Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later
[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Glenn Nicholls wrote on Wed, Apr 18, 2007 11:59 AM UTC:
Regarding comments by M. Winther, Mark Thompson & Graeme Neatham – There
have been some very interesting comments recently about the future of
(western) chess particularly in connection with what is being termed the
problem of  “scrabblization” and the possible solution by the use of
randomisation.  I am not myself keen on the idea of randomisation and I do
not think this is the long-term future of chess, at least as far as being
the standard form of the game.  There is another way to overcome this
problem, however, and it was partly with this problem in mind that I wrote
the game of TigerChess.  In this game there are in all probability many
billions of viable opening lines and possibly many more than this and
together with the greater possibilities of middlegame tactics and
strategies the problem of scrabblization should be permanently solved. 
The game also keeps alive something of the game of checkers.
G. Nicholls

M Winther wrote on Wed, Apr 18, 2007 04:12 PM UTC:
Glenn, it is true that the amount of opening lines is very central to the
long-term vitality of a variant (i.e. if it can survive theorization). If
we go back to Kramnik - Kasparov World Chess Championship 2000. How
inspiring was this to the vast majority of amateurs? In the eyes of the
experts it was probably a good and interesting match. But can amateurs
really appreciate the Berlin defence with queen exchange, where the result
is a draw in game after game? Of course, the promotive effect would have
been greater had they played King's gambit, or the Evan's gambit in the
Giuoco Piano. But such openings are obsolete among the elite. 

Had the possible opening lines been vastly greater, then white needn't
try to prize open that stubborn defence in game after game. But Kasparov
is forced to play 3.Bb5 because 3.Bc4 is a draw. It is as simple as that!
King's gambit is a draw, too, or possibly worse. Do you see my point? The
grandmasters are facing a problem in the openings which risks making the
game tedious. They have to rely on 'Fritz analyses to the 45th move' in
that particular critical variant. Soon we must rename the World
Championship to 'The World Championship in Opening Preparation With The
Aid of Computers and Seconds.' I'll have a look at Tiger Chess. 
/Mats

Sam Trenholme wrote on Thu, Apr 19, 2007 04:32 PM UTC:
In terms of Tiger Chess, I think it´s a fine variant. However, it may not appeal to all chess players, since the rules are a good deal more complex than chess. It looks to more appeal to the kinds of people who played Squad Leader or other complicated wargames made by Avalon Hill in the 1970s and 1980s.

- Sam


3 comments displayed

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.