Norway Chess 2019: Might very well sign the death of chess as we know it.

DeirdreSkye
Daniel1115 wrote:

I think the real "boring draws" are not the positions like you showcased, but the symmetrical ones (french exchange) or heavily drawish (berlin). The position you showed is very interesting. The position has both players taking some risks, ceding the center, while leaving white with structural weakenesses (and a more exposed king). Lots of stuff going on. 

   

   I will certainly disagree with that. French exchange is not drawish. Psakhis even calls it "an uncompromising positional struggle" but that is another topic.

mbereobong

What they are trying to do is "modernize" chess at the expense of quality chess.

Odeon2018
you guys are so dramatic
BonTheCat

DeirdreSkye wrote: "Has any of you any idea what kind of creativity burst a player needs to play a brilliancy. Chess players are artists. No one asks from a painter , a poet or writer to create a masterpiece every week. No one asks from a scientist to discover a new thing every month. But we expect from chessplayers to play a brilliancy in each and every game.That's the definite trademark of ignorance.Yes , draws are necessary for many reasons and one of them is , you need 100 of them to get a brilliancy. If you try to reduce draws you inevitably reduce brilliancies. That is how things are."

Yep, this is the rub in a nut shell.

BonTheCat
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:

I think the real "boring draws" are not the positions like you showcased, but the symmetrical ones (french exchange) or heavily drawish (berlin). The position you showed is very interesting. The position has both players taking some risks, ceding the center, while leaving white with structural weakenesses (and a more exposed king). Lots of stuff going on. 

   

   I will certainly disagree with that. French exchange is not drawish. Psakhis even calls it "an uncompromising positional struggle" but that is another topic.

And I think all of us should try playing the Ruy Lopez Berlin endgame with either colour against world class opposition. We'd be all taught a thing or three about subtle nuances in positional understanding ...

Personally, I'm much more concerned about the fact that certain highly tactical and aggressive opening lines, where in the days of yore the theoretical battles raged for years and decades (the Dragon in the Sicilian, the Botvinnik in the Slav are two that spring to mind), now can be dismissed as completely clarified one way or another after half an hour by a computer. To me this is a sad development.

BonTheCat
SeniorPatzer wrote:
BonTheCat wrote:

To chase easy pickings and go for increased 'excitement' to please a general public, which may or may not understand the game, is all wrong in my view. But I'm sure just as many think this development great.

Your objection is duly noted, and regarded highly as well.

Thank you! :-D I'm just one of those players who remember how great chess used to be back in the day without computers and all big important tournaments (round-robins and opens) were played with adjournments. One of the most enjoyable things I knew back then was strolling through a quiet playing hall kibbitzing on all the adjourned games dotted around the hall (or being one of the players in one of those adjournments).  Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy playing chess as much as ever, but I can't help feeling that we've lost something highly precious along the way in our constant rush to shorten the time controls and trying to attract sponsors.

Fredrik32724

camter wrote:

How many of you guys would counsel your son to take up Chess as a career? 

No sons, so for me the question is rhetorical. More importantly, just how many people make a living at chess in the first place? Like MTG or bridge, IMO chess is a fine hobby that a very few people have managed to cash in on by being good enough. Playing the lottery as a career choice seems like better advice to your children.

BonTheCat
Fredrik32724 wrote:

 

camter wrote:

 

How many of you guys would counsel your son to take up Chess as a career? 

 

No sons, so for me the question is rhetorical. More importantly, just how many people make a living at chess in the first place? Like MTG or bridge, IMO chess is a fine hobby that a very few people have managed to cash in on by being good enough. Playing the lottery as a career choice seems like better advice to your children.

 

This is not exclusive to chess, I think. The alternative cost of failing to make the grade in almost any sport is very high. A wasted education, regardless of the profession or trade, is hard to claw back in your late 20s, early 30s when you've formed a family and become a parent etc. (apart from the blow to your confidence of having had your dreams and illusions dashed to pieces). And this alternative cost becomes much higher, the more affluent the country.