Think so.
Have a Million dollar tournament where 1st place gets 5,000,0000 and
2nd place gets 2,000,000 in winnings. Bla bla bla traditional.
We play any variation of chess for money if we believe we could win at least one time.
Why chess960 is not popular yet at the top level?
Sort:
nebunulpecal wrote:
ScorpionPackAttack wrote:
nebunulpecal wrote:
"Capablanca didn't play his immaculate endgames in 960, Anderssen didn't play the Immortal Game in 960..."
That's because they didn't have 960 back then.
Exactly my point, it lacks historical precedent and therefore isn't as traditional.
So what?
So that's probably why it isn't nearly as popular as traditional chess. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, only why one is more popular.
So that's probably why it isn't nearly as popular as traditional chess. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, only why one is more popular.
This doesn't explain why Capablanca couldn't play the "immaculate" endgames in 960 or why can't be immortal games in 960.
Happy new year!
Want to see how popular it can get.
Create a forum about having a tournament in Chess 960 for money and watch how many people sign up. We have like 2,000 people currently on line. Just a number i throw out there. Watch all those people that are off line get online to sign up and want details. It will be the longes forum ever on Chess.com by a mile stretch.
Collect that $200 or go get the money at Free Parking. If it was not broke why should they change. Keep the Money Train moving foward ....... chuga chuga chuga chuga choo choooo.
nebunulpecal wrote:
So that's probably why it isn't nearly as popular as traditional chess. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, only why one is more popular.
This doesn't explain why Capablanca couldn't play the "immaculate" endgames in 960 or why can't be immortal games in 960.
Happy new year!
They could have, but didn't is the point. Chess history is one of classical Chess, and as fun as 960 might be it hasn't established itself. Maybe a high profile game where Carleson faces off against a super computer would help give it some history, only problem is machines today are much stronger than even Deep Blue, and machine beating man today is hardly news.
Hmmm ......
A person programmed the machine so the weakness is the information the programmer does not know about chess. Machines are not creative we are.... so they can be beat we just have to take longer to think about our moves. Fear of the machine is way worse than the machine itself.
But how do you randomly choose the starting position for each game?
That happens automatically if your playing online.
But it is not as randomw as new player to chess 960 might think. There are rules to setting up the position.
Hey from what i figure the GMs like to prepare for lines of play. Now how are they going to do that in Chess960 where the position is random. That would help solve the problem who is currently the best chess player currently. Might even find a couple overrated GMs along the way.
Jan 1, 2013
0
#32
royalbishop wrote:
Chess 960 was first created as a learning tool. Maybe they still see it as a learning tool. As a GM how would this help them learn more about playing chess? Now other than money if we had 10 Standard Chess 960 positions that were randomly picked and used in a tournament this could work. Oh the players were given these positions before the start of the tournament. Or have some Universal starting positions. Ca Ching
Where did you hear that? Everything I've seen says that Fischer created chess960 to avoid the memorized lines of the standard openings due to having several games with the first 20+ moves being book moves.
ClavierCavalier wrote:
royalbishop wrote:
Chess 960 was first created as a learning tool. Maybe they still see it as a learning tool. As a GM how would this help them learn more about playing chess? Now other than money if we had 10 Standard Chess 960 positions that were randomly picked and used in a tournament this could work. Oh the players were given these positions before the start of the tournament. Or have some Universal starting positions. Ca Ching
Where did you hear that? Everything I've seen says that Fischer created chess960 to avoid the memorized lines of the standard openings due to having several games with the first 20+ moves being book moves.
In which a player has to learn how to play and not memorize. Which many players do on this site. Take them out the book and they look like 1100 rated players.
Hey you can not tell me if you look at some GM games and just wonder how did they make that mistake and you saw it very clearly was not a good move.
Jan 2, 2013
0
#35
Fischer was probably more concerned with master level play than teaching beginners. His typical opponent knew how to play chess outside of memorized lines.
Estragon wrote:
. . .
. . .
The game is still rich enough that variants can't attract the level of support to be taken seriously.
Yes. I think by and large, amateurs who suggest 960 underestimate both the depth of chess and the knowledge of pros.
--------------
As for Fischer's comments... like most of his non-chessboard ideas, I think you really have to take them with a grain of salt. Read ECO as for first two lessons? Morphy was the most accurate player? And then a player who obviously spent enormous energy in the openings himself says they need to abolish openings?
Just like he avoided Karpov out of fear of losing I believe he would have liked openings to disappear because he didn't want to keep up with opening theory and he felt that without any opening theory he could more easily remain the best player. The Soviets had many 2nds who worked on openings for them, Fischer didn't have the same support.
Estragon wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
royalbishop wrote:
Chess 960 was first created as a learning tool. Maybe they still see it as a learning tool. As a GM how would this help them learn more about playing chess? Now other than money if we had 10 Standard Chess 960 positions that were randomly picked and used in a tournament this could work. Oh the players were given these positions before the start of the tournament. Or have some Universal starting positions. Ca Ching
Where did you hear that? Everything I've seen says that Fischer created chess960 to avoid the memorized lines of the standard openings due to having several games with the first 20+ moves being book moves.
This is my understanding as well.
I always thought it odd that a player who was nearly always at the forefront of opening theory should suddenly decide it was harmful to the game. In his time Fischer was almost as Kasparov in his, the one who introduced a substantial number of the opening novelties.
I can't help but recall how many strong players worried about an impending "draw death" of chess a century ago, Capablanca himself being among them. Yet over all these years so many new ideas have come forward, and today the strongest player often eschews theory to accept a roughly even position as White to avoid the trodden paths.
The game is still rich enough that variants can't attract the level of support to be taken seriously.
Heck, not even experts, and some people are even willing to give black the slight advantage (I'm looking at you, king's and wing gambit and Grob players) to avoid done to death positions. Chess will likely be refuted to a draw soon enough, remember how powerful Hydra was back in the mid-00s? Today, we have much better hardware and software, and this is only going to be imrpoved upon. Haswell processors come out this year too.
VULPES_VULPES wrote:
But how do you randomly choose the starting position for each game?
Roll a die:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960_starting_position
"Capablanca didn't play his immaculate endgames in 960, Anderssen didn't play the Immortal Game in 960..."
That's because they didn't have 960 back then.
Exactly my point, it lacks historical precedent and therefore isn't as traditional.
So what?