the right word. Most of the variations played today are already in the maps or trees of analysis. Games from all over are "banked" in giant databases. I think pure chess talents will be snuffed out by these things. Fischer's random chess is the answer.
What you wrote is only part true. You see for now the computers have in their databases all of the opening moves that human beings have found. But, there is a hidden geometry on the board that our organic, human, brains can't see and the machines can.
To give you a specific example, for 300 years it was believed that the position of King + 2 Bishops vs. King + Knight was a draw. It turns out that the computers found a forced win for the side with the 2 Bishops. It takes a minimum of about 60 moves and a maximum of about 200 moves to checkmate the King of the side with the knight. But, there is no doubt about it is a forced win.
The example above illustrates that the machines may some day completely revise our human created Chess Opening Theory. In other words, we believe that the, "book moves",
To say it is a forced win is crazy, since once you hit 50 moves, it is a draw anyway. With perfect play, it is a draw, case closed. If the opponent blunders, maybe you can do it in less than 50 moves, but that is if he blunders.
And for people who think chess in its own is boring, try playing a new opening. There are thousands of openings to try, dubious experiments that lead to double-edged positions...in other words, some times it is even fun to lose! That sounds crazy, but I have had some satisfaction playing an opening I didn't have a lot of faith in, just to see why I didn't have a good feeling about it! But it makes me search harder for a path. Plus, when I do switch to "mainline" openings (they are mainline for a reason - GMs believe they are the best paths to securing advantage), I can use my new offbeat ideas there also.
Psychology has a huge effect on two chess players. An unexpected move that creeps in can drive certain players off the deep end. Of course, when playing some people, I have to play "safer" since the "crazy" style doesn't stir them into wild moves. This is okay too, I just have to sit tight a bit longer.
Rael wrote: This is actually not the point. Honestly, tell me, that once you've played over 300 games, that you don't get annoyed with the repetitious nature of our game?
Not at all. If you had this complaint after 300,000 games, then maybe I could understand, but 300 is nothing.
I do study openings and play book moves, and I play against plenty of opponents who do the same. Yet most of my games are out of "book" by the time both players have played 6 moves, because we're rarely both studying the same books. And even on the rare occasion that we stay in book for 9 or 10 moves, the middle game and end game still ends up being completely different every time.
Really, if you're bored with the opening positions you're playing, then switch to different openings. I recommend trying some gambits (other than the Queen's Gambit). Those are never boring.
--Fromper
well i think your write in some reasons, here in the philippines we call it chambachamba means unlucy, or in chess player, you were only just a wood pusher!!! But before ypu call it mapped, we were all playing game of chess, and its basically we know chess is game of space, between dark and white square, and other things behind is only the variations who we or them, are playing thats why chess is battle mind, characteristic and even the life style of ours.
I agree. And mostly to be practical more than anything else. What about those people who don't have the time to memorize the usual opening theory? Of course, there is strategy to be learned, but at least it cuts down the difference the professionals and hobbyists.
Also, to argue that regular chess is still interesting is a crap argument. If regular chess positions are still interesting, imagine how many more unusual positions would come up if Fischer's version!
Chess960 is undoubtedly more interesting (or at least offbeat, which I would think is directly related to interest), so if that's where your values in the game lie, then random chess would definitely trump traditional chess.
Chess nowadays is already "mapped" if that's the right word. Most of the variations played today are already in the maps or trees of analysis. Games from all over are "banked" in giant databases. I think pure chess talents will be snuffed out by these things. Fischer's random chess is the answer.