The looming crisis of chess

That's interesting.  I wonder how much chess and Archery can be compared?  I don't know much about it, but it seems like archery would require a lot of concentration / focus.  The other attribute that seems to tie us players together is competitiveness.  I turned to chess because I saw it's competition would be around much longer than me.

There are some sites that have it if I remember -- maybe even yahoo! (?)  I remember playing a few and getting crushed :)  My brother was interested in Go for a while, got a life/death (tactics) book and a weak program to practice against.

I agree, today's youth has a lot more options for recreation and entertainment when I was a teenager 30+ years ago.  It is the young that are the continuation of a sport, game, hobby, and profession.  Chess is not the only hobby, game, or past-time to have less people actually get together and share in its activities.  With today's computers, iPhones/iPads, cell phones; it is very easy to reach-out and converse with someone about any subject that interests you.  Not like in the past, say the 1960s, when to participate in an activity you had to physically go to where the other participant(s) were.

I think what the original poster, Laquear, was saying is since the elite and amateurs have computer programs that can generate more detailed analysises of openings than the old masters had available to them that the elite  today must commit larger and larger amounts of data to memory.  This leads to the modern player playing more moves from just memory and not from creativity and understanding.  Because both players, and the audience, will be familiar with the opening play, the opening moves will be both expected and boring to all.  There will be nothing new to see or to grab our attention;  there is a lack of excitement.  And, human nature, being what it is,  seeks out activities that generate excitement and social connectivity.   And, then there is the amount of material that a person must learn, memorize, and understand to be at the top levels of the game.  What Lacquer was asking, "Who would choose to play chess when there other, more socialable, more easily accomplished, activities?"

Just my $.02.  Dee.

That's the main distinction I believe.  For the most part, I don't think chess players get into chess for it's ease or the social aspect.  My two main reasons for choosing chess were 1) It wasn't designed for me to succeed/win (like video games are) and   2) The competition would always be there, for decades to come.

 +1

Archery, orangehonda they are very expensive, you'll have buy the best to be able to stay in the competition. (e.g. each arrow costing $20 or more)  

You've got to be kidding.  The only thing that makes chess boring is BORING PLAY by people like you who apparently have no imagination.   There are no bad parts, just bad actors playing them. 

Xiangqi is played by a vastly greater number of people than chess. Xiangqi counts as the world's most popular game. It is played mostly in China, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Malaysia. In Britain, Xiangqi is regulated by the United Kingdom Chinese Chess Association.

Xiangqi is great fun, but it lacks the depth of chess.

I've been losing sleep over the Looming Crisis of Chess - but then I

remembered there is a variant in which a certain piece is worth two

pawns and I slept much better.

Yes, i'm sure brick and mortar chess clubs are doing badly. We are having this conversation on one of the reasons why. Why put on pants and drive somewhere to play the same dozen people I play every week when I can play someone from anywhere on the planet on my couch?

Because this is a different experience, like the real thing ?

Ever been to a live concert ?

I don't know why the title "The looming crisis of chess" is experienced as so immensely insulting to certain people. I just wanted to discuss a problem.

There are two aspects to this: (1) computerized chess theory in professional play (2) the extinction of chess clubs and hence fewer games with long time limits among amateurs. 

I don't have the solution to this. I just suggested looking at chess variants. I think I am being rather modest about it, saying that, at least, they can be good for chess training. I still don't understand why certain people experience this as so insulting. Why is the mere mentioning of difficulties in chess, and the suggestion of  new variants, believed to be so damaging? 

I posted the same message on another forum, and I got a heap of thanks messages. It's a totally different attitude. 

" I just wanted to discuss a problem." that is what you are keep saying and most of us say no that is not true. again where did you get all this facts from ?

" I just suggested looking at chess variants'" stop shovelling this down my throat, I am not interested it in it, is ok just for fun and yes is it different but it will never take over chess. 

The programs created by me are fairly strong as I have programmed them to handle openings sufficiently well. It depends on variant, but I suppose they have at least Elo 2050 on a strong computer. I own a Saitek tabletop that is estimated to Elo 2080 by USCF, which is an objective evaluation, I think. I tried it today at 5 sec/move against a Fide-chess implementation of mine, and my program won.

So they are good enough for the usual amateur. One must also keep in mind that the human player will handle chess variants with greater difficulty than a computer does. New rules and pieces take time to master. The programs are certainly good enough for the purpose of evaluating the variants. One can also use them for play over the Internet, against other people.

I communicated with a Chessbase employee about my Relocation variants, as they are close to Kasparov's idea of intermittently playing a selected set of FRC positions. Kasparov and Seirawan have expressed their concern for where modern chess is heading, too.

      There is this variant of chess that does not require a board or 32

pieces, just 52 cute little card thingys where each player gets 13 of them

and there are 2 pairs of partners and  on each round there is an auction,

a contract is agreed upon and then play to meet the contract commences.

What is really nice is that one of the players, the "dummy" ,doesn't play

during "play" and can get a drink or waste people's time in  forums on the

Internet.  They even have real clubs with real smoke!!

"In fact, amateurs, too, often give up opening variants which aren't perfectly adequate because the opponents can prepare against them. Moreover, theoretical development has led to a form of "theoretical phobia," when amateurs habitually try to avoid theory at all costs (e.g., they tend to play the French Exchange, etc.). This is equally damaging to chess creativity." 

from Relocation variants llink above.

Hmmmmm.... Amateurs avoid theory  "at all costs".  That might explain why they are amateurs.

Amateurs try to play something other than theory - how uncreative!!

ok you ask for it.....

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

Yes, I have experienced the effects of this "creativity" myself. On ICC I tried to play the French. But as the white players time and again played the French Exchange, I finally had enough and abandoned the French defense. Please read my article properly instead.

Can this thread rival the "if you know" thread? I wait again to your answer.