Chess is dead. The future of chess is FRC 960.
It's time for chess 960 to take over standard chess I know many of you will not agree with this statement because people generally don't like change. But to me 960 is chess in its purist form and eliminates most of its negative aspect's.
The main problem with standard chess is that too much of it relies on simple memorisation, people playing their pet lines over and over day in day out, I have lost count of the number of games I have one by simply playing a line I have seen a hundred times more than my opponent has. I remember reading a quote once that said 'chess is no different to remembering the phone book' while I would not go that far I think he had a point.
To become good at chess requires a good knowledge of the general principles, strategy, tactics etc... but let’s face it the most important thing in chess is just simple memorisation whether it be remembering opening moves or tactical patterns.
The memorisation aspect has already killed chess at the highest level, anyone who watched curtains videos on the super GM tournament will have seen how boring it is to watch when compared with the lower tournaments he covered. The world’s best player Vishy Anand has not beaten Kramnik with the black pieces for more than ten years for god sake, is that the kind of crap that’s going to inspire more kids to play?
960 would eliminate all that and would kill the argument that computers have ruined chess. If it was played more at the highest level everyone else would follow and take it more seriously.
Re: It's time for chess 960 to take over standard chess Talk about posting a thread that starts off fireworks! LOL! ITA. It's ridiculous to play standard chess in tournaments. I stopped going to my local chess club years ago because of this problem. GM's say you have to study the endgame and tactics, right? Well, how do you get into tactics and the endgame? You have to survive the opening phase, correct? This means studying openings that help you "survive" long enough to try finding these nebulous tactics and hopefully showing enough skill to get into these rare endgame scenarios. I once posted an essay on a well respected chess site (you have to pay to view the content) on FRC (it was my only post) and within one day of posting it...I got nearly 200 replies from people who blasted me for daring to "troll" in their respected forum. The responses were so vicious it was scary. I think one reason why I got such a visceral reaction for the carefully worded post on FRC is because it really hit a nerve. GM's I've met derided FRC by calling it "children's play". I think they're frightened at the prospect of losing all those hours of studying opening theory to be beaten by people coming off the street playing FRC which levels the playing field for everyone. There is one person in the world of chess who can really make a difference. GM Susan Polgar. She can do more to promote FRC than anybody in the chess world right now. She played GM Antatoly Karpov in Kansas a while back in FRC. I think it's easier to grasp FRC than trying to navigate through reams of "accepted theory" on the Sicilian, French, Ruy Lopez, King's Indian which can reach as many 20 or 30 moves deep before making original moves! Is that chess?! Not to me. I think the late Bobby Fischer called it prearranged chess. I believe he was right. Re: It's time for chess 960 to take over standard chess If Fischer had managed to retain some control of his noggin, he might have been a great contributor to the ide - I do agree it might take out some of the heat in openings, but I think it plays both ways.
I played 4 games vs an opponent who loved 1. b3 and 1. b6 and was always snaking a pawn on me in the opening, but after his tricky openings, he didn't have much tactical sight and I won 3 of the 4 - (I claimed the 4th on a disconnect which was my favorite win, BTW - heheheh) but I've always been frustrated at the number of opening books vs middle or endgame books
RB |
|
|
