The looming crisis of chess

he is no match for easymoney

Look out "I'll be back" along with waffles and pancakes tomorrow :-) that is what we should have done in the first place when there is a crisis. lol

Thanks for defending my right to free speech according to The First Amendment  to the United States Constitution.

I enjoy online chess, too (having played over 5000 games in the last years). But this is rapid chess and blitz. This has never before qualified as "real" chess. It has to do with quality and creativity. In order to play good chess you need more time. So this is the eternal issue of quantity versus quality.

How about email chess? This is played in the ICCF tournaments, where they are allowed to use computers. What is the result? The draw percentage is today 80% (the statistics is available on the net). That is fairly extreme. So either online chess is (1) amusement in the form of rapid chess (2) computerized analysis that becomes overly theoretical and drawish. Of course, the traditional fight between two human brains is today disappearing more and more.

Actually, the draw percentage in recent ICCF games seems to be closer to 43%.  Could you quote a source for your 80% figure?

I didn't say that. I only thanked a person for supporting my right to free speech according to the constitution, not according to this site.

You must, of course, look at the statistics for players that are above, say, 2400. You can download the databases from the ICCF website. I looked it up the other year and it looked like this:

Statistics: ICCF Games 2008-2009  (rating > 2400)

------------------------------------------------------------

Open..Games.....S....V.....D....Draw..Result..%

------------------------------------------------------------

All..2211.......+310 -130 =1771 80.1% 54.1%...100.0%

1.e4 1385.......+222 -69 =1094 79.0%  55.5%....62.6%

1.d4 595........+ 57 -43 =495...83.2% 51.2%....26.9%

As you can see, the draw percent is 80.1. The 1.d4 statistics isn't very impressive, namely 51.2. Today it's 2011 and more players have even more powerful computers. I suppose the draws will soon approach 90%. Then one can question whether it makes any sense to partake in these tournaments anymore.

Also, the right to bear arms is not protected by the site. 

Of course, the site can choose to uphold free speech in some contexts, but it is not under a legal obligation to do so.

Again, I didn't claim that I have any constitutional rights at all, I only thanked a fellow for supporting my right to free speech according to the constitution. If somebody holds me prisoner, and is going to have me shot for spilling the beans, then I can thank somebody else for defending my constitutional right to free speech. I can do that even if I'm going to get shot for speaking freely.

[material removed, as this site (forum topic) is not the place to discuss politics.]

Since this website is owned by someone -(it is not public) - they can censor anyone. 

Switching back to topic - it is interesting here is the quote from Bobby Fischer taken from the website:

http://chess960frc.blogspot.com/2011/01/me-and-bobby-fischer-and-chess960.html

'As I say, I don't like to delve too much into the old chess, because I hate it so much. By delving into it, I'm promoting it in some way. I don't want to promote this [bleeping] game. I have only one interest in the old chess: to expose the pre-arrangement. People are living in a dream world.'

'Don't you think that's paradoxical coming from the best player that ever was?'

'Life is like that. It's not really paradoxical. Chess is basically a search for truth, right? So I'm searching for the truth. The truth is that chess is no good any more. Chess hasn't been a good game, objectively, for 150 years, since all this theory developed. It was a good game maybe 200 years ago, in the time of [Philidor].'

'So you're saying that already when you became World Champion, already by then, it was a bad game.'

'Yes, it was a bad game. On the other hand, it wasn't as bad as today. No comparison, but it was a bad game. At the time I was fired with ambition to win and I was willing to overcome all of these idiotic obstacles that block a talented person from winning. As you get older, if you don't get better, you have to get smarter. I'm much smarter now than I was then. Much, much smarter. Now I don't want to do things the hard way. Why do things the hard way when there's an easier, better way? The old chess is that you're banging your head against the wall with this theory. You're trying to find some little improvement on move 18, or 20. It's ridiculous. It gets harder and harder and harder. You need more and more computers, you need more and more people working for you.'

'And less and less talent?'

'Yes, less and less -- it's ridiculous. Why?'

'Did you gradually start to hate chess or did it come suddenly?'

'That's a good question. [Pauses] I think it came gradually, but then at a certain point I was hating it, but didn't know. I was still trying to make it work. Now I realize I was gradually hating it all along.'

And then:

I was just looking at a book Saemi gave me, a book about Capablanca. Capablanca had a very interesting game that he proposed, it was 10 by 10 or something. It had two Kings and extra pieces and you win the game by mating either of your opponent's Kings. It might be a very creative game and maybe much better than Fischer Random, but it looked very intimidating. Even for me, a top chess player, it looked very intimidating. All these extra pieces, a huge board, two Kings -- if it intimidates me I think it would intimidate the average person much more. So there are a lot of games you can come up with that have practical defects, not creative defects, but defects in terms of discouraging people to learn them.

And finally this:

You can learn Fischer Random in five, ten seconds practically, so there is no impediment. You have the same pieces, the same board; all you have to do is get an electronic shuffler and in one second you have a position. Of course, you can create more creative games than Fischer Random: maybe an extra piece or a bigger board or all kinds of things. People think I'm anti-chess. No, I'm not anti-chess, I'm pro-chess. I'm trying to keep it alive. I'm not coming up with anything radical at all.