Chess

Discussion in 'Gaming' started by IsaVulpes, Oct 24, 2014.

  1. IsaVulpes

    IsaVulpes Just Throw

    Location:
    Trinidad && Tobago
    Ms. Fortune
    Filia
    Double
    Hi,

    I think there was no thread for this (I didn't find one, at least); Now there is.

    I dunno if this is the right location, but it's a game, so I guess??

    Does anybody play this game, etc.
    If yes: seriously or just randomly, are you rated or not, what openings do you play why, etc.

    P.S.: Here's a funny thing: www.chesspersonality.com

    @gllt when's
     
  2. Squire Grooktook

    Squire Grooktook The wind blew all day long

    Location:
    The nexus of the universe
    Steam:
    Squire Grooktook
    PSN:
    Groucho2
    XBL:
    SquireGrooktook
    Ms. Fortune
    Filia
    Unknown
    I don't, but I know Dawn11 plays it online a lot.
     
    DawnHibiki likes this.
  3. BlackRoseAngel

    BlackRoseAngel The EVIL Ice Cream Lady

    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Steam:
    Black Rose Angel
    Ms. Fortune
    Eliza
    Squigly
    I love chess but I'm not terribly experienced with it. The only person I knew who played it with me on any sort of a regular basis was my father and he taught me as little as possible and stopped playing with me when I started winning.

    I've never been rated or anything like that, and I really haven't played in a very long time. I did manage to get an AI to surrender once, which I take a lot of pride in. I know the basics and I have what I like to think is a solid opener, but my knowledge of Chess theory is probably rudimentary compared to your average chess club member.
     
  4. Denizen

    Denizen Retired Member

    I used to play all the time but then my brother started beating me and I rage quit.
     
  5. BeatNinja

    BeatNinja *Sneezes*

    Location:
    da mountains
    Steam:
    BeatNinja
    PSN:
    BeatNinja777
    Valentine
    Big Band
    Checkers though.
     
    TheGoggledGamer likes this.
  6. BlackRoseAngel

    BlackRoseAngel The EVIL Ice Cream Lady

    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Steam:
    Black Rose Angel
    Ms. Fortune
    Eliza
    Squigly
    Just tell me you never threw the board. My brother pulled that shit whenever I won at Stratego, which was all the time. Of course I had to clean it up while getting chastised for not "letting him win".
     
  7. Denizen

    Denizen Retired Member

    Nah I'm not a dick. I was definitely pissed off though, the kid is tact as hell.
     
    chickenwithtie likes this.
  8. BlackRoseAngel

    BlackRoseAngel The EVIL Ice Cream Lady

    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Steam:
    Black Rose Angel
    Ms. Fortune
    Eliza
    Squigly
    Well I was never rude about winning, my brother was just the sore loser from hell. He takes after his father, naturally. I can't help it if he sucks at every game ever conceived by man.
     
  9. ClarenceMage

    ClarenceMage git gud

    Steam:
    ClarenceMage
    PSN:
    ClarenceMage
    Valentine
    Painwheel
    Big Band
    I play it, but really randomly. At some point I had given learning chess a real proper go, but I lack people to play with in person, and my spare time is taken up by fighting games and now also sc2. I would need a large, consistent chunk of time to seriously play Chess again and learn how to play it well.

    One thing that does hamper my motivation to learn it is the sheer volume of memorisation and required knowldedge in order to properly play the game at an acceptable level. It's not like fighting games where I can pick a bunch of simple things, skim over the systems, and just beat my opponent on yomi and reactions, since positional advantage, in-depth calculation, and making the best move at all times is more to the heart of Chess.

    Chessmaster is godlike though. It's the VF4:Evo of Chess.
     
  10. Hilary

    Hilary Well-Known Member

    If I could follow chess theorycrafting/discussion better, I would enjoy the game.

    As it is, I have a really awful grasp of fundamentals and play in a very short-sighted manner.
     
  11. BlackRoseAngel

    BlackRoseAngel The EVIL Ice Cream Lady

    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Steam:
    Black Rose Angel
    Ms. Fortune
    Eliza
    Squigly
    My knowledge of chess is pretty simplistic really.

    1. Control the center of the board.
    2. Once you've done that, find a chink in their armor.
    3. Exploit the weakness and move in for the kill.

    I have that first one down, 2 and 3 not so much.
     
  12. Jason

    Jason Not JasonD

    Squigly
    Big Band
    Cerebella
    I played Chess 2: The Sequel a bit on Steam when it first came out. Was pretty fun, the new rules and different 'armies' definitely spice things up a bit. Shame it was pretty much dead on arrival.

    The existence of the midline invasion rule (if your king crosses the center line of the board onto your opponent's side, you win) really changes the entire dynamic of the game and speeds up the pace of things a lot.

    On the downside a few of the variant armies can be pretty imbalanced but I suppose that's to be expected.

    If you want to take a look at the rule set there's a free PDF here http://www.sirlingames.com/products/chess-2-print-and-play
     
  13. Kristoph

    Kristoph , the Angel

    Location:
    Minnesota
    I play/stream Chess 2 (not atm because i don't have a proper computer for it). It's super fun but it can be really tough for traditional chess players to stomach all the differences, it's better classified as a 'turn based strategy' than a 'chess variant' i think. I think the midline rule would be a really good change to FIDE chess though! 60% draw rate is annoying =(
     
  14. Ravendeth

    Ravendeth The Dream is Dead.

    Steam:
    Ravendeth
    Filia
    Double
    Robo Fortune
    I used to play a bit. The chess club was just about the only quiet place I could find back in my school days. I took that test you linked, and this is what I got:
    ChessPersonality.com Test Results (open)
    Mad Scientist.
    Mad Scientists believe in justice and principles in chess, and use passion and calculating ability to prove their beliefs. The Mad Scientist is capable of carrying out brilliant attacks, but will only do so when he believes it is the right way - he won't normally play speculatively. More often that not the Mad Scientist is the one facing an attack, and he is willing to do that if he believes the attack is not objectively correct. Mad Scientists are also experimenters, trying different ways to expand the horizons in chess.


    It was nothing serious, I'm not rated, though I did try to get better every game the same way that I pursue every game or hobby obsessively. The opening I use the most is "Vienna Game". I don't have any particular logically sound reason for this, I just feel that knights are the best "playmakers", and opening/claiming my center first gives me a flexible offense without opening me up too much to diagonal attacks.

    There were a couple of things that I learned, that stayed with me: I win noticeably more often when playing black. I tend to be better with short-term tactics than long-term strategies. I try to recognize and match extreme patience against good players. Taking an extreme position can give you more control over possible outcomes. And I'm not very good at chess.
     
  15. IsaVulpes

    IsaVulpes Just Throw

    Location:
    Trinidad && Tobago
    Ms. Fortune
    Filia
    Double
    I have no idea what this is trying to say

    If you have any sort of questions, ask away!

    This is kind of lacking "Force the opponent to create a chink in their armor".
    How are you going to find a weakness if the opponent doesn't suicide?

    Kristoph made a Sirlin-Chess Thread somewhere.
    Please move discussion on the most pretentiously named game of all time there :^)

    I wonder how deep your endgame knowledge goes, to request a flat deletion of half the game.

    Why FIDE Chess and not just chess? Do you call it "FIBA Basketball" and "ITF Tennis" and "FIG Gymnastics"?

    Would it really be better for White to win 70%?
    And why is it annoying in the first place?
    Where do you have this 60% number from btw; what rating range is it for?

    And are you even sure that this rule change would do anything about the "issue" for longer than, say, 5 years?
     
  16. BlackRoseAngel

    BlackRoseAngel The EVIL Ice Cream Lady

    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Steam:
    Black Rose Angel
    Ms. Fortune
    Eliza
    Squigly
    I got Mastermind.

    ChessPersonality.com Test Results (open)
    Masterminds seek to master both their own emotions and to impose their reality on the chessboard. A Mastermind always seeks the right move, and believes that attacking is the right way. Typically choosing sharp openings, Masterminds win with fantastically deep calculations, producing combinations which are deeply hidden in correctly built-up positions. Masterminds thrive in complicated positions, where their accurate calculating ability and iron nerves give them the advantage.



    I never said I was good at this game.
     
  17. Kristoph

    Kristoph , the Angel

    Location:
    Minnesota
    I called it FIDE Chess just to make it easier to distinguish, since I also mentioned Chess 2 in my post. It's also somewhat common to refer to it that way in variant-enthusiast circles, I think, for similar reasons. Your basketball example is bad since people do distinguish between international basketball and NBA basketball. I'd make this post longer/better formatted but my Enter key is broken. But to answer your other questions: obvs my endgame knowledge is irrelevant to the point; no 70% win for white would not be better but that's of course an irrelevant strawman, perhaps you should observe other games such as Shogi because you seem maybe a bit ignorant as to what it means to have a 60% draw rate versus say ~2%; 60% draw rate is the widely-known number for very high level play, i'm sure there is more specific data that you can poke around for but i believe Anand/Carlsen was actually 70%+ draws, for reference; I guess maybe you don't pay much attention to top level chess though, it seems weird that you'd question that number (i imagine it's probably higher than the draw rate at whatever skill level you're at, which would explain the confusion); and, no I'm not certain the midline rule would fix draws, i suspect it would drastically reduce them though, which would be cool!
     
  18. IsaVulpes

    IsaVulpes Just Throw

    Location:
    Trinidad && Tobago
    Ms. Fortune
    Filia
    Double
    Not really.

    If you actually knew what you are killing with the King rule, and were able to give reasons as to why you think it's worth killing that, your statement would carry a lot more weight.

    If you're just voting for "I don't like draws", we could toss a coin at the end of a drawn match and the winner of the flip gets awarded the full point - 0% Draws right there!
    I'd actually figure this might be better than the King bullshit - which is flat removing half of the entire game, because you're averse to half points on the scoreboard.

    This is a very important question, because I figure you don't have any clue about anything endgame at all, and thus a change like this doesn't seem very harmful to you.

    Not really.

    Considering the first move advantage, that's precisely what I'd expect to happen if this rule was implemented.

    Black spends 3/4th of a normal game on the back foot; this will become exceptionally more of a problem if he can't just "Defend a slightly worse position", but also has to keep White from walking forward with his King.

    In a similar way, if Stalemate was changed to become a loss for the player getting stalemated (rather than ending the game in a draw), the percentage of draws would go down tremendously - with the utmost of those %s going towards White wins.

    Yeah, I'm completely ignorant to that.

    I don't understand why a Football match would be "better" if some team won 2:1 than if it ended 2:2;
    Similarly, I have no idea why a hard fought battle between two players is more entertaining if the end result is 1-0 than 0.5-0.5?

    What IS a problem is GMs agreeing to quick draws ahead of time to save their strength for later in the tournament (most notable in the famous Candidates cycle prior to Petrosian's claim of the WC title), and people "just not feeling it" and agreeing to 14-move-draws in positions which *clearly* got a ton of play left in them.
    There are several differing suggestions to address this (though the collusion aspect can't ever really get avoided) some of them being tournament tested (Sofia rules), others still being in their debate stage (eg that a draw offer isn't valid just for one move, but for say 5).

    Is it? I remember the number being 50-55%, that's why I'm asking.

    Bilbao Chess Masters Final 2014: 12 Games, 5 Draws
    Sinquefield Cup 2014: 30 Games, 16 Draws
    Dortmund Sparkassen Chess-Meeting 2014: 28 Games, 17 Draws
    Biel Chess Festival 2014: 30 Games, 17 Draws
    Norway Chess 2014: 45 Games, 28 Draws
    76th Tata Steel Tournament: 66 Games, 30 Draws

    This is a more-or-less exhaustive selection of recent supertournaments (I probably forgot a bunch, but I didn't precisely select those with low draw count to manipulate the results, so it shouldn't matter too much) has a total count of 211 Games, with 113 (53.6%) of them ending with a share of the spoils.

    If you go lower in common databases and eg include matches from the 2200-2400 Rating range as well, the Percentages end up at roughly 35% White Win, 35% Draw, 30% Black Win; so this isn't what you're looking at either.

    Where do you have your 60% number from?

    I'm sure you follow it more dilligently than I do!

    See above, would 70% White win be better?

    And why exactly would it be cool?
    What makes 6 hours of hard-fought, straining battle leading to a won K+R+P vs K+R ending more entertaining than "the exact same game" leading to a drawn K+R+P vs K+R ending?
     
  19. Vadsamoht

    Vadsamoht Well-Known Member Administrator

    Steam:
    Vadsamoht
    Ms. Fortune
    Robo Fortune
    No guessing whose lessons you've been using, lol.



    Sad to see that the chess thread went straight into 'chess2' discussion. It's a topic I've already done to death with CM, vuples a long time ago in the IRC and a few others, so I won't add too much to that (tl;dr - I think it's dumb).
     
  20. IsaVulpes

    IsaVulpes Just Throw

    Location:
    Trinidad && Tobago
    Ms. Fortune
    Filia
    Double
    1) I think the current discussion, or at least what I'm talking about, it less Sirlin Chess and more "Is there a drawing problem in chess?"
    2) You are *more than* free to start a different topic of discussion! I don't really know what to talk about (or: I have plenty possible topics, but I doubt the rating in here to be high enough for it to make any kind of sense), so I just tossed this thread here and thought I'd chime into discussions.

    I never said you have to be, I'm explaining to you why your "2 and 3 not so much" is what it is.
     
  21. Kristoph

    Kristoph , the Angel

    Location:
    Minnesota
    vulpes, do you think chess is a perfect/perfectly-designed game as it is?
     
  22. Vadsamoht

    Vadsamoht Well-Known Member Administrator

    Steam:
    Vadsamoht
    Ms. Fortune
    Robo Fortune
    EDIT: I don't have anything against Chess2 discussion, I just found it interesting that the discussion almost immediately went to the current fad.

    FWIW I don't think there is. The problem imo is with boring games, of which non-games (i.e. GM-draws) are a subset. After all, if a game is exciting, people won't be complaining.

    Ways of preventing GM draws are constantly being discussed, but most of them have problems (e.g. 3-1-0 not giving full due to the amount of work done in a lot of situations, Sofia preventing situations where there are often good reasons to agree to a draw and being potentially more likely to force wins only through blunders in the endgame, etc.). Preventing generally boring games isn't really a possibility. The sentiment that a draw doesn't necessarily mean a game was boring, nor a win interesting is accurate. Occasionally there are games that are just seem uneventful, but that's just part of the game in the same way that turtling is part of FGs even if you design the game to discourage it - and if you get two players that are inclined to play in that manner, then there's not much you can do.

    Ultimately, I think the real problem is just that as much as I enjoy chess, it often doesn't make a great spectator sport in itself unless you are trying to learn from the game as it happens.

    I'd like to see those topics. I don't keep up with the chess news much (last I read was about the Olympiad and Carlsen signing the deal to play in Sochi), but if it's game-related I'd like to see what people think or find out what things I don't understand.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2014
  23. Dime

    Dime The power of BEAT EXTEND

    Painwheel
    Big Band
    Fukua
    I like chess and I'm decent at it. I used to study openings and stuff, bug tbqh i just mostly studied the legendary world champions and used yasser seirawans chess book as a jump off into the chess world champions styles.

    Rather than argue mundane semantics such as... Boring ass technical data. Why not argue meaty shit like good openings, FAVORITE WORLD CHAMPS or just players... Etc etc etc... You know, interesting stuff not just flame bait stuff.


    My favorite player of all time and the player whos style i can most be described as having is capablanca.

    Of course nowhere near as good as him... Which should go without saying, but i think that i think a lot like he did... Of course i cant see tactical minefields as well as he could which makes many of my great strategic moves utterly useless. And I'm known to leave my queen/rook hanging in complicated positions where I'm 5-10 variations of moves deep. Or simply not concentrating. I dont play chess enough anymore tot try and get a rating via online stuff... I kinda dont care. I just mostly like talking about the game and its strategies, its personalities, famous games like the alekhine famously huge combination that GM nunn would find out years later, is only a drawing combination not a winning one.

    My second favorite player was frank Marshall... Man the swindler in that guy... So awesome.
    And my third favorite player was petrosian... If only because seeing someone put all his pieces i the back rank... And win.. Is fucking awe inspiring and original, and beautiful.

    I domt like many of the contemporary players if only because i dont like games that go 40 moves in and are still deeply ensconced in theory and known plays and formations.

    Imho chess needs a rule change or a board change to turn opening memorisation on its head, and force the players to think, not just remember, for more than half the game.


    But thats jus me and i dont really care if no one agrees because i dont really play chess anymore because fighting games are the evolution of chess in my mind.
     
  24. IsaVulpes

    IsaVulpes Just Throw

    Location:
    Trinidad && Tobago
    Ms. Fortune
    Filia
    Double
    This is kind of a weird question. What does "perfect" mean? What is a "perfect game"?

    In the first place, it's somewhere between unlikely and impossible that Human hands craft something "perfect", so: No.

    Using a broader definition, a necessary part of a 'perfect game' to me would be that someone who has never played it -or even any other game!- before is capable of understanding it quickly; that most definitely ISN'T part of chess.
    In a sense, Tetris (or even games such as VVVVVV, Super Metroid, MM X, take your pick) is a lot "more perfect" than chess, and since 'more perfect' isn't exactly a thing you can say - again, No.

    Then there are tons of other considerations such as "Which equipment do you need to play the game", "How great of a spectator sport is it" (Both in how exciting it is to a casual viewer, and how much said casual viewer understands of what is going on), "How close is the game played by the top to the game played by 'normal' people", etc - tons of considerations, and admittedly chess isn't exactly scoring well in most(?) of those.

    Following this up, do I think the rules of chess are perfect? No; it's likely that there is a way to make the game more fun / "deeper" / whatever; to end up with an overall better game after a rule change.
    .. But do I think it is likely that someone can come up with a rule change like this? No.
    Due to how complex the game is, it is rather impossible to tell what exact impact any given new rule would have; you'd need 5, maybe 10, maybe more years of constant master practice to uncover what exactly said rule does to the game, and then there'll be the question whether what it changed 'objectively' leaves us with a better game or not.
    And if it didn't, then you'd need the same timespan again, for the next rule change, etc

    On top of that, a game is not just its set of rules - a multiplayer game lives and dies with its playerbase; if God creates an objectively perfect 2 player game, but you don't find anyone to play it with, it's as good as a pile of rubbish.
    If someone were to come up with a rule change that "objectively makes the game better" and FIDE implemented it, half+ of the playerbase would plain split from FIDE and create a rival association which uses the old rules.
    This was even a terrible predicament during the time of the PCA, which didn't really affect anyone aside from Kasparov and the bunch of FIDE-WCs; it would be a game killing blow if it actually spanned through all rating ranges.

    Bottom Line: I don't think there is a way to change the game without doing harm to it, and I guess that indeed makes it 'perfect' in some way.

    .. There is a lot of fluff around the game (aforementioned rules to avoid "boring" draws, the time limit, how to qualify for a WC match, how ELO works (Is there inflation? Is it overestimating the chances of a better player? Should it implement the black/white disparity in some way? ..) which by no means is currently perfect, though;
    So if you want to make chess better, I'd advise you to look in that direction :)
     
  25. ClarenceMage

    ClarenceMage git gud

    Steam:
    ClarenceMage
    PSN:
    ClarenceMage
    Valentine
    Painwheel
    Big Band
    VF4:Evo taught me successfully with a great tutorial how VF4 and by extension 3D fighters work. Chessmaster has taught me how Chess and by extension how turn-based board games work, though Chessmaster is way more thorough due to the soothing Waitzkin lecturing.
     
  26. IsaVulpes

    IsaVulpes Just Throw

    Location:
    Trinidad && Tobago
    Ms. Fortune
    Filia
    Double
    I don't follow chess news much myself; the topics would be more along the lines of
    - "At what rating range do people play the open games again? Obviously all beginners do, but then it sort of dies down in the midrange. I know like two people in the 1300-2000 range who answer 1.e4 with ..e5; 90% play some sort of sicilian; even offbeat shit like the scandinavian seems to be more frequent than 1. ..e5. At GM level however, ..e5 is the 2nd most common answer to e4, so I'm curious when it starts again."
    - "Do you have any sort of analysis to share on 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 b5? This is -or should be- an important line for Black players who attempt to bring the game into Benoni/Benko waters when White does his best to avoid it; but it doesn't even carry a name and it's difficult to find any literature about it - for whatever reason"
    And I'm afraid I won't get any real answers on either :P

    Decent = ?

    I'm really curious how you believe Capablanca "thought", and in what way your gameplan is similar to his.

    Have you looked at Chess960?
    You may also enjoy following Carlsen's games.

    You would btw be surprised, but a lot of those "memorized opening lines" are a lot of thinking ;-)

    Always a great way to engage in discussion!

    "Chess" with a boatload more randomness, in spectator friendlier, with draw as a nigh impossibility, worse players and a focus on body-stuff like reflexes and muscle memory..

    Less an "evolution" and more like the Charts Hit to a Mozart Symphony :^)
     
  27. Kristoph

    Kristoph , the Angel

    Location:
    Minnesota
    okay cool. this is basically where we disagree; i'm basically totally opposite from you on this. not only do i think that it's likely that someone can come up with a rule change that improves chess, but i think it's probably way way easy to do, and actually even beyond that, it's probably already been done by lots of people (of course you can dispute the extent to which many of them, such as chess 960, continue to actually be chess, but whatever that's like a whole new can of worms). i of course have no interest in selling my opinion to you here, especially because our backgrounds with the game are really really different. mostly i'm just interested in what certain rulechanges could do for the game, and i think it's better to take a proactive attitude there, rather than just assuming by default that people shouldn't attempt to iterate on the game. and yes of course in practical terms you're right when it comes to the FIDE political stuff.
     
  28. Vadsamoht

    Vadsamoht Well-Known Member Administrator

    Steam:
    Vadsamoht
    Ms. Fortune
    Robo Fortune
    Speaking of white-black disparity in the Elo rating algorithm, I took a stab doing that a few years back. The best I got was the following mess as the central formula:
    2014-10-27-000313_1366x768_scrot.png
    I ended up giving up with the conclusion that the best way to add such a feature would be to abandon Elo/Glicko as a first step and rebuild from the ground up.

    I might actually be able to help a little with this. When I was president of my university's club I often ended up as the spectator if there were an odd number of players. The highest-rated player we had that still used somewhat unconventional (1.Nf3 to avoid theory or something more wacky if he knew you were expecting it) openings was ~1800 ACF (so ~1850 FIDE I guess? It doesn't convert well, but generally ACF underrates players slightly by comparison, and greatly so at the lower levels). We had a young but studious player who was rated ~1600 and played into open games. They seem to be the two boundaries - most people below 1600 seem to rely on slightly unusual pet lines as white and something not uncommon but formulaic as black (usually Dragon/KID or somthing like that) before then, but most players in the 1600-1800 range would play open games at least some of the time.

    I used to play the Benoni (badly), but never the Benko. So no idea. IIRC you had a thread on ChessPub or somewhere about this - did you get anything interesting from that?
     
  29. chickenwithtie

    chickenwithtie Deez Beech

    Location:
    Italy
    Steam:
    Refluxia
    Robo Fortune
    Fukua
    Double
    I don't play it but I love the aesthetics of it for no particular reason. When I was little I loved to collect chess sets, but only one and a half survived. Little cousins ruin everything, ya know.
     
  30. Muro

    Muro Dazed Muro Announcer

    Location:
    Poland
    Steam:
    StopMuroTime
    Peacock
    Big Band
    Beowulf
    Even chess has fans that are just in for the graphics.
     
  31. joshb911

    joshb911 Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Virginia
    Steam:
    joshb911
    Unknown
    Unknown
    Unknown
    I play chess all the time (thats why im in to fighting games) strategy and intimidation make this arguably one of my favorite games ever conceived. I play the shit out of chess 0_0
     
  32. IsaVulpes

    IsaVulpes Just Throw

    Location:
    Trinidad && Tobago
    Ms. Fortune
    Filia
    Double
    1) First, you'd need to state what "Improvement" means.
    - More fun to spectate?
    - More fun to play at low levels?
    - More fun for the SuperGMs?
    "Better for everybody" is an unattainable goal by any means, and that leaves the question whether eg "More fun for casual players, and more spectator friendly; but less interesting for people in the 2500+ rating range" would be an 'Improvement' or a Deterioration.

    2) Then, you need some way to find out what exactly is "wrong" with the game that eg makes it a lousy spectator sport - and keep the first question in mind.
    Is there a problem in SuperGMs drawing 50% of their games? The SuperGMs don't have an issue with it, for people playing at lower levels it's irrelevant because *their* games aren't 50% draws -- so you're changing the game for the people who don't play it; potentially alienating the playerbase for the sake of armchairfarters?

    3) Third, you need to come up with an idea of how to fix it. Up to here was already a mammoth amount of work ("way way easy", really??), now good luck with that idea!

    4) Fourth, you need an exceptional amount of match practice (at all levels! and with specators! and stuff!) to check whether your change actually fixes said "problem", and whether it does so without creating a new, possibly bigger one.
    To take the example from before: Eg maybe Kingwalk-rule is a lot more entertaining and reduces draws, but does so by moving all the draws to the White-win side; so the game changes from "30% W / 50% D / 20% B" to "50% W / 30% D / 20% B" - is this really better?
    Or maybe you create a highly complicated rule which makes GM chess more interesting, but heightens the entry bar for playing the game by so much that the entire casual playerbase is either left confused, attempts to understand it and drops the game, or ignores it altogether which leads to two vastly different games being played between lower and higher ranks.

    5) Lastly, you have to check what your change actually DOES to the game.

    You know, there is already a super-simple solution which accomplishes the following:
    - Much more fun to watch I: You can actually follow a game proper
    - Much more fun to watch II: More exciting gameplay!
    - Greatly lessens the amount of (usable) opening preparation
    - Lowers the amount of draws (without greatly increasing White's winning chances)
    - Vastly broadens the amount of arising position types / pawn structures / etc
    - Probably more!
    And all this, without touching the actual chess rules whatsoever! How??

    .. Faster Time Controls.
    Less time to think means:
    - Sacrifices/Pawnstorms/etc become stronger (and thus are chosen more often), as attacking is easier than defending
    - You can sit down at your PC and follow an entire game NP (rather than this being a 6h sitting)
    - Blunders! (exciting!)
    - Time Trouble! (exciting!)
    - Opening Prep becomes comparably irrelevant, as you don't have the time to think about which reaction was the right one to deviation X
    - Positional manoeuvring and boring prophylaxis take a notable backseat, as that's much harder to do when you can't get a proper view of all your opponent's possible plans
    - "Incorrect" Openings become much harder to refute (and are thus chosen more frequently), leading to games becoming more different from each other
    etc!

    But how does all of this happen? Because people are plain playing worse. They have less time to think, so instead of their usual 2700+ level they "only" play like say a 2400 would (during long time controls).
    So, you "fixed" "all of chess' problems" by making the games less perfect and more prone to mistakes. Is that really something you want? *

    * For the record: I could see FIDE going this way, and I'm not sure what I would think of it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2014
  33. IsaVulpes

    IsaVulpes Just Throw

    Location:
    Trinidad && Tobago
    Ms. Fortune
    Filia
    Double
    Do I read this correctly as "1851+ is where people commonly start answering 1.e4 with ..e5 again"?

    I'll just list it from my club, since that's easiest, but the general impression I have stays true with other clubs (at least in this area):

    We got 19 people in the 1400+ Range.
    #01: Sicilian
    #02: Sicilian
    #03: Sicilian
    #04: Sicilian
    #05: Sicilian, Modern/Pirc
    #06: 1. ..e5 (Petroff)
    #07: Alekhine
    #08: Modern/Pirc
    #09: Sicilian
    #10: Sicilian
    #11: Sicilian
    #12: Sicilian
    #13: Scandinavian
    #14: Caro-Kann
    #15: Sicilian
    #16: French
    #17: 1. ..e5 (Philidor)
    #18: Sicilian
    #19: French, Caro-Kann

    Out of those 19 people, I can get the Ruy Lopez on the board against exactly 0.

    When I get a Ruy somewhere else, it's mostly Steinitz Defence.

    *Nobody* plays the main line ;_;

    Not really a thread, was just a sidequestion of mine in an existing thread.
    I got that the mainline goes 4.Bg5 Qb6 (apparently better than 4. ..Ne4), and then a possible continuation would be 5.Bf6: Qf6: 6.c3 Qb6

    This sure isn't a critical line so it doesn't hurt much to not know any theory on it - and obviously I can analyze a position by myself;
    The question is half the actual request for some help, and half just showing my confusion that this line has almost no analysis anywhere - when it's (at least in my eyes!) the most obvious choice for a Benoni/Benko player against 2.Nf3
     
  34. Vadsamoht

    Vadsamoht Well-Known Member Administrator

    Steam:
    Vadsamoht
    Ms. Fortune
    Robo Fortune
    More or less, from what I've observed. IMO (and this is pure speculation), People that reach 1600+ usually have enough git gud to realise that the pet lines that got them through the 1400-range probably will hold them back in their actual learning, so at around that level they start dabbling with the Ruy/Italian as a backup or in non-serious games. By 1800 they seem to use the more common openings a lot more widely, so I assume that's the level you could challenge someone and expect to get an open game if they play 1.e4.

    Worth noting, though, that the chess environment is probably a lot different in Australia than in Europe due to the limited number of players and relative isolation from the rest of the world, so YMMV.
     
  35. Beuzer0

    Beuzer0 Bozo Zozo

    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    Steam:
    Beuzer0
    PSN:
    Beuzer0
    XBL:
    Beuzer0
    Ms. Fortune
    Squigly
    Big Band
    It's been ages I haven't played Chess but I would like to try again someday, hopping that I would have the patience and not be frustrated by the result. I really like the hardcore strategy part of it (I played a lot of Magic The Gathering) even if I would suck but this would be definitely worth the try. On a real board though, not online as a consider a board game being the perfect occasion to stay away from the screen.

    When I was a kid I used to play a lot against the computer with Battle Chess on the Atari ST (but never won a single match) I loved the characterisation and the death animations.
     
  36. PaperBag_Sniper

    PaperBag_Sniper Come with me if you want to live

    Steam:
    PaperBag_Sniper
    XBL:
    Bottomless Bag
    Painwheel
    Robo Fortune
    Glad to see a chess thread. Haven't played in years though. There are a lot of words here and I'll get through them eventually but I have a question from one that popped out to me.

    What is chess 2? Honestly the first I've heard of this. Is it an alternate ruleset or something?
     
  37. BlackRoseAngel

    BlackRoseAngel The EVIL Ice Cream Lady

    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Steam:
    Black Rose Angel
    Ms. Fortune
    Eliza
    Squigly
    http://skullgirls.com/forums/index.php?threads/chess-2-the-sequel.5300/
     
    PaperBag_Sniper likes this.
  38. Kristoph

    Kristoph , the Angel

    Location:
    Minnesota
    yeah that's no problem.
    no this is incorrect. it's easily possible to make a game better for everybody (as in, not every individual human, but each 'demographic' that you listed)

    yeah this has been done many times already

    yeah this also has already been done by lots of people in different ways
    that doesn't seem like lots of work at all, it's just normal questions any designer asks themselves about a game

    yes this is called 'playtesting' which is another very common thing, i agree

    with playtesting yeah. it seems like we're pretty much on the same page here, we both acknowledge the normal design processes at work here. it's just that you seem to think normal design processes are super super infeasible and almost impossible to carry out, when really they happen every day, all the time, in tons of games, including chess.
     
  39. IsaVulpes

    IsaVulpes Just Throw

    Location:
    Trinidad && Tobago
    Ms. Fortune
    Filia
    Double
    Okay please list the things that are wrong with the game, why they are wrong (and for which group), and how to fix them

    Especially curious about this part

    P.S. Balance changes in a video game are slightly different to changing chess rules, but I'm sure you're just trying to be annoying
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2014
  40. Kristoph

    Kristoph , the Angel

    Location:
    Minnesota
    just to reiterate i'm on a really awful compy right now so my interest in engaging in hostile/time-consuming discussions about trivial stuff is pretty low so just a heads-up there, i'm generally going to be shorter with you than normal i'm afraid. as for 'things kristoph thinks are wrong with the game,' that's not an important question. the important question is 'can a designer think of things which are wrong with the game,' the answer to which is 'yes, and many already have.'
     

Share This Page

Facebook:

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)