| |
Main
Date: 22 Jun 2007 11:58:45
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Neoorthodox Chess:
What would happen if we increased the board with one more square to the right? The corner square provides a hiding nest for the king should the player want to invoke play on the same wing and advance with the pawns.
Extended castle rule: besides normal castling one can choose to move the king three squares instead of two. The rook ends up on its usual square. The extended castle rule also makes play on the wings easier to achieve. Queenside castle becomes more attractive. The extra corner squares will enhance the strategical possibilities.
Read more here:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/neoorthodoxchess.htm
---------------------------------
Improved Chess:
A noteworthy improvement of Fide-chess: the only difference is the additional movement directions of the Pawn. The improved Pawn, provided that it (1) has reached the other half of the board, and (2) the forward movement is blocked, has the additional moves of a knight, but only in two forward directions: east-north-east, and west-north-west, and only to empty squares. There are no additional capture moves.
Middlegame and endgame are more aggressive while improved Pawns are not easy to block. In Improved Chess, drawish endgames will occur less often. Many theoretical endgames that have hitherto been drawn are now won. Its jump moves are not frequent (it must be blocked) so it's not overly wild.
Comparatively, in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block. This creates the ked drawishness of practical endgames. Therefore, most chessplayers prefer to keep the queen on the board, until they have created an advantage. I have tested this variant in a program, and exchanging pieces does not automatically lead to a draw. The tension often remains in the endgame.
Read more here:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm
Mats W
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 21:31:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 12, 10:50 pm, "Inconnux" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The problem with these MMORPG's (massive multiplayer
> online role playing games) is that they end up being a
> 'grindfest' where you target a 'mob' and press your attack
> key... then go make a sandwich...
In the old days, there were a multitude of games
in which you played just against the computer, and
indeed, the designers had way over-done the parts
where you built up points (i.e. "experience") by
killing orcs, stealing treasures, or whatever, via the
dull repetition of some simple but time-consuming
process as described above. But there was no
sandwich making, for leave your computer for a
minute and your character would quickly be killed
by a hundred dim-witted orcs!
> There is very little to these games.
Really? About a year or so ago, I went out to eat
with my extended family, and the younger folks were
ranting about this game like it was the greatest thing
since sliced bread. Just this Sunday, I went again,
and still, even after all this time and the release of
other, similar games, WoW is all the rage. The
youngest member seems to like the Sims, and
would undoubtedly buy every version, but for the
cost; never mind how dated that game may now be.
> Many have been failures as well,
> 'Asherons Call 2' has shut down and the huge
> disappointment 'Vanguard' is a disasterous game.
> These games tend to get people jumping from one 'hit'
> game to the next.
Okay, but what about the successful games like
WoW, for instance?
> Ive played alot of these 'games'. Everquest, Neocron,
> Planetside, City of heroes, Everquest 2... All of them charge
> an (on average) $15 a month to what is really a pretty
> chatline with very little gameplay. I now only
> play a 'free' mmorpg once in awhile with my kids.
> (called FlyFF).
To a game addict, $15 per month may not seem
very much; divide by the number of hours wasted
-- I mean played of course! -- and it dwindles down
to a mere trickle of pocket change.
> I still go back to playing chess. It has real strategy compared
> to alot of these games which are nothing but pretty eyecandy.
Okay, but several of the games you listed earlier
were not the creme de la creme of the genre, so
this is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. In
truth, there are board games with more "strategy"
and less "tactics" than chess, but chess is still
the king in terms of prestige.
> At least with chess I don't need the latest bleeding edge system
> to play a game online...
In my jousting with Fritz 5.32 (very dated now),
the computer moves almost instantly, leaving my
clock to run throughout the entire game. I feel
like I'm almost playing bullet chess.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 05:54:11
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
>
> Really? About a year or so ago, I went out to eat
> with my extended family, and the younger folks were
> ranting about this game like it was the greatest thing
> since sliced bread. Just this Sunday, I went again,
> and still, even after all this time and the release of
> other, similar games, WoW is all the rage. The
> youngest member seems to like the Sims, and
> would undoubtedly buy every version, but for the
> cost; never mind how dated that game may now be.
>
WoW is a dumbed down mmorpg that appeals mainly to
kids who's voices havent changed :) In many of the
other mmorpg's that I've played, WoW has a bad rep
as being a 'lite' game. The southpark episode gave
it free advertising to this ket :)
> Okay, but what about the successful games like
> WoW, for instance?
WoW has lost quite a few members since it first started.
They are now starting to advertise 'free trial' versions
of the game... a sure fire sign of a dying game.
>
> To a game addict, $15 per month may not seem
> very much; divide by the number of hours wasted
> -- I mean played of course! -- and it dwindles down
> to a mere trickle of pocket change.
>
Adds up when the wife and both kids play as well.
>
> Okay, but several of the games you listed earlier
> were not the creme de la creme of the genre, so
Everquest was the largest game for years, and City
of heroes was quite successful. Problem with these
games is when the next 'big' game comes out, most of
your new online friends leave to try it and your 'world'
becomes a ghost town. It hasn't happened to 'WoW'
yet, but given time it will.
> this is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. In
> truth, there are board games with more "strategy"
> and less "tactics" than chess, but chess is still
> the king in terms of prestige.
>
chess is more popular than these strategy board games
because of its 'simplicity', yet complex nature of the game.
Another key feature is there is no luck factor.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 18:59:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 11, 1:47 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I don't play dull chess. Check out my games in any ChessBase
> game collection.
Really? You have made several comments here which
seem to strongly imply that you are having trouble with
blocked pawns, draws, and a general dullness of play.
> Moreover, I'm not out to replace orthochess. I
> have made some creative products, exactly like people create
> chess problems. Chess problems have no strong relation to
> orthochess either.
That is their downfall; to the extent that chess problems
are ridiculously impossible to occur in any real chess
game, they will always suffer from a lack of interest from
practical players.
The poster "Someon" keeps giving links here to the
games of famous grandmasters, and sometimes I click
one and replay the game just to see if there is any
particular reason that game was selected. In one of
these more recent games, between GMs Anand and
Piket, I spotted a move which the winner -- a world-
championship contender, appeared to have simply
missed. Sure enough, when I punched this into my
chess program, it agreed that GM Anand had simply
overlooked a bone-crusher tactic which I found quite
easily! That was a rather messy position, and my real
forte is not spotting these problem-like tactical shots,
because I much prefer positional play; but because I
have been jousting with Fritz 5.32 -- dumbed down to
play closer to my own level -- I am now learning to
"see" that not all absurdities are unplayable in
practice.
It is strange but even as chess, and any simple
variation of it's basic idea, continues onward as-is,
there are armies of well-paid programmers on the
ch, creating games which untold millions will
want to play "live" via the internet. The ket for
these games, such as WoW, for instance, is so
big that some companies hire it done by others
who invest millions of dollars in the development
of just a single such game. IMO, boardgames
like chess are doomed to end up looking "quaint"
by comparison; dull, even.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 02:50:22
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
" > It is strange but even as chess, and any simple
> variation of it's basic idea, continues onward as-is,
> there are armies of well-paid programmers on the
> ch, creating games which untold millions will
> want to play "live" via the internet. The ket for
> these games, such as WoW, for instance, is so
> big that some companies hire it done by others
> who invest millions of dollars in the development
> of just a single such game. IMO, boardgames
> like chess are doomed to end up looking "quaint"
> by comparison; dull, even.
>
> -- help bot
>
The problem with these MMORPG's (massive multiplayer
online role playing games) is that they end up being a
'grindfest' where you target a 'mob' and press your attack
key... then go make a sandwich... There is very little
to these games. Many have been failures as well,
'Asherons Call 2' has shut down and the huge
disappointment 'Vanguard' is a disasterous game.
These games tend to get people jumping from one 'hit'
game to the next.
Ive played alot of these 'games'. Everquest, Neocron,
Planetside, City of heroes, Everquest 2... All of them charge
an (on average) $15 a month to what is really a pretty
chatline with very little gameplay. I now only
play a 'free' mmorpg once in awhile with my kids.
(called FlyFF).
I still go back to playing chess. It has real strategy compared
to alot of these games which are nothing but pretty eyecandy.
Atleast with chess I don't need the latest bleeding edge system
to play a game online...
J.Lohner
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 19:36:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 10, 12:00 pm, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> Just shut up and widen your chess horizons:http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chessvar.htm
>
> > If you would allow me to say just one thing...
>
> > Your Web site has about a hundred+ different
> > variants, and I haven't the time to try even one
> > quarter that many; of all these which is the
> > greatest, the foremost, the big cheese?
>
> > -- help bot
>
> > (I'm told by the younger crowd that WoW
> > is the game to play, not chess, checkers, or
> > any other dull board game.)
>
> Thank you for showing interest in my work. To play my variants you
> need to buy the download version of Zillions, which is cheap ($20?).
>
> One of my variants, Chess256, can be tried in my freeware DOS
> program BlindChess, which also plays blindfold chess.http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/blindc.htm
>
> You could also try my Elephant Chess, which is inspired by Asian
> variants and can be played with regular pieces and board. Here
> the bishop is called "elephant", which is, actually, the original
> name.http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/elephant.htm
Interesting. So, in order to try your allegedly
improved versions of chess it costs money,
whereas I can play chess for free just about
anywhere. That's a big contra-improvement
there.
One thing about chess which I think could
be improved is the relatively small size of the
playing field. Compared to some board games,
64 squares is rather puny. Truth be told, if I
were not so good at chess I would just give it
up and find something more interesting, some
game which entails a bit of adventure, like say,
an RPG. In chess there is nothing to explore.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 23:57:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 10, 1:42 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Just shut up and widen your chess horizons:http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chessvar.htm
If you would allow me to say just one thing...
Your Web site has about a hundred+ different
variants, and I haven't the time to try even one
quarter that many; of all these which is the
greatest, the foremost, the big cheese?
-- help bot
(I'm told by the younger crowd that WoW
is the game to play, not chess, checkers, or
any other dull board game.)
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 18:00:35
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-10 08:57:01 skrev help bot <[email protected] >:
> On Jul 10, 1:42 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just shut up and widen your chess horizons:http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chessvar.htm
>
>
> If you would allow me to say just one thing...
>
> Your Web site has about a hundred+ different
> variants, and I haven't the time to try even one
> quarter that many; of all these which is the
> greatest, the foremost, the big cheese?
>
> -- help bot
>
> (I'm told by the younger crowd that WoW
> is the game to play, not chess, checkers, or
> any other dull board game.)
>
>
>
Thank you for showing interest in my work. To play my variants you
need to buy the download version of Zillions, which is cheap ($20?).
One of my variants, Chess256, can be tried in my freeware DOS
program BlindChess, which also plays blindfold chess.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/blindc.htm
You could also try my Elephant Chess, which is inspired by Asian
variants and can be played with regular pieces and board. Here
the bishop is called "elephant", which is, actually, the original
name.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/elephant.htm
Mats
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 23:45:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 10, 1:42 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I really don't see how you feel that computers are causing a crisis.
>
> > And your variant makes open, tactical positions more likely so makes
> > the computers even stronger!
>
> Just shut up and widen your chess horizons:http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chessvar.htm
That's precisely how I feel concerning the patzer's
claims that blocked pawns are creating a drawishness
problem in chess. Neverthelless, it should be noted
that standard chess programs cannot tackle any variant
which has a different board or pieces which move in a
non-standard way. Even if one such variant were to
become very popular, it would be some time before any
professional took on the job of creating a program to
play it at the grandmaster level, so to speak.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 23:40:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 10, 1:41 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> No, the computers destroy chess especially for the casual player because
> it's no longer possible to play postal chess and email chess. It's still possible
> in the highest division because players are stronger than the computers. I
> have played email-tournamets at IECC and 50% of the players cheated by
> allowing the computer to play the game.
> It's useless.
Try RedHotPawn.com instead.
I have lost a couple of games there, and it is
possible that my opponents in those games may
have consulted a computer, but not at all clear.
In the vast majority of cases, I have found my
opponents are most definitely *not* cheating by
using a computer, as shown by their unsound
play. Then again, I have not yet faced any of
the site's high-rated players, and this may well
be where the computer cheats gravitate, since
today's chess programs are of grandmaster
strength.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 23:35:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 10, 1:37 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> I have never argued that locked pawns, as such, lead to a
> >> drawish game.
> > "...in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block. This creates the
> > ked drawishness of practical endgames." -- M Winther
>
> > As we can see, you argued that not only is there
> > a problem with drawishness, but also that it stems
> > from... *blocked pawns*.
>
> > Perhaps you are already learning that such ideas
> > are misbegotten, in view of this obvious shifting of
> > ground (despite bleating denials of the lips even as
> > the feet are dancing sideways).
> Above I discuss the ked drawishness of "practical endgames", not
> the game in the initial position. The drawishness of *practical endgames*
> derives from the fact that pawns are so easy to block. This is not so in
> Chinese Chess, Thai Chess, Burmese Chess, Korean Chess, etc. In
> these variants the pawns cannot be blocked. Hence practical endgames
> are lively.
Speaking of denial, can you spot the words "practical
endgames" in my earlier quote of Mats Winther? Of
course you can! (So the question is, why does he now
/pretend/ they were omitted and ignored, when they
were not? The answer is denial -- a state in which the
mind ceases to function "normally"!)
In fact, I went into a lengthy discussion of the endgame
of a recent game between GMs Shirov and Adronian, and
I did so only to point out that the blocked pawns were
*not* what led to a draw, but rather, oversimplification.
Here's an idea: instead of blaming the game of chess
for a perceived lack of "liveliness", why not spruce up
your own play and take on the responsibility for *your
own* dullness of play? My most recent game at RedHot
is a perfect example of how an unimaginative approach
to the endgame can lead to disaster. It is far from a
masterpiece, for I mishandled the opening and let my
1600+ opponent get the advantage, but the struggle
which ensued could be very instructive to those who
mistakenly believe the endgame to be dull, barren
soil, lacking in "practical" opportunities.
Once again (with feeling this time), the drawishness
of endgames has a lot to do with things other than
the blockage of pawns. One example would be the
recently-discussed endgame wherein GM Karpov had
KBNN against GM Kasparov's KR; in that game, the
fact that almost ANY RxB sacrifice would leave White
with *insufficient material* was the key to why they
drew. Another biggie is the possibility of stalemate,
or desperado-pieces which cannot be captured on
account of a stalemate.
Blocked pawns -- even in the endgame -- lead to
outpost squares, where pieces can hang out, chat,
get a bite to eat, or just rock out to their i-pods,
knowing they have the full faith and support of a
blocked pawn behind (at an angle) them. These
outpost squares, or even their possibility, can lead
to violent tussling in which both sides try to gain
control -- even in the endgame.
One can only vel at how so many weak
players are firmly convinced of the endgame's
lack of practical possibilities. The obvious answer
would seem to be for them to study the endgame
a bit and thereby get to a point where the true
possibilities in this dreaded phase are no longer
such a deep, dark mystery.
Really, even offhand I could think of far better
reasons to justify an attempt to "improve" the
game of chess. One such idea is that chess
has become a quagmire of openings theory, in
which even the weakest of players might gain
victory by mere regurgitation of memorized
moves he doesn't even understand! Another
item is the use of computers where the play is
supposed to be on the level, and some freaky
game where a few pieces have unusual moves
would subvert this problem for the most part
(unless your opponent is a skilled computer
programmer). But blaming the blockage of
pawns for some games ending in draws seems
downright silly to me. Moreover, the fact that
there are not only two, but three possible
outcomes makes things even more interesting.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 07:47:03
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-10 08:35:17 skrev help bot <[email protected] >:
> On Jul 10, 1:37 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> I have never argued that locked pawns, as such, lead to a
>> >> drawish game.
>
>> > "...in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block. This creates the
>> > ked drawishness of practical endgames." -- M Winther
>>
>> > As we can see, you argued that not only is there
>> > a problem with drawishness, but also that it stems
>> > from... *blocked pawns*.
>>
>> > Perhaps you are already learning that such ideas
>> > are misbegotten, in view of this obvious shifting of
>> > ground (despite bleating denials of the lips even as
>> > the feet are dancing sideways).
>
>> Above I discuss the ked drawishness of "practical endgames", not
>> the game in the initial position. The drawishness of *practical endgames*
>> derives from the fact that pawns are so easy to block. This is not so in
>> Chinese Chess, Thai Chess, Burmese Chess, Korean Chess, etc. In
>> these variants the pawns cannot be blocked. Hence practical endgames
>> are lively.
>
>
> Speaking of denial, can you spot the words "practical
> endgames" in my earlier quote of Mats Winther? Of
> course you can! (So the question is, why does he now
> /pretend/ they were omitted and ignored, when they
> were not? The answer is denial -- a state in which the
> mind ceases to function "normally"!)
>
> In fact, I went into a lengthy discussion of the endgame
> of a recent game between GMs Shirov and Adronian, and
> I did so only to point out that the blocked pawns were
> *not* what led to a draw, but rather, oversimplification.
>
> Here's an idea: instead of blaming the game of chess
> for a perceived lack of "liveliness", why not spruce up
> your own play and take on the responsibility for *your
> own* dullness of play? My most recent game at RedHot
> is a perfect example of how an unimaginative approach
> to the endgame can lead to disaster. It is far from a
> masterpiece, for I mishandled the opening and let my
> 1600+ opponent get the advantage, but the struggle
> which ensued could be very instructive to those who
> mistakenly believe the endgame to be dull, barren
> soil, lacking in "practical" opportunities.
>
> Once again (with feeling this time), the drawishness
> of endgames has a lot to do with things other than
> the blockage of pawns. One example would be the
> recently-discussed endgame wherein GM Karpov had
> KBNN against GM Kasparov's KR; in that game, the
> fact that almost ANY RxB sacrifice would leave White
> with *insufficient material* was the key to why they
> drew. Another biggie is the possibility of stalemate,
> or desperado-pieces which cannot be captured on
> account of a stalemate.
>
> Blocked pawns -- even in the endgame -- lead to
> outpost squares, where pieces can hang out, chat,
> get a bite to eat, or just rock out to their i-pods,
> knowing they have the full faith and support of a
> blocked pawn behind (at an angle) them. These
> outpost squares, or even their possibility, can lead
> to violent tussling in which both sides try to gain
> control -- even in the endgame.
>
> One can only vel at how so many weak
> players are firmly convinced of the endgame's
> lack of practical possibilities. The obvious answer
> would seem to be for them to study the endgame
> a bit and thereby get to a point where the true
> possibilities in this dreaded phase are no longer
> such a deep, dark mystery.
>
> Really, even offhand I could think of far better
> reasons to justify an attempt to "improve" the
> game of chess. One such idea is that chess
> has become a quagmire of openings theory, in
> which even the weakest of players might gain
> victory by mere regurgitation of memorized
> moves he doesn't even understand! Another
> item is the use of computers where the play is
> supposed to be on the level, and some freaky
> game where a few pieces have unusual moves
> would subvert this problem for the most part
> (unless your opponent is a skilled computer
> programmer). But blaming the blockage of
> pawns for some games ending in draws seems
> downright silly to me. Moreover, the fact that
> there are not only two, but three possible
> outcomes makes things even more interesting.
>
> -- help bot
>
>
I don't play dull chess. Check out my games in any ChessBase
game collection. Moreover, I'm not out to replace orthochess. I
have made some creative products, exactly like people create
chess problems. Chess problems have no strong relation to
orthochess either.
Mats
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 15:06:05
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 9, 5:39 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have never argued that locked pawns, as such, lead to a
> drawish game.
"...in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block. This creates the
ked drawishness of practical endgames." -- Mats Winther
As we can see, you argued that not only is there
a problem with drawishness, but also that it stems
from... *blocked pawns*.
Perhaps you are already learning that such ideas
are misbegotten, in view of this obvious shifting of
ground (despite bleating denials of the lips even as
the feet are dancing sideways).
------
In my last game at RedHotPawn, I had intended to
crush my 1600+ opponent in mid-game via a thematic
Colle-style Kingside attack, but for some reason I
handled the middlegame poorly, miscalculating the
ramifications of just one tactical line, and of course
this is the line my opponent chose! Now playing
careful defense, I survived his intended attacks and
made it to an inferior ending, where my recent
jousting with Fritz 5.32 allowed me to consider what
look like absurd moves, just one of which turned the
tables. My opponent failed to find the best try, and
instead turned the game into a classic example of
superb endgame technique on my part. At no time
was the blockage of pawns ever going to lead to a
draw, although for just a moment, the blockade -- by
my piece of one pawn -- was to be helpful in defense
by preventing the routine promotion of said pawn.
In almost every case, a game's outcome is priily
determined by piece play, by the handling of the forces,
be they royal Queens or lowly pawns, in either a clumsy
or in a coordinated manner by both players. The single
most dominant factor? Tactics.
There is one recent GM game I can think of where a
blockage of pawns led to a draw, but that draw came
as the result of mass simplification, not the blockage
of the pawns. In fact, the fact that pawns can be fixed
(or blocked) is what makes them such handy targets
for any winning attack. If every pawn could dart about
the board at will, one would tend to prefer to always
attack the enemy King. In the game I have in mind,
GM Shirov won a pawn but then got hoodwinked in
the endgame by his vast superior in that realm, GM
Adronian. They tussled for a long time, with GM Shirov
having most of the winning chances, but in the end,
traded off just about every piece of wood on the board
to draw, due to equalizing errors.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 07:37:21
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-10 00:06:05 skrev help bot <[email protected] >:
> On Jul 9, 5:39 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I have never argued that locked pawns, as such, lead to a
>> drawish game.
>
>
> "...in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block. This creates the
> ked drawishness of practical endgames." -- M Winther
>
>
> As we can see, you argued that not only is there
> a problem with drawishness, but also that it stems
> from... *blocked pawns*.
>
> Perhaps you are already learning that such ideas
> are misbegotten, in view of this obvious shifting of
> ground (despite bleating denials of the lips even as
> the feet are dancing sideways).
>
> ------
>
> help bot
Above I discuss the ked drawishness of "practical endgames", not
the game in the initial position. The drawishness of *practical endgames*
derives from the fact that pawns are so easy to block. This is not so in
Chinese Chess, Thai Chess, Burmese Chess, Korean Chess, etc. In
these variants the pawns cannot be blocked. Hence practical endgames
are lively.
Mats
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 14:33:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 9, 5:08 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> > Interesting. Were any of these variants devised specifically
> > to avoid what many patzers consider to be a drawishness
> > problem with chess, I wonder?
>
> Well, Gothic chess is just Capablanca chess with a slightly different
> initial position. Capablanca chess was invented by some patzer ex-
> World-Champion as a response to the perceived drawishness of chess in
> the 1920s/1930s. ;-)
The patzer in question had his idea regarding "draw-death"
handed to him, along with his head, by GM Alekhine. I still
recall a few of those games, and the amazing level of
imagination and technique which was required for the job.
Even so, it was not impossible -- just exceedingly difficult!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 15:45:40
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On 6 Jul., 07:05, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Just because g2-g4 is important in certain opening variants it doesn't mean that
> it appears everywhere.
Did I say something like this? The opposite of "does nearly not
appear" is not "does appear everywhere". And that it is such a rarity,
that you give it a 0.01% chance is simply nonsense. That doesn't mean
on the othere hand it can be played in 90% of the positions.
> Statistically, white seldom has the opportunity of playing g2-g4 because it would lead to a strategically lost game.
And? Indeed g4 is played not so often, as you have to secure your King
an other way. The move g4 might start a strong attack, but it has its
tradeoffs. But that's not a drawback, indeed it makes it more
interesting. You can not just push your pawns without a second thought
- you have to calculate your own risks first.
As I have written - several GMs play around with g4 in positions where
you would hardly expect it to be possible at all. There might be more
possibilities on the flanks, than is usually agreed on. Instead of
increasing the board, those people increased their horizon.
Greeings,
Ralf
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 23:09:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 6, 1:02 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> >> Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.
> Your only weapon in an argument is insult.
My unfortunate friend, no one is "arguing" with you
here. We are trying to HELP you get beyond your
very limited understanding of chess by pointing out
a few of the more obvious flaws in your thinking.
One such flaw is the idea that pawns meeting one
another in mid-board automatically leads to drawish
positions; they don't.
> This proves that your position is weak.
It is readily apparent just what -- and who -- is weak
here. Please stop embarrassing yourself with these
ignorant comments regarding "g4" and drawishness.
> Although I don't play anymore I have studied the
> game for 32 years
Yeah...right. That's why you didn't know that p-g4
is, and for a long time has been, a common attacking
move for White. Uh-huh. (chuckle)
> and I own the major chess databases.
Maybe you should consider doing a tad bit of research
before making these silly claims, then.
> There is not a chance that you can play g2-g4 in each other opening
> position.
You are the one who claimed that locked pawns are
a major problem. Sacrificing the g-pawn is just one
of many ways to open things up a bit, along with the
risky castling on opposite wings. Me, I almost always
castle on the same side (the Kingside) and then win
whether or not any pawns in the center were ram-duos.
It simply is not a problem because I am not stupid
enough to lock up the pawns across the entire board;
that would seem to lead to the sort of trouble you are
complaining about with draws. But I have seen it done,
many times, and nearly always the problem is two weak
players and their horrible play.
> G2-g4 is an uncommon opening move. You only need
> to search a database and compare the number of games with the
> overall number.
That's true. But the issue we were discussing was
the problem of locked pawns and their alleged draw-
ishness. The move p-g4 by White is a common theme
where he has castled on the opposite wing and is
playing to win via an attack on the enemy King. In
many lines, this move is not a sacrifice, as it is
preceded by p-f3 or p-h3. Once the pawn gets to g5,
a key defender -- the Knight on f6 -- is driven away
from his post and Black must depend on some other
defender to assist his King, unless he has anticipated
this and vacated the f8 square for his Knight (which
requires yet another hop to get there).
The key idea is that two pawns meeting in the middle
of the chess board, despite becoming blocked, do not
lead automatically to a draw or even to drawish play.
What leads to drawishness is two players intent on
trading at every opportunity, or simple incompetence
on the part of either or both players. I could hardly
count the number of times I have seen some position
pronounced a dead draw which was in fact, winnable.
I've even read published articles where such faulty
analysis was widely disseminated, the "expert"
analyst having himself completely mis-evaluated.
Heck, I have even seen someone agree to a draw
simply because their opponent essayed a certain
defense, which they -- quite mistakenly -- regarded
as unbeatable!
In sum, the real issue with draws is that many weak
players don't understand their true nature, and thus
regard them as unavoidable symptoms of an imagined
flaw in the game's design, or else they wish to transfer
the blame for their own lack of skill or technique to
something else. Truth be told, even GM Fischer did
not complain about this imagined flaw until he needed
an excuse for quiting prematurely; before that, he
"argued" for the other side, by winning with both White
and Black.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 11:39:06
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-06 08:09:34 skrev help bot <[email protected] >:
> On Jul 6, 1:02 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.
>
>> Your only weapon in an argument is insult.
>
>
> My unfortunate friend, no one is "arguing" with you
> here. We are trying to HELP you get beyond your
> very limited understanding of chess by pointing out
> a few of the more obvious flaws in your thinking.
>
> One such flaw is the idea that pawns meeting one
> another in mid-board automatically leads to drawish
> positions; they don't.
>
>
>> This proves that your position is weak.
>
>
> It is readily apparent just what -- and who -- is weak
> here. Please stop embarrassing yourself with these
> ignorant comments regarding "g4" and drawishness.
>
>
>> Although I don't play anymore I have studied the
>> game for 32 years
>
>
> Yeah...right. That's why you didn't know that p-g4
> is, and for a long time has been, a common attacking
> move for White. Uh-huh. (chuckle)
>
>
>> and I own the major chess databases.
>
>
> Maybe you should consider doing a tad bit of research
> before making these silly claims, then.
>
>
>
>> There is not a chance that you can play g2-g4 in each other opening
>> position.
>
>
> You are the one who claimed that locked pawns are
> a major problem. Sacrificing the g-pawn is just one
> of many ways to open things up a bit, along with the
> risky castling on opposite wings. Me, I almost always
> castle on the same side (the Kingside) and then win
> whether or not any pawns in the center were ram-duos.
> It simply is not a problem because I am not stupid
> enough to lock up the pawns across the entire board;
> that would seem to lead to the sort of trouble you are
> complaining about with draws. But I have seen it done,
> many times, and nearly always the problem is two weak
> players and their horrible play.
>
>
>
>> G2-g4 is an uncommon opening move. You only need
>> to search a database and compare the number of games with the
>> overall number.
>
>
> That's true. But the issue we were discussing was
> the problem of locked pawns and their alleged draw-
> ishness. The move p-g4 by White is a common theme
> where he has castled on the opposite wing and is
> playing to win via an attack on the enemy King. In
> many lines, this move is not a sacrifice, as it is
> preceded by p-f3 or p-h3. Once the pawn gets to g5,
> a key defender -- the Knight on f6 -- is driven away
> from his post and Black must depend on some other
> defender to assist his King, unless he has anticipated
> this and vacated the f8 square for his Knight (which
> requires yet another hop to get there).
>
>
> The key idea is that two pawns meeting in the middle
> of the chess board, despite becoming blocked, do not
> lead automatically to a draw or even to drawish play.
> What leads to drawishness is two players intent on
> trading at every opportunity, or simple incompetence
> on the part of either or both players. I could hardly
> count the number of times I have seen some position
> pronounced a dead draw which was in fact, winnable.
> I've even read published articles where such faulty
> analysis was widely disseminated, the "expert"
> analyst having himself completely mis-evaluated.
>
> Heck, I have even seen someone agree to a draw
> simply because their opponent essayed a certain
> defense, which they -- quite mistakenly -- regarded
> as unbeatable!
>
> In sum, the real issue with draws is that many weak
> players don't understand their true nature, and thus
> regard them as unavoidable symptoms of an imagined
> flaw in the game's design, or else they wish to transfer
> the blame for their own lack of skill or technique to
> something else. Truth be told, even GM Fischer did
> not complain about this imagined flaw until he needed
> an excuse for quiting prematurely; before that, he
> "argued" for the other side, by winning with both White
> and Black.
>
> -- help bot
>
>
I have never argued that locked pawns, as such, lead to a
drawish game. I only suggested a game variant where pawn
are more mobile. My notion is that today's chess is rapidly
approaching a crisis, much because of the computers (not
because pawns are locked against each other). A "patzer"
named Korchnoi has argued this, too. My game suggestion,
one of several creations of mine, suggests a more mobile
pawn, that's all. It's not that I think that this is going to supersede
orthochess. I suggest it foremostly for people who want to have
fun at the chessboard, instead of harping the old variants
decade after decade.
Mats
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 10:16:34
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> My notion is that today's chess is rapidly
> approaching a crisis, much because of the computers (not
> because pawns are locked against each other). A "patzer"
> named Korchnoi has argued this, too. My game suggestion,
> one of several creations of mine, suggests a more mobile
> pawn, that's all. It's not that I think that this is going to supersede
> orthochess. I suggest it foremostly for people who want to have
> fun at the chessboard, instead of harping the old variants
> decade after decade.
Seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways here.
You say the new game serves a purpose because chess is approaching a
computer-driven crisis, but the truth is that crisis is essentially
irrelevant for the casual chessplayer. If what you want is to "have fun"
there's plenty of scope for that within the traditional game, whether or
not it's approaching "draw death" or being solved by computers.
For anyone who's under internationally-titled strength (and then some,
probably) the effects of computers at the high end of the game don't
make a lick of difference.
-Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 07:41:29
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-09 19:16:34 skrev Ron <[email protected] >:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My notion is that today's chess is rapidly
>> approaching a crisis, much because of the computers (not
>> because pawns are locked against each other). A "patzer"
>> named Korchnoi has argued this, too. My game suggestion,
>> one of several creations of mine, suggests a more mobile
>> pawn, that's all. It's not that I think that this is going to supersede
>> orthochess. I suggest it foremostly for people who want to have
>> fun at the chessboard, instead of harping the old variants
>> decade after decade.
>
> Seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways here.
>
> You say the new game serves a purpose because chess is approaching a
> computer-driven crisis, but the truth is that crisis is essentially
> irrelevant for the casual chessplayer. If what you want is to "have fun"
> there's plenty of scope for that within the traditional game, whether or
> not it's approaching "draw death" or being solved by computers.
>
> For anyone who's under internationally-titled strength (and then some,
> probably) the effects of computers at the high end of the game don't
> make a lick of difference.
>
> -Ron
>
No, the computers destroy chess especially for the casual player because
it's no longer possible to play postal chess and email chess. It's still possible
in the highest division because players are stronger than the computers. I
have played email-tournamets at IECC and 50% of the players cheated by
allowing the computer to play the game.
It's useless.
Mats
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 12:17:17
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Mats Winther <[email protected] > wrote:
> My notion is that today's chess is rapidly approaching a crisis,
> much because of the computers (not because pawns are locked against
> each other).
I really don't see how you feel that computers are causing a crisis.
And your variant makes open, tactical positions more likely so makes
the computers even stronger!
Dave.
--
David Richerby Strange Laptop Tree (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a tree that you can put on your lap
but it's totally weird!
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 07:42:19
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-09 13:17:17 skrev David Richerby <[email protected] >:
> M Winther <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My notion is that today's chess is rapidly approaching a crisis,
>> much because of the computers (not because pawns are locked against
>> each other).
>
> I really don't see how you feel that computers are causing a crisis.
>
> And your variant makes open, tactical positions more likely so makes
> the computers even stronger!
>
>
> Dave.
>
Just shut up and widen your chess horizons:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chessvar.htm
Mats
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 11:10:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Mats Winther <[email protected] > wrote:
> Just shut up
If you're not interested in discussion of your ideas, don't post in
public discussion forums.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Incredible Poetic Boss (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a middle manager but it's in verse
and it'll blow your mind!
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 12:13:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 5, 11:22 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Den 2007-07-05 09:24:44 skrev Ralf Callenberg <[email protected]>:
>
> >> Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.
>
> > Nonsense. There are serious openings used up to GM level, where g2-g4 is
> > played, especially in several variations of the Sicilian.
>
> Ralf, why don't you try g2-g4 in Gr=FCnfeld, Queen's Gambit, Ninzoindian,
> Benoni, Ruy Lopez, etc. In the overwhelming number of opening positions
> g2-g4 is bad.
Poor Mats Winther! He is such a horrible patzer
that he does not even know that it was in just such
a game that GM Alekhine sprang one of these p-g4
surprises on an unsuspecting victim. I'm sure any-
one with one of those big databases could find this
game easily, by searching for Alekhine playing as
White, playing p-g4, and of course, winning. My
guess would be some sort of Queen's Gambit, or
as the patzer called it, a "Ninzoindian" Defense,
where the famous GM castled on the opposite wing.
In any case, there is also some line of, what, the
Sicilian Defense, where White plays p-g4 and they
named it after Paul Keres on account of his great
success in correspondence play. But all this is a
Red Heron, because the real flaw in the patzer's
thinking is that pawns meeting one another in the
middle of the board (i.e. 1.e4 e5) brings about a sort
of deadlock, leading inevitably to draws. IMO, it is
the lack of skill which likely is causing some patzers
to complain about not being able to win games, and
only draw. What is really needed here is not to
devise a less-drawish game, but merely to remedy
this glaring lack of understanding of chess, via basic
chess lessons.
-- Blue Herring
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 07:02:48
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-05 21:13:52 skrev help bot <[email protected] >:
> On Jul 5, 11:22 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Den 2007-07-05 09:24:44 skrev Ralf Callenberg <[email protected]>:
>>
>> >> Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.
>>
>> > Nonsense. There are serious openings used up to GM level, where g2-g4 is
>> > played, especially in several variations of the Sicilian.
>>
>> Ralf, why don't you try g2-g4 in Gr�nfeld, Queen's Gambit, Ninzoindian,
>> Benoni, Ruy Lopez, etc. In the overwhelming number of opening positions
>> g2-g4 is bad.
>
>
> Poor M Winther! He is such a horrible patzer
> that he does not even know that it was in just such
> a game that GM Alekhine sprang one of these p-g4
> surprises on an unsuspecting victim. I'm sure any-
> one with one of those big databases could find this
> game easily, by searching for Alekhine playing as
> White, playing p-g4, and of course, winning. My
> guess would be some sort of Queen's Gambit, or
> as the patzer called it, a "Ninzoindian" Defense,
> where the famous GM castled on the opposite wing.
>
> In any case, there is also some line of, what, the
> Sicilian Defense, where White plays p-g4 and they
> named it after Paul Keres on account of his great
> success in correspondence play. But all this is a
> Red Heron, because the real flaw in the patzer's
> thinking is that pawns meeting one another in the
> middle of the board (i.e. 1.e4 e5) brings about a sort
> of deadlock, leading inevitably to draws. IMO, it is
> the lack of skill which likely is causing some patzers
> to complain about not being able to win games, and
> only draw. What is really needed here is not to
> devise a less-drawish game, but merely to remedy
> this glaring lack of understanding of chess, via basic
> chess lessons.
>
>
> -- Blue Herring
>
>
Your only weapon in an argument is insult. This proves that your
position is weak. Although I don't play anymore I have studied the
game for 32 years, and I own the major chess databases. There
is not a chance that you can play g2-g4 in each other opening
position. G2-g4 is an uncommon opening move. You only need
to search a database and compare the number of games with the
overall number.
Mats
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 12:02:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 5, 1:25 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dear Mr. bot (horse infestation??)
No, I think you may have confused me with "Zot". (I am
just a super-sophisticated computer virus, although more
than a few players have called me a "horse-odds player".)
> Enlarging the board has already been tried in Modern Chesshttp://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/modern.html
> and in Grand Chesshttp://www.mindsports.net/Arena/GrandChess/Rules.html
> and in Gothic Chesshttp://www.gothicchess.com/
>
> "Modern Chess" was invented by Gabriel Maura in 1968. In 1972 a
> controlling body (FENDAM) was formed with delegates representing 16
> countries. The first Modern Chess World Championship was held in
> Puerto Rico 1974. The World Correspondence Championship of Modern
> Chess was held in the years 1976-1983. Organized events seized in
> 1983.
Interesting. Were any of these variants devised specifically
to avoid what many patzers consider to be a drawishness
problem with chess, I wonder?
> Although a fully playable variant, it is curious why 'Modern Chess'
> attracted that much attention. If the Prime Ministers (Cardinals) are
> exchanged, what remains is a slow and drawish version of orthochess.
A long time ago, we had a similar problem in the world
of chess; it was addressed by allowing the pawns to leap
two squares forward, if desired, on their first go. One
drawback is that this makes the rules of play a bit more
complicated and thus, more difficult to learn; in fact, some
adults argue over such things even today, as the rules are
not fully understood by many casual players.
> The pawns cannot meet immediately in the middle of the board. The fact
> that the bishops move on the same colour depletes the strategical
> content, I suppose.
Changes it, in any case. I can envision attacking
strategies which revolve around which color squares
one's two(?) Bishops control.
> As to Gothic Chess and Grand Chess, they both make use of the
> over-the-top pieces Archbishop and Cardinal, which are extremely
> complicated super-knights. These games are fun, but they will never
> become popular.
I agree. In fact, I have never even tried either one.
> No, what we need is something on the lines of Neoorthodox Chesshttp://hem.passagen.se/melki9/neoorthodoxchess.htm
> or Improved Chesshttp://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm
> or Alternative Chesshttp://hem.passagen.se/melki9/alternativechess.htm
If you say so, fella. IMO, it is likely that the complaints
regarding chess being too drawish emanate from those
who just aren't any good, and who are thus looking for a
reason to give up on the game. IMO, only at the grand-
master level is there a truly serious problem with draws,
and this is not the result of hard-fought games ending up
in un-win-able territory too often, but, to the contrary, it is
the result of games not being played out well beyond the
home-prep stage. In sum, a lot of the FIDE titled players
seem to feel that chess is a battle of opening preparation,
not OTB skill. (This is why I have always turned down any
offers of titles and badges and the like; of course I have
earned the chess purple heart many times, since every
time I play one of these guys I am mortally wounded in
the opening, again in mid-game, and if I am lucky enough
to survive, a third time in some lost ending. Hahahaha.)
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 10:08:59
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jul 5, 1:25 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Enlarging the board has already been tried in Modern Chesshttp://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/modern.html
>> and in Grand Chesshttp://www.mindsports.net/Arena/GrandChess/Rules.html
>> and in Gothic Chesshttp://www.gothicchess.com/
>
> Interesting. Were any of these variants devised specifically
> to avoid what many patzers consider to be a drawishness
> problem with chess, I wonder?
Well, Gothic chess is just Capablanca chess with a slightly different
initial position. Capablanca chess was invented by some patzer ex-
World-Champion as a response to the perceived drawishness of chess in
the 1920s/1930s. ;-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Zen Cat (TM): it's like a cat that
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ puts you in touch with the universe!
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 11:39:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 5, 1:10 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> On the contrary, it would velously enhance the strategical possibilities
> >> on the flanks. Playing g2-g4 is seldom possible in standard chess,
>
> > You are so wrong! Have you never seen the games
> > of GM Alekhine? GM Keres? Or any of the modern
> > players? This is quite often used as a gambit, to
> > open lines for attack. (As I said, patzers... .)
>
> > -- help bot
>
> Dear Mr. Patzer,
>
> Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.
Not only is your guesstimate way off, you clearly have
not studied many of the openings wherein this is one of
the stock attacking ideas, often involving the sacrifice of
the g-pawn in order to open lines to the enemy King and
accelerate White's attack, thus rendering Black's
counterplay on the opposite wing too slow. Going *at
least* as far back as GM Alekhine, this plan may appear
to hang a pawn, but in fact the attacks tend to succeed
often because, as we real chess players say, it is
easier to attack than to defend (against every conceivable
attack, that is). Too bad you're such an ignorant patzer... .
Maybe some lessons would help?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2007 10:49:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jun 22, 5:58 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Neoorthodox Chess:
>
> What would happen if we increased the board with one more square to the right? The corner square provides a hiding nest for the king should the player want to invoke play on the same wing and advance with the pawns.
>
> Extended castle rule: besides normal castling one can choose to move the king three squares instead of two. The rook ends up on its usual square. The extended castle rule also makes play on the wings easier to achieve. Queenside castle becomes more attractive. The extra corner squares will enhance the strategical possibilities.
>
> Read more here:http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/neoorthodoxchess.htm
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Improved Chess:
>
> A noteworthy improvement of Fide-chess: the only difference is the additional movement directions of the Pawn. The improved Pawn, provided that it (1) has reached the other half of the board, and (2) the forward movement is blocked, has the additional moves of a knight, but only in two forward directions: east-north-east, and west-north-west, and only to empty squares. There are no additional capture moves.
>
> Middlegame and endgame are more aggressive while improved Pawns are not easy to block. In Improved Chess, drawish endgames will occur less often. Many theoretical endgames that have hitherto been drawn are now won. Its jump moves are not frequent (it must be blocked) so it's not overly wild.
>
> Comparatively, in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block.
It sounds to me like some patzers are having difficulties in
chess because of issues with their boring style of play, as it
encompasses myriad possibilities of locked-pawn syndrome.
But rather than radically redesign the game, how about a
redesign on your style of play? It's not that difficult to try
and redress the problems which have led to the locked-up
pawns, to the dull and boring draws complained about above.
I certainly have no such problems when playing Fritz 5.32, for
instance! To the contrary, I can only dream of locking things
up to end the tactical carnage!
> This creates the ked drawishness of practical endgames. Therefore, most chessplayers prefer to keep the queen on the board, until they have created an advantage. I have tested this variant in a program, and exchanging pieces does not automatically lead to a draw. The tension often remains in the endgame.
Played properly, chess draws can be seen as something
other than a stylistic flaw in the game's design. In fact,
right now I am in the midst of a game where my opponent
snatched a pawn in the middlegame, because I had simply
overlooked the tactical ramifications of some move. Ever
since, I have had to struggle with no only his attempts to
attack my King, but with the issue of lost endgames, as I
am a pawn down. Now the Queens are off, most attacking
possibilities on my King are as well, but there remains the
possibility of my attacking his King, and of him promoting
his extra pawn. All these ideas combined make for a
fairly interesting game, despite what many would consider,
at first blush, a rather boring Rook ending. In fact, I am
still hoping to win, in spite of my material disadvantage!
On my last move, I had the option of trading down to one
Rook apiece -- a draw if I am lucky and can eat his passer
for free. But I took another route, one which keeps alive
the possibility of numerous annoying Knight forks, landing
even one of these means a certain win for me.
My suggestion would be to look at enlarging the chess
board, not changing the moves of the various men or
adding on a square in some peculiar place. The general
enlargement of the board, along with an increase in the
number of men, would likely knock computers back a peg
or two as compared to humans, thus rescuing us for a
few more years from the problems relating to computer
cheating. Also, this enlargement, if well thought out,
might lend more of a strategic flavor to the games, as
opposed to slash-and-burn tactics, which have been
seen as a reaction to the boring draws problem. The
flaw here is that such strategy-oriented games already
exist in Go, Stratego, Risk, etc., although some of
these insert luck via the use of dice-rolling.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 07:25:28
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-04 19:49:14 skrev help bot <[email protected] >:
> On Jun 22, 5:58 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neoorthodox Chess:
>>
>> What would happen if we increased the board with one more square to the right? The corner square provides a hiding nest for the king should the player want to invoke play on the same wing and advance with the pawns.
>>
>> Extended castle rule: besides normal castling one can choose to move the king three squares instead of two. The rook ends up on its usual square. The extended castle rule also makes play on the wings easier to achieve. Queenside castle becomes more attractive. The extra corner squares will enhance the strategical possibilities.
>>
>> Read more here:http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/neoorthodoxchess.htm
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>>
>> Improved Chess:
>>
>> A noteworthy improvement of Fide-chess: the only difference is the additional movement directions of the Pawn. The improved Pawn, provided that it (1) has reached the other half of the board, and (2) the forward movement is blocked, has the additional moves of a knight, but only in two forward directions: east-north-east, and west-north-west, and only to empty squares. There are no additional capture moves.
>>
>> Middlegame and endgame are more aggressive while improved Pawns are not easy to block. In Improved Chess, drawish endgames will occur less often. Many theoretical endgames that have hitherto been drawn are now won. Its jump moves are not frequent (it must be blocked) so it's not overly wild.
>>
>> Comparatively, in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block.
>
>
> It sounds to me like some patzers are having difficulties in
> chess because of issues with their boring style of play, as it
> encompasses myriad possibilities of locked-pawn syndrome.
>
> But rather than radically redesign the game, how about a
> redesign on your style of play? It's not that difficult to try
> and redress the problems which have led to the locked-up
> pawns, to the dull and boring draws complained about above.
> I certainly have no such problems when playing Fritz 5.32, for
> instance! To the contrary, I can only dream of locking things
> up to end the tactical carnage!
>
>
>
>> This creates the ked drawishness of practical endgames. Therefore, most chessplayers prefer to keep the queen on the board, until they have created an advantage. I have tested this variant in a program, and exchanging pieces does not automatically lead to a draw. The tension often remains in the endgame.
>
>
> Played properly, chess draws can be seen as something
> other than a stylistic flaw in the game's design. In fact,
> right now I am in the midst of a game where my opponent
> snatched a pawn in the middlegame, because I had simply
> overlooked the tactical ramifications of some move. Ever
> since, I have had to struggle with no only his attempts to
> attack my King, but with the issue of lost endgames, as I
> am a pawn down. Now the Queens are off, most attacking
> possibilities on my King are as well, but there remains the
> possibility of my attacking his King, and of him promoting
> his extra pawn. All these ideas combined make for a
> fairly interesting game, despite what many would consider,
> at first blush, a rather boring Rook ending. In fact, I am
> still hoping to win, in spite of my material disadvantage!
> On my last move, I had the option of trading down to one
> Rook apiece -- a draw if I am lucky and can eat his passer
> for free. But I took another route, one which keeps alive
> the possibility of numerous annoying Knight forks, landing
> even one of these means a certain win for me.
>
>
> My suggestion would be to look at enlarging the chess
> board, not changing the moves of the various men or
> adding on a square in some peculiar place. The general
> enlargement of the board, along with an increase in the
> number of men, would likely knock computers back a peg
> or two as compared to humans, thus rescuing us for a
> few more years from the problems relating to computer
> cheating. Also, this enlargement, if well thought out,
> might lend more of a strategic flavor to the games, as
> opposed to slash-and-burn tactics, which have been
> seen as a reaction to the boring draws problem. The
> flaw here is that such strategy-oriented games already
> exist in Go, Stratego, Risk, etc., although some of
> these insert luck via the use of dice-rolling.
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
Dear Mr. bot (horse infestation??)
Enlarging the board has already been tried in Modern Chess
http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/modern.html
and in Grand Chess
http://www.mindsports.net/Arena/GrandChess/Rules.html
and in Gothic Chess
http://www.gothicchess.com/
"Modern Chess" was invented by Gabriel Maura in 1968. In 1972 a
controlling body (FENDAM) was formed with delegates representing 16
countries. The first Modern Chess World Championship was held in
Puerto Rico 1974. The World Correspondence Championship of Modern
Chess was held in the years 1976-1983. Organized events seized in
1983.
Although a fully playable variant, it is curious why 'Modern Chess'
attracted that much attention. If the Prime Ministers (Cardinals) are
exchanged, what remains is a slow and drawish version of orthochess.
The pawns cannot meet immediately in the middle of the board. The fact
that the bishops move on the same colour depletes the strategical
content, I suppose.
As to Gothic Chess and Grand Chess, they both make use of the
over-the-top pieces Archbishop and Cardinal, which are extremely
complicated super-knights. These games are fun, but they will never
become popular.
No, what we need is something on the lines of Neoorthodox Chess
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/neoorthodoxchess.htm
or Improved Chess
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm
or Alternative Chess
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/alternativechess.htm
Mats
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2007 10:45:21
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jun 23, 2:29 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Den 2007-06-22 16:31:25 skrev Offramp <[email protected]>:
>
> > On Jun 22, 10:58 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Neoorthodox Chess:
>
> >> What would happen if we increased the board with one more square to the right?
>
> > Then no one would play with it.
>
> On the contrary, it would velously enhance the strategical possibilities
> on the flanks. Playing g2-g4 is seldom possible in standard chess,
You are so wrong! Have you never seen the games
of GM Alekhine? GM Keres? Or any of the modern
players? This is quite often used as a gambit, to
open lines for attack. (As I said, patzers... .)
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 07:10:43
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-04 19:45:21 skrev help bot <[email protected] >:
> On Jun 23, 2:29 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Den 2007-06-22 16:31:25 skrev Offramp <[email protected]>:
>>
>> > On Jun 22, 10:58 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Neoorthodox Chess:
>>
>> >> What would happen if we increased the board with one more square to the right?
>>
>> > Then no one would play with it.
>>
>> On the contrary, it would velously enhance the strategical possibilities
>> on the flanks. Playing g2-g4 is seldom possible in standard chess,
>
>
> You are so wrong! Have you never seen the games
> of GM Alekhine? GM Keres? Or any of the modern
> players? This is quite often used as a gambit, to
> open lines for attack. (As I said, patzers... .)
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
Dear Mr. Patzer,
Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.
Mats
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Jul 2007 01:35:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 15, 12:50 am, "Inconnux" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I wouldn't buy stock in any video game company.
> A couple of bad games and they are history. Yesterdays
> star companies are bankrupt today.
As far as I know, this might well apply to Atari, but others
like Activision and Electronic Arts are still buzzing along.
Because of the internet and its ever-increasing speed and
power, the online games are going to make a lot of money.
The one I talked about earlier largely targets Chinese youth,
and this is a rapidly growing audience.
> those players are called 'farmers' they grab items in game
> that everyone want and sell them for real life cash... its
> a lucrative job for people in china and the bane of
> mmorpg creators. Often they build characters up to the
> maximum level and then sell the accounts.
Wow. What a way to make a living!
> > of thing, and you will sometimes find them playing
> > backgammon, for instance, at a chess tourney.
>
> Ive yet to see any othergame played at chess tournaments.
Some people were a bit insulted by it.
> > One reason these massively multi-player games
> > do well is that kids have a lot of time on their hands
> > to play. Me, I spent a good deal of time weeding
> > and then watering my lawn today. Now it's 3 am
> > and of course, it rains... .
>
> lol after I moved out of my parents house I swore I would
> never pick another weed :) So I don't waste any time on that ...
So, you let THEM win. They always prevail in the end;
the weeds and insects and bacteria. But I won't go down
without a fight. Kicking and screaming... not with a
whimper, but with a bang... . : >D
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 09:24:44
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
> Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.
Nonsense. There are serious openings used up to GM level, where g2-g4 is
played, especially in several variations of the Sicilian.
Ralf
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 17:22:58
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-05 09:24:44 skrev Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] >:
>
>> Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.
>
> Nonsense. There are serious openings used up to GM level, where g2-g4 is
> played, especially in several variations of the Sicilian.
>
> Ralf
>
Ralf, why don't you try g2-g4 in Gr�nfeld, Queen's Gambit, Ninzoindian,
Benoni, Ruy Lopez, etc. In the overwhelming number of opening positions
g2-g4 is bad.
Mats
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 03:09:01
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
05.07.2007 17:22, Mats Winther:
>
> Ralf, why don't you try g2-g4 in Gr�nfeld, Queen's Gambit, Ninzoindian,
> Benoni, Ruy Lopez, etc. In the overwhelming number of opening positions
> g2-g4 is bad.
>
So? Sicilian is the most popular opening in tournament chess. And in a
lot of variations g2-g4 is thematic. GMs, not necessarily the top 10,
play around with early g2-g4 in openings like King's Indian, Semi-Slav
and English. There are a lot of systems, where g2-g4 is definitely not
healthy, but your statement that "g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99%
of all opening positions" simply does not reflect reality.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 07:05:01
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-06 03:09:01 skrev Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] >:
> 05.07.2007 17:22, M Winther:
>>
>> Ralf, why don't you try g2-g4 in Gr�nfeld, Queen's Gambit, Ninzoindian,
>> Benoni, Ruy Lopez, etc. In the overwhelming number of opening positions
>> g2-g4 is bad.
>>
>
> So? Sicilian is the most popular opening in tournament chess. And in a
> lot of variations g2-g4 is thematic. GMs, not necessarily the top 10,
> play around with early g2-g4 in openings like King's Indian, Semi-Slav
> and English. There are a lot of systems, where g2-g4 is definitely not
> healthy, but your statement that "g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99%
> of all opening positions" simply does not reflect reality.
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf
>
Just because g2-g4 is important in certain opening variants it doesn't mean that
it appears everywhere. Statistically, white seldom has the opportunity of playing
g2-g4 because it would lead to a strategically lost game.
Mats
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2007 14:57:10
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Mats Winther <[email protected] > wrote:
> A noteworthy improvement of Fide-chess:
That your suggestion is `noteworthy' or an `improvement' is surely for
others to judge?
> the only difference is the additional movement directions of the
> Pawn. The improved Pawn, provided that it (1) has reached the other
> half of the board, and (2) the forward movement is blocked, has the
> additional moves of a knight, but only in two forward directions:
> east-north-east, and west-north-west, and only to empty squares. [...]
>
> In Improved Chess, drawish endgames will occur less often. Many
> theoretical endgames that have hitherto been drawn are now won.
Why are these endgames won? It sounds to me that any blocked pawns in
the centre of the board will side-step one another and all promote,
leading to a potentially drawish multiple-queen endgame.
> Its jump moves are not frequent (it must be blocked) so it's not
> overly wild.
Au contraire. The jump-moves will occur in every pawn endgame.
That's a major change. It's not necessarily bad but it is major.
> Comparatively, in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block. This
> creates the ked drawishness of practical endgames.
I disagree. Your suggestion just means that blocked pawns will
sidestep and promote but KQ vs KQ is much more drawish than KP vs KP.
> Therefore, most chessplayers prefer to keep the queen on the board,
> until they have created an advantage.
Really?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Moistened Psychotic Dictator (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a totalitarian leader but
it wants to kill you and it's moist!
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 07:51:14
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-06-26 15:57:10 skrev David Richerby <[email protected] >:
> Mats Winther <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A noteworthy improvement of Fide-chess:
>
> That your suggestion is `noteworthy' or an `improvement' is surely for
> others to judge?
>
>> the only difference is the additional movement directions of the
>> Pawn. The improved Pawn, provided that it (1) has reached the other
>> half of the board, and (2) the forward movement is blocked, has the
>> additional moves of a knight, but only in two forward directions:
>> east-north-east, and west-north-west, and only to empty squares. [...]
>>
>> In Improved Chess, drawish endgames will occur less often. Many
>> theoretical endgames that have hitherto been drawn are now won.
>
> Why are these endgames won? It sounds to me that any blocked pawns in
> the centre of the board will side-step one another and all promote,
> leading to a potentially drawish multiple-queen endgame.
>
You have not understood how it works. The pawn must be blocked on the
enemy side for it to acquire the extra jump moves to empty squares. Hence,
pawns blocking each other in the centre cannot sidestep each other. The
jump moves are not that frequent. I have tried this out in a program.
Mats
>> Its jump moves are not frequent (it must be blocked) so it's not
>> overly wild.
>
> Au contraire. The jump-moves will occur in every pawn endgame.
> That's a major change. It's not necessarily bad but it is major.
>
>> Comparatively, in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block. This
>> creates the ked drawishness of practical endgames.
>
> I disagree. Your suggestion just means that blocked pawns will
> sidestep and promote but KQ vs KQ is much more drawish than KP vs KP.
>
>> Therefore, most chessplayers prefer to keep the queen on the board,
>> until they have created an advantage.
>
> Really?
>
>
> Dave.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 09:27:48
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Mats Winther <[email protected] > wrote:
> skrev David Richerby <[email protected]>:
>> Mats Winther <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In Improved Chess, drawish endgames will occur less often. Many
>>> theoretical endgames that have hitherto been drawn are now won.
>>
>> Why are these endgames won? It sounds to me that any blocked pawns in
>> the centre of the board will side-step one another and all promote,
>> leading to a potentially drawish multiple-queen endgame.
>
> You have not understood how it works. The pawn must be blocked on
> the enemy side for it to acquire the extra jump moves to empty
> squares. Hence, pawns blocking each other in the centre cannot
> sidestep each other.
OK. So that means that the player with the more advanced pawns is
overwhelmingly more likely to win a blocked pawn ending. Why do you
feel that's a good thing?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Carnivorous Mouldy Spoon (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a piece of cutlery but it's
starting to grow mushrooms and it
eats flesh!
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 11:00:30
From: CeeBee
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On 27 jun 2007 David Richerby wrote in rec.games.chess.computer:
> OK. So that means that the player with the more advanced pawns is
> overwhelmingly more likely to win a blocked pawn ending. Why do you
> feel that's a good thing?
>
If you're the player with the more advanced pawn in a blocked pawn ending
I guess that's not really a difficult question to answer.
--
CeeBee
*** entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ***
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 12:24:47
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
CeeBee <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 27 jun 2007 David Richerby wrote in rec.games.chess.computer:
>> OK. So that means that the player with the more advanced pawns is
>> overwhelmingly more likely to win a blocked pawn ending. Why do
>> you feel that's a good thing?
>
> If you're the player with the more advanced pawn in a blocked pawn
> ending I guess that's not really a difficult question to answer.
Yebbut what if I'm the other guy? ;-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Gigantic Adult Hat (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hat that you won't want the children
to see but it's huge!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 11:50:03
From: CeeBee
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On 27 jun 2007 David Richerby wrote in rec.games.chess.computer:
> Yebbut what if I'm the other guy? ;-)
Then you feel it's a bad thing. Chess variants aren't so complicated,
really.
--
CeeBee
*** entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ***
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 13:53:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
CeeBee <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote in rec.games.chess.computer:
>> Yebbut what if I'm the other guy? ;-)
>
> Then you feel it's a bad thing. Chess variants aren't so
> complicated, really.
Thanks. Everything sounds so simple when you explain it. ;-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Salted Radio (TM): it's like a radio
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's covered in salt!
|
| |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 07:31:25
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jun 22, 10:58 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Neoorthodox Chess:
>
> What would happen if we increased the board with one more square to the right?
Then no one would play with it.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 08:29:35
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-06-22 16:31:25 skrev Offramp <[email protected] >:
> On Jun 22, 10:58 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neoorthodox Chess:
>>
>> What would happen if we increased the board with one more square to the right?
>
> Then no one would play with it.
>
>
On the contrary, it would velously enhance the strategical possibilities
on the flanks. Playing g2-g4 is seldom possible in standard chess, but now
the risk involved is much smaller because the king can take up its position
on j1 and be fully protected, while not encumbering the rooks on the first
rank.
Mats
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 00:14:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
On Jul 13, 1:54 am, "Inconnux" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Really? About a year or so ago, I went out to eat
> > with my extended family, and the younger folks were
> > ranting about this game like it was the greatest thing
> > since sliced bread. Just this Sunday, I went again,
> > and still, even after all this time and the release of
> > other, similar games, WoW is all the rage. The
> > youngest member seems to like the Sims, and
> > would undoubtedly buy every version, but for the
> > cost; never mind how dated that game may now be.
>
> WoW is a dumbed down mmorpg that appeals mainly to
> kids who's voices havent changed :)
Well, my niece is crazy about it, and she is over twenty.
She seems to have met a "boy" in the game who came
out to eat with us, and he was around thirty-something.
> In many of the other mmorpg's that I've played, WoW has a bad rep
> as being a 'lite' game.
I know what you mean. Among movie makers and
TV script writers, chess is a game for old men -- and,
occasionally, intellectuals. But what is the reality?
> The southpark episode gave
> it free advertising to this ket :)
One reason I am focused on this particular game
is that it is owned by a company whose stock I
own. An investment guru named Robert Hsu
believes it is on track to continue its present
course of growth and profits, and it is already up
a bunch since he first recommended it. They
have locked up the exclusive rights to Field of
Honor -- a 3-D multiplayer online game. Zacks
(an online investment company somewhat akin
to Standard and Poors) rates it a "sell", giving
NCTY its lowest ranking (5); but this appears to
be the automatic result of the stock having
already far exceeded its precalculated "target
price"; in other words, they were clueless and
the reason for the low ranking is simple math.
> > Okay, but what about the successful games like
> > WoW, for instance?
>
> WoW has lost quite a few members since it first started.
> They are now starting to advertise 'free trial' versions
> of the game... a sure fire sign of a dying game.
Hey -- I got a free trial version of Rybka: does this
mean the program is already doomed to be super-
seded by "Wally-chess", "Fred's Free Chess" and
"Chessmaster 1.0"? ; >D
There are free trial versions of Chessbase, The
Chess Assistant, Fritz, Rebel, and every type of
security software imaginable; it's a standard
keting scheme, like getting a "free" fourth
automobile tire when you buy three. (Don't fall
for it; just buy two and put them on opposite
corners so when one of the old ones blows, the
car won't drag the ground as much.)
> > To a game addict, $15 per month may not seem
> > very much; divide by the number of hours wasted
> > -- I mean played of course! -- and it dwindles down
> > to a mere trickle of pocket change.
>
> Adds up when the wife and both kids play as well.
How do you think Phil Innes got to be nearly an IM?
That's right: he let the wife and kids play using his
account, and his rating nearly doubled! ; >D
> > Okay, but several of the games you listed earlier
> > were not the creme de la creme of the genre, so
>
> Everquest was the largest game for years, and City
> of heroes was quite successful. Problem with these
> games is when the next 'big' game comes out, most of
> your new online friends leave to try it and your 'world'
> becomes a ghost town. It hasn't happened to 'WoW'
> yet, but given time it will.
Ah, so the cost is not really that much of a problem
if players can jump ship at will and try new games
which come along, then. This WoW game, and a
few others like it, are played heavily in China, by
young people who are not exactly wealthy. The
cost per hour is relatively small. Much like text
messaging, even a small fee, if multiplied by many
millions of units, adds up.
> > this is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. In
> > truth, there are board games with more "strategy"
> > and less "tactics" than chess, but chess is still
> > the king in terms of prestige.
>
> chess is more popular than these strategy board games
> because of its 'simplicity', yet complex nature of the game.
> Another key feature is there is no luck factor.
The no-luck factor is where chess comes out on
top against games in which the roll of the dice is
a big issue. But some chess players like this sort
of thing, and you will sometimes find them playing
backgammon, for instance, at a chess tourney.
One reason these massively multi-player games
do well is that kids have a lot of time on their hands
to play. Me, I spent a good deal of time weeding
and then watering my lawn today. Now it's 3 am
and of course, it rains... .
-- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Jul 2007 04:50:51
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
>
> One reason I am focused on this particular game
> is that it is owned by a company whose stock I
> own. An investment guru named Robert Hsu
> believes it is on track to continue its present
> course of growth and profits, and it is already up
> a bunch since he first recommended it. They
> have locked up the exclusive rights to Field of
> Honor -- a 3-D multiplayer online game. Zacks
> (an online investment company somewhat akin
> to Standard and Poors) rates it a "sell", giving
> NCTY its lowest ranking (5); but this appears to
> be the automatic result of the stock having
> already far exceeded its precalculated "target
> price"; in other words, they were clueless and
> the reason for the low ranking is simple math.
>
I wouldn't buy stock in any video game company.
A couple of bad games and they are history. Yesterdays
star companies are bankrupt today.
>> WoW has lost quite a few members since it first started.
>> They are now starting to advertise 'free trial' versions
>> of the game... a sure fire sign of a dying game.
>
>
> Hey -- I got a free trial version of Rybka: does this
> mean the program is already doomed to be super-
> seded by "Wally-chess", "Fred's Free Chess" and
> "Chessmaster 1.0"? ;>D
When mmorpg's start giving free trials away it is because
they are losing subscriptions. No successful mmorpg has
given away 'free trials' when they are first released.
> Ah, so the cost is not really that much of a problem
> if players can jump ship at will and try new games
> which come along, then. This WoW game, and a
> few others like it, are played heavily in China, by
> young people who are not exactly wealthy. The
> cost per hour is relatively small. Much like text
> messaging, even a small fee, if multiplied by many
> millions of units, adds up.
those players are called 'farmers' they grab items in game
that everyone want and sell them for real life cash... its
a lucrative job for people in china and the bane of
mmorpg creators. Often they build characters up to the
maximum level and then sell the accounts.
> of thing, and you will sometimes find them playing
> backgammon, for instance, at a chess tourney.
>
Ive yet to see any othergame played at chess tournaments.
> One reason these massively multi-player games
> do well is that kids have a lot of time on their hands
> to play. Me, I spent a good deal of time weeding
> and then watering my lawn today. Now it's 3 am
> and of course, it rains... .
lol after I moved out of my parents house I swore I would
never pick another weed :) So I don't waste any time on that ...
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Jun 2007 14:51:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Mats Winther <[email protected] > wrote:
> On the contrary, it would velously enhance the strategical
> possibilities on the flanks. Playing g2-g4 is seldom possible in
> standard chess, but now the risk involved is much smaller because
> the king can take up its position on j1 and be fully protected,
> while not encumbering the rooks on the first rank.
On the other hand, it may be that the more hidden position of the king
on j1 means that the attack via g4 is much less effective. This is
the sort of thing that can only really be evaluated by extensive
testing by strong players. I've no idea ho the extra attacking
possibilities you mention will compare to the extra defensive
possibilities.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Carnivorous Natural Wine (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a vintage Beaujolais but it's
completely natural and full of teeth!
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 20:22:29
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-06-26 15:51:32 skrev David Richerby <[email protected] >:
> Mats Winther <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On the contrary, it would velously enhance the strategical
>> possibilities on the flanks. Playing g2-g4 is seldom possible in
>> standard chess, but now the risk involved is much smaller because
>> the king can take up its position on j1 and be fully protected,
>> while not encumbering the rooks on the first rank.
>
> On the other hand, it may be that the more hidden position of the king
> on j1 means that the attack via g4 is much less effective. This is
> the sort of thing that can only really be evaluated by extensive
> testing by strong players. I've no idea ho the extra attacking
> possibilities you mention will compare to the extra defensive
> possibilities.
>
>
> Dave.
>
You forget that black has not got recourse to this extra square on the
kingside. Black's extra square is on the queenside. Evidently, it will
be much more attractive to move the g-pawn two steps as white's
king is much less exposed while there is an extra square where it
can hide, and it does not encumber the rooks.
Mats
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Jul 2007 10:33:58
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Mats Winther <[email protected] > wrote:
> You forget that black has not got recourse to this extra square on
> the kingside. Black's extra square is on the queenside.
If the starting position is not symmetric, nobody will be interested
in your game. It is much easier for White to use his extra square
than Black, which sounds like it will introduce a massive bias into
the game.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Broken Ghost (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ haunting spirit but it doesn't work!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2007 18:30:36
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: Neoorthodox Chess
|
Den 2007-07-02 11:33:58 skrev David Richerby <[email protected] >:
> Mats Winther <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You forget that black has not got recourse to this extra square on
>> the kingside. Black's extra square is on the queenside.
>
> If the starting position is not symmetric, nobody will be interested
> in your game. It is much easier for White to use his extra square
> than Black, which sounds like it will introduce a massive bias into
> the game.
>
>
> Dave.
>
You forget one thing: by introducing the extra square to the right the
diagonal is also weakened. If white plays h3 blacks queen can via the
diagonal land on the extra square and give mate. So it introduces
problems to white, also. The extended castle also contributes to the
balance of the game because it makes long castle more attractive to
black.
Mats
|
|
