Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Okay, we are getting wonderfully healthful differentiation of topics for
once, sharpening critical thinking. World Championship 8x8. Is 8x8 small? Yes, awkwardly small. Think of
the divergence from the common ancestor the 1-2 millenniums back. Xiangqi
enlarged the board from Asian peninsular Chaturanga. Shogi enlarged the
board. Travelling west, Shatranj stayed the same with small 8x8, and
OrthoChess followed suit during its lifetime years 1500-2000 keeping small
8x8. Computers appeared in 18th century minds like Wolfgang von Kempelen's
in development of automaton the Turk -- the idea of machine playing Chess,
the quintessential human endeavor.  Computer theory began in 19th century
with Babbage's Universal Analytical Engine. By early 21st century, selected
Computers (TogaII, Rybka) are de facto world champion on small 8x8. Still smaller 6x6 Los
Alamos had been mastered earlier. So, board size must be important factor
trying keeping computer at bay. Human championships being ballyhooed of
computer-mastered OrthoChess 8x8, like this month's Anand-Kramnik at
Bonn, will inevitably progressively receive diminishing stature,
eventually of no especial note. High time for reform, revolution, or
revelation: mere contemplative revelation that small 8x8 never really was
suitable for any complete Chess anyway. Although OrthoChess will not quite go
the way of Checkers, or lowly Tic-Tac-Toe, let us ease its passage from
paramount contest of skill and challenge to cultural artifact and relic -- gone the
way of Shatranj, fondly remembered and oh-so passe.

Keep in mind that the Western pieces increased in scope whereas the Eastern pieces became even weaker. This contributed to increased complexity in Western chess. However, on an elite level, I am of the opinion that Fide-chess is not quite complex enough. This has to do with the introduction of computers and the advances in theory. So I agree that something must happen sooner or later.

I have tried to convince Fide-chess hardliners to contemplate variant
chess by making very minute changes to Fide-chess. One example is my
Winther's Chess: http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/wintherschess.htm which includes only one extra external piece (a Bombard). The players have an option to play standard chess, so it could be acceptable also to
conservatives.

At least this type of variant serves the purpose of influencing the very
many conservative chessplayers. But there is no way that the great
majority of chess players, the 'conservatives', are going to find the
very many fantastical variants as acceptable or even interesting.

Mats

If I look on the ICC server, it seems that Crazyhouse is by far the most
played variant. Despite the fact that it is very different from normal
Chess. Chess960, which is much closer to normal Chess, is rarely played.
Shatranj is virtually not played at all.

Profound Bonn-Pre-fight interview at ChessBase: ''Q: You are using computers extensively in your preparation... Kramnik: [Ironically] Yes, from time to time...  Q: Do you think that, under the line, it is a good thing that we have computers? Is it good for Chess, or is it bad?
Kramnik: What do you think: is it good that you have the Internet or is it
bad? [Waits for an answer] Questioner: Hmmmm...Good, I think...  K: Actually it is like it is, it is not good or bad, it is like it is and
you have to adjust to it. Of course I would say it was easier for us
before computers, but I don't want to be like an old grandma longing for
the good old days, you know. We have computers that are becoming more and
more powerful, and you simply have to deal with this, if you want to
perform well. So I am trying to adjust myself to the circumstances and to
make the best possible use of the situation. I am not emotional about it.  We are already so heavily computerised in the world of chess, to check
everything you analyse with the computer -- it is business as usual
already.  Every top player has his own way of dealing with the computer,
to use this incredible instrument in the most efficient way, for himself.  Everyone finds his golden middle, and I hope I have found mine.  There is
no big advice you can give.  Except maybe to say that it can also turn
against you sometimes,  if you don't do it well, as you saw for example
in Brissago 2004... Q: You mean the Marshall with the Queen sacrifice...? '' /// *Oh yes. Or rather, needless to say, their ''Marshall'' -- ho hum ho hum
-- is not our Marshall(RN). They could have 3 to 6 times the interest
already if they had innovated by now in not very radical reform. The fact
alone of expectation of half Draws next week should have become
unacceptable. But they are the same as those old grandmas and grandpas  longing for the good old days.*

Actually, the reality for ortho chess players is simply: 

'Every top chess player has his own way of dealing with the computer, to
use this incredible instrument in the most efficient way, for himself.'

The computer is simply an instrument that makes analyzing lines easier -
in the good old days, the GMs need to utilize the best seconds instead of
computers. Thus, in some cases you may not even need 'Seconds' to home
prepare. And many players can improve their game because of the computer.


In previous interview, Anand already explained that ortho Chess has a much
longer life than the doomsayers have predicted. 

And to clear up something - Computers have not mastered chess. It is
programmers who have mastered programming the computers to play chess. 

And since the majority of chess players have NOT mastered chess and are
NOT bored with it - this constant 'death of chess' topic is only brought
up by those who have given up chess or by weak players who do not
understand the game, have given up,  and  hate the game.

But nobody has argued that Fide-chess is about to die. The argument usually
revolves around the mechanizing effect of theory and computers among
professionals. Chess must remain *creative*. If a professional is going to
devote his whole life to this game, then creativity is to prefer before a
routinization of the game. Routinization is a phenomenon we see in all
enterprises that initially were brimming with enthusiasm and creativity.
It is especially true about religious revelation, which with time turns
grey and stale. It becomes a ritual with only one motivation, namely to
obtain money.
/Mats

Ok, a few points from me:
1. I wish the Chess world would try to honor the World Mind Sports Games,
and no schedule the World Chess Championship in Europe, the same time the
World Mind Sports Games (WMSG) is going on.  The WMSG is the closes the
table game, chess and chess variant community, has ever gotten to an event
being like the Olympics.  If they had scheduled the World Chess
Championship in China right before the WMSG, that would work.
2. FIDE ortho-chess is nowhere near about to die.  If people are upset
about that, well you had better get millions of players together and play
something else.  If you don't, you aren't going the have things change. 
And complaining FIDE should pick something else out, isn't going to change
it.  At this point Speed Chess appears to be the successor to normal chess.
 As the game plays out more, they will reduce the time players have on the
clock.  That will buy a lot of time for them.  The World Mind Sports Games
appears dominated by Speed Chess.  Time constraints call for it being so.

Hey, on this last note, I should go into why Orthochess hangs on for as
long as it does.  If you have a game you invested years into play, you
don't feel like totally dropping it to play something else.  You would be
interested in expanding what you have and build on it, but not abandon it
completely.

Topic here is Anand_Kramnik October 2008. Excitement and expectation. Will
there be another ''Toiletgate,'' as in that  recent unmentionable
Vladimir Kramnik match? Now do we not  expect half Draws next week? Is not that unacceptable on its face?  In addition, Death of Little 8x8 OrthoChess is appropriate, manageable sub-topic beyond the one tournament. I repeatedly say OrthoChess dead, whether posthumous already from 1996 upon Computer defeat of Kasparov or 2010 or 2020 -- whenever majority finally recognize the fact. It is not so big deal: things change. The late Robert Fischer declared one-lineup Chess death in 1996 with announcement of FRC.  Look at the trends since. When Mad Queen replaced Shatranj, H.J.R. Murray cites individuals still composing in the old style of Shatranj in the mid-16th Century.  So, there will be  overlap as F.I.D.E.'s standard form(s) gets replaced (by Speed for just one alternative), and the passage will not be easy or recognized everywhere at once.  Like in the mid-1500's, there are sure to be holdouts and diehards mid-21st Century mired in the old paradigm of small 8x8. As more and more separately-developed Programs become superior, not just the 2 or 10 today, the disenchantment grows in 2009, 2010, 2011. We are on the cusp. CVPage people consider anywhere from 1-10% of their games better, and all they need is organization. At North America in 19th Century, everyone of status played Chess. There were percentagewise several times more books, pamphlets, Chess columns then. Cultured society was Chess-savvy. Demise of small 8x8 began 100 years ago -- contributed to by modern distractions of autos, radio, television, not only shortcomings of Chess not innovating.   Russia has seen similar decline with withdrawal of much state sponsorship over twenty years. In rapidly developing situation, remarkably there is no need to master OrthoChess anymore for someone seeking to begin learning to play better forms at higher level. Old Standard 8x8 becomes not the most efficient way to learn true Chess. Mad Queen is not even particularly good starting point to play fully-realized Chesses. It may set you back in tomorrow's world of piece interactions.  CVPage periodically  has half its ethos for OrthoChess replacement.  For example, Ralph Betza expected changing of the guard ultimately  leading up to Chess Different Armies.

I have done a lot of chess variants, so there is no way that I am
personally putting chess over chess variants but ...
I am commenting on what I observe in the chess world and I don't see what
you guys claim is happening. 

For Bobby Fischer chess was dead, when he realized he could not re-enter
competively - that was his personal problem 

The chess forums, online chess world is alive and well - they hate short
draws (the GM draw), but no body cares if half the matches are contested
draws . I find it strange that this faulty argument keeps getting re-used.

Any good player will tell you, if you can keep drawing your chess games
with ANY chess player, you are one of the worlds best. 
It is precisely because of this that the WC match format is so exciting
and some like it to be about 24 games not 12. A WC match is like 2 boxers
fighting a 12 round match with one gaining just enough to win. 

Most chess has moved online now. But if it is declining - it does not bode
well for chess variants. Grand Theft Auto or some othe frivolousgame is in
vogue.  


And what is speed chess? Isn't that Blitz chess?

What is true chess? What is the most efficient way to learn Chess? 

These arguments just seem nonsensical to me.  - 

Where is this new 'game' that is taking over that we now have chess die
hards? It seems to be that the same old arguments are used by about 3-5 of
the SAME  people on various internet sites.

I agree. Draws are a good thing in a game. Without them, it becomes a
lottery. A draw percentage of 30 between equal-strength players is
entirely acceptable.

It must not be much more than that, though. In Shatranj about 70% of all
games between equal players seems to end in a draw, and that is one aspect
that makes it very boring.

I do not consider 8x8 OrthoChess to be ''Chess'' anymore. Its
replacements are already within CVPage.  Sorting material, organizing, and
hierarchizing will uncover the better, and best, forms already existing to
replace small 8x8. The point, as variantists, is to be advocates: if
certain Chesses are better, then put them forth for play and replacement.
I am optimisitic about directions Rich Hutnik's IAGO proposes, and Joe
Joyce increasingly seems to concur. OrthoChess' surviving as premier form
1496 to 1996, five hundred years, falls short of  Shatranj's 900 years  
600-1500 A.D. That very intermediate form, first called ''regina
rabiosa,'' now known as FIDE orthodox, is being overtaken from year to
year. CVPage is not always too concerned about observing the Death of
Chess right before our eyes, over the last decade, because
variant-prolificists dwell on their ''artwork'' not much intended for
play. Now Charles Daniels' representing himself as objective is laughable, since
he is the strongest ''Orthodoxist'' in all CVPage's comment-history; his are welcome comments because we never had so traditional (and
admittedly still majority) perspective before. Draws are far lesser issue
to the general decline itself of Chess. Draw-rules are in over 95% of CVs, and the next logic has followed precisely what Muller says of keeping Draws at 10% to 33%. Nothing new there in prior generations of CVPage regulars, with conversations going back to year 2000, as participants change. There is wide agreement about acceptable Draw ranges.  Anand-Kramnik starts next week,  so  let's measure the
excitement and interest here.

The restrooms are well-monitored for this tournament, so there can be no
Toiletgate. World Championship starts Tuesday at Bonn. Anand: ''I'm quite eager
to get going.'' They are out from under the shadow of Kasparov at least,
several talkers agree. They might have added Fischer, who died this year,
and first stirred up title controversies lasting 35 years. Kramnik informs
that Kasparov never won against Kramnik with Black, rather amazing. Peter
Leko, working with Kramnik, used to work with Anand. Kramnik: ''I am not
an actress. I'm just going to play Chess.'' Get ready to see who wins
first or if Draws win first hard-fought.

Game 1 1/2-1/2. Game 2 1/2-1/2. Game 3, Anand wins with Black. Game 4
18.October.2008 1/2-1/2. Over-all Anand 2 1/2 - Kramnik 1 1/2. Draws 3. If
they stay stuck in their rut of 64 squares for still another decade, will Draw
percentage go up, differentiated by the various levels? Probably not, but
general public finds it to have been unacceptable level already for almost
the century since Capablanca cast aspersions, let alone decade since
Fischer cast aspersions. Their vast repertoire of openings under rote
memorization is anathema to the spirit of play. Overrefinement indicates
decadence. No longer perceived as the great test of creativity and
intelligence is Crazy Queen Chess 8x8, that timeworn tradition nonetheless dictates be
played.

No game today, and Anand leads 4 1/2 to 1 1/2. For four or five centuries
the Chess Champion has haled from greater Europe, except for three
spurts.  Morphy (1858-1862), Capablanca (1921-1927), and Fischer
(1972-1975) break the chain. Until Anand, that is. Anand's being Champion
2000-2002 occurred when the title was split. Anand is now successfully
defending against Kramnik the title Anand gained at Mexico City September
2007. The victor at Bonn represents classical world champion in
continuation. Now Anand's India is where Chess as Chaturanga originated,
becoming Shatranj, and thoroughly morphed into this much-regarded Crazy
Queen, still 8x8.

Kramnik's win of game 10 makes it Anand 6 to Kramnik 4. Kramnik would have
to do so again twice, win the two remaining to invoke tie-breaks. There
are four wins and six Draws. Crazy Queen 64 squares always inspires. She
is logical from her very inception over 500 years ago. The logic is that
Knight, Bishop and Rook go to mutually exclusive squares. That fact should
be emphasized more than it is in instruction to youngsters learning Chess.
Yin and Yang, thesis and antithesis are no more compelling. Centaur(BN) or
Champion(RN) would ruin the pattern. Mediaeval minds, more intuitive than
ours, understood this thoroughly and immediately, and so implemented
Queen(RB), capturing in one piece, of the three, the two (R,B) having
unfulfilled continuations.  Hence the name Mad and Crazy Queen, OrthoChess
64 squares, as a practical matter, still the one appearing widely perceived for near-perfection  or state of the art.

Kasparov is listened to by Obama.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5562

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5562

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5724
Amazing. Is this Kasparov's first significant return?
No less Kasparov, 46, versus Karpov, 58.
''Witness those living legends duke it out,'' says Chessbase. Rich Hutnik called the shot all right, as they are all Rapid and Blitz.

Rapid and Blitz are the games of choice.  More indication that the Chess
community has decided to reduce the time to play, as the main way to
address the issues it has with chess.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6003
Wishful thinking and double talk ad nauseum.  Remember their Toiletgate?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/oct/02/chess.gdnsport3 
The beginning of the end of Newsspeak:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/  The unperson and cvPage as the unwebsite for an f.i.d.e. or a chessbase.
To the bastions of Orthodoxy, that Chess was Shatranj is taboo subject, and mere conceptual NextChesses could be grounds for metaphorical impaling on something executable.  Above they talk about preparation, preparation to move 36 and beyond.  They are too mentally sluggish from beholding to vested interests, lazy and unable to do enough homework, research and investigation into true historical roots or future projections. Right below this comment, Grandmaster Seirawan's CV ranks last of all to nobody's chagrin. You could say it was to be expected.  Relatively enlighted GM Fischer said worse, that top-level games were rigged. Regardless, their long-time inflexibility ran wonderful, inventive 64-square Chess ''into the dust'' to use the very own defensive words of the current Chessbase article. They are trapped now in quite narrow sphere of acceptable-to-them topic of repetitive discussion. To recast the symbolic image drawn above in the exact opposite way onto them instead of onto CVers: impalement (like starvation or crucifixion) was a slow death.  The Chessbase article says in the first paragraph ''this renewed the eternal chorus over the pending death of chess.'' If it's eternal, why did it have to be renewed? Don't ask, don't quibble: they are Authority. You know the mentality of the worked-up dedicated fundamentalist, like diehard OrthoChessists.  If eternity is on your side, any reasoning is acceptable.  Orwell's '1984' themes of power and control also help explain unchallengable assertions of illogic.

Big Brother is indeed forcing everyone to play orthodox/Western chess
against your will and preventing you from seeing the obvious that Chess is
dead! 
If only they would do just that and leave us alone with regard to
everything else!

Here's that cliche again about Chess and the number of atoms in the
universe. In the next to last paragraph of current article they bracket it,
like it's an everyday measure, the Carlsen article ''must read:''
http://www.chessbase.com/.
Great Shatranj has that many permutations too, and so does let's see, Schoolbook by Trenholme here \|/ and Black Ghost by Betza /|\. There's something stricken by the repetition.

Kasparov gets asked about chess variants today in the interview's last question:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6113.
Asked: ''What do you think about the future of FRC, Seirawan Chess, or any other types of Chess Variant?'' Many variantists agree with the part of Kasparov's answer: ''But if you just want to eliminate everything and call it purity--no it is not purity, it's nonsense.'' That's why, beyond FRC, 20 to 60 CVs in fixed line-ups should evolve, because Chess has always been about preparation and opening theory together with natural talent and developed technique in complicated unknown positions.
http://www.chessvariants.org/incinf.dir/transactional.html

That's interesting! It is close to my suggested relocation variants where
the players still can prepare. Kasparov suggests choosing a subset of
Fischer Random that would include only natural positions. I have tried to
promote a similar idea where, for instance, 25 positions can be chosen from
the Chess960 array, by choice of the players:
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/chess/fischerplacement.htm

My proposal is to enhance orthochess by a manual relocation procedure,
whilst keeping the option to play the standard position. I have described
different versions of this idea: 
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/chess/relocationvariants.htm
/Mats

Anand at number 1 again age 41 is second example since 2000 of that age
group holding #1, Kasparov born 1963 at the top all of 2003 til
his retirement and somewhat after.  Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7053. When was the last time one or two gms age 40+ dominated ranked #1 most of a decade? You may have to go back to Lasker(1868-1941) for that, partly since the above question is a little sketchy. Still it is unusual, not occurring after Fischer-Spassky Reykjavik 1972 and probably not after Lasker early 20th century.