I have made several attempts at "improvements" of standard chess. At least, they are suitable for training purposes. These suggestions might prove very valuable in the future, when it's necessary to introduce amendments to chess, due to the looming crisis of Fide-chess, a crisis that is bound to follow upon the incursion of the computer brain into chess. Please have a look here, on "My variants" :
You're that odd one, I remember you
Didn't you say something like you'd mastered endgames and they were easy because you knew rooks went behind passed pawns and kings needed to be activated? I wouldn't sweat any kind of looming chess crisis. Chess itself (and the advent of... computer brains) are much more difficult than you realize.
I am speaking, of course, of the elite. I know that amateurs will be able to play today's chess forever. But if the elite starts playing another variant, so will the amateurs.
How come they don't play the King's gambit anymore? After all, it's a very active opening. Answer: Black has good defensive resources. So how long will it take until the defensive knowledge is so good in, for instance, the Marshall attack, that White refrains from playing e4?
We mustn't let computer analysis rule chess.
At elite level, that happened after 1995. 1.e4 is hardly seen in world championship chess since then, and has only a single win (the last game of Kramnik-Leko, where Kramnik left theory early against Leko's Caro-Kann).
And yet, chess seems to be more popular than ever.
No it isn't. Chess clubs have less members each year.We're from the same country, you should realise that chess is much smaller now then it was 5 years ago. The veterans die, get to old to play or stop for a differant reason and there are not many youthplayers who actually continue chess after their 18 to compensate for it.
How come they don't play the King's gambit anymore?
Yeah, I know. It's been a couple of months at least since Nakamura wheeled it out. I wonder what's wrong.
Anand, Leko, Morozevich and Svidler all scored wins with 1.e4 at the Mexico City World Championship in 2007, and there were numerous 1.e4 wins at the San Luis World Championship in 2005.
"Hotposted" for Laquear chess variant's incredibly extensive linkage !!
1.e4 is actually slightly more popular +2700 than 1.d4.
Computer analysis (before the game of course) has expanded the repertoires of the top players, not narrowed it.
Just about every concern the OP has made is either ill-founded or wrong.
The variation tree has become very narrow, but containing very long computer lines. These long branches must be memorized.
Earlier, it was possible to play Wiener gambit, Bird, King's gambit, Italian, Jaenich gambit, etc., etc. So one had many more choices. Today, you have to play 20 moves, or more, in well-trodden lines, to be able to hope for a little advantage. Or else, you can play Ruy Lopez with d3, or 1.b3 (Larsen) and accept equal play.
This is a problem that makes chess more boring. Chess is losing members because of this. So they go over to chess variants, or they start playing Xiang qi.
Chess is going fine. These variants of chess won't replace chess. I agree with Fezzik
You consistently come up with good pictures in the threads.
chess is a fascinating, accessible and popular game. I guess that computers have their role in the chess world but they are not "impossible" to beat and can become a powerful trainer tool at a high level (and not only) .
Now we have access to all virtual stuff (games, p*rn, relationships..) but it can never replace the reality's vivid experience.
I play king's gambit every time I get the chance. I have played over 1000 games in total using the king's gambit, at least 20% of my total.
What are you talking about???
Are you saying chess has been solved by computers. It hasn't. Furthermore, we mere humans cannot memorize the millions of millions of variations that could arise on the chess board. Sure there may be people who study opening trees and that may be all they do. Anyone can beat who only knows openings. Modern masters are also a lot stronger than the masters before them. The ideas behind positional play and even play into the endgame have changed. There is no doubt that humans and not computers are responsible for such increase in skill.
You say people found "defensive resources" for the king's gambit. True, but many of these resources were found before computers.
Also, computers arn't destroying chess, they are increasing the quality of play in the opening. A new novelty or a variation can come from a chess engine. That is a good thing. Without the computers help, some variations might have gone unnoticed forever.
I'm not sure where you are coming from. We don't need variants. Fischer random would eliminate any use of computers in tournament play. So one could argue that...but want is something different, I think.
Patzers can play the "Raeto-Romanian opening in D major" against other patzers, and it makes no difference.
Calling someone a patzer when you haven't played any games on this site is pretty ignorant, especially when deranged's rating suggests otherwise. The "crisis" of chess you see would be inevitable for your variants, assuming they were any good. Why do you create new variants of chess? Chess has survived for quite a while and will still be there in the future. Stop posting you variants of chess in the forums and find something productive to do with your time.
You people all have your heads in the sand. Denying the truth will not delay the inevitable. Soon Erik will have to shut this site down for lack of members. Unless we can figure out a way to combine chess with lasers, in five years people will be reminiscing about the fad that was chess, if anybody remembers it at all.