7 ms·

They haven't rethought chess though. They've merely invented a game called chess' and the suggestion that it opens up "new possibilities" is because it's a new

They haven't rethought chess though. They've merely invented a game called chess' and the suggestion that it opens up "new possibilities" is because it's a new game. Of course every micro-variant of chess is going to open up new vistas, the challenge is this, is it better (how do we define better?) than the original chess? I think they're confusing novelty for the qualities their seeking. The better chess has already been invented and it's called go. And the top human player of that has called it a day in the face of machine learning advancements (wrongly I think). Also I think go is a much more obvious and flexible game to tweak, if you so wanted.

sanxiyn 7y ago
How would you tweak Go?
- roenxi 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_variants#Sunjang_Baduk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_variants#Sunjang_Baduk Very entertaining variant with a proud history. None of the usual defensive corner forms work.
gwd 7y ago
> Of course every micro-variant of chess is going to open up new vistas, the challenge is this, is it better (how do we define better?) than the original chess? They talk about that specifically. The claim is that at the moment, one grandmaster, unilaterally, can play in such a way as the result will be an inconclusive draw with a very high probability. I say "unilaterally" because even if the other grandmaster they're playing wants a higher-risk-higher-reward game, they can't force the game that way. Such games certainly require a lot of skill, but they're very boring to play and to watch. "Better" in this case means more entertaining; and specifically, the claim is that with the king in the center, it's not possible to "bunker down" and play a very static, defensive version of chess. It is not however, a completely new game. All the skills regarding pins, forced sacrifices, open files, and so on still hold. It's the same as if both players been forced early in the game to not be able to castle: the basic game is the same, but certain "boring" states are hard to get to. I do agree that the whole thing about opening book seems a bit overblown to me: obviously getting rid of castling means you have to mostly throw out the current "book"; but surely a new one will be written. I'd always thought another way to make tournaments more interesting would be to take a page from wrestling. In wrestling matches, each player takes a turn starting from a disadvantaged position, where it should be easier for the other person to pin them. They get points if they manage to break out of the position while avoiding the pin. Having some games start "in the middle" after an early "blunder" by one side would make things more interesting as well.
- igravious 7y ago
  > "Better" in this case means more entertaining; and specifically, the claim is that with the king in the center, it's not possible to "bunker down" and play a very static, defensive version of chess. > I do agree that the whole thing about opening book seems a bit overblown to me: obviously getting rid of castling means you have to mostly throw out the current "book"; but surely a new one will be written. This is my point. I wasn't denigrating the effort to make chess more entertaining. I'm arguing that they haven't made a more entertaining version, they're confusing novelty with entertainment. I'm really not trying to troll you by suggesting that a more entertaining variant of chess is go. I mean, if we have to stick with the current set of pieces and how they move then I think that Fischer Random (Chess960) or something like it is the obvious improvement to go for. NoCastlingChess to me is a strange route to go down. Of course novelty makes an old form less jaded but that I'm not convinced it's intrinsically more entertaining – if it were shouldn't we ditch boring old chess?
  - diogofranco 7y ago
    > I'm arguing that they haven't made a more entertaining version, they're confusing novelty with entertainment Is your position that disallowing castling does not lead to less king safety and thus less draws, more mating attacks, piece sacs and complex tactical games? Or is it that you think these things do not contribute to more entertaining games?
    - igravious 7y ago
      What I'm arguing is that disallowing castling totally changes the opening book and that a lot of the supposed increased "entertainment" being felt by Kramnik is the delight in having an a plethora of opening lines to explore (opening lines having long being exhausted by humans and machines in trad. chess). The fact that it leads to games which are more exciting because the king is more exposed is a small bonus – notice most of the article talks about all the changes you have to make to opening theory owing to the fact that you can't castle. My argument is that Kramnik is not recognising that most of the entertainment value comes from the fact that this is a new game (granted that it is an existing game tweaked), not that it forces more aggressive less draw-y games. Which is why I suggested, either go for a lot more novelty and combinatorial complexity within the game (Fischer960) or drastically overhaul the game (but in my opinion that has been done, and the game is called go). You can disagree with my opinion but it's not as if I'm not understanding what being said to me, it's just that I disagree with what's being said to me.
mrob 7y ago
Chess and Go have completely different feels. They're both abstract representations of combat, but the combat is in no way similar. Chess feels kind of like a sniper duel. You have two high value pieces (the kings), and the rest form a kind of terrain for them to fight in (although the kings don't literally attack each other). It's all about careful maneuvering so you can take a clear shot at the enemy king. Victory depends on high pressure calculation, with no room for the slightest error. Knowing the terrain in advance (memorizing openings) gives you a big advantage. Go feels more like a huge bar fight between two criminal gangs. It starts off with just posturing, but the participants move into position and prepare, and eventually the violence breaks out and you get multiple fights. Sometimes fights merge together into a big chaotic brawl. The winner is determined by calculating which side got the best of it after it's all over, and both preparation and fighting skills matter.
- Tarsul 7y ago
  thank you for your very figurative analogues, they are fitting quite well imo. The point you make about chess about having "no room for the slightest error" is also why I never liked it as much as Go (as most westerners, i grew up with chess but then learned Go as adolescent): In Go you are baffled by genius strokes, in chess you are baffled by idiotic strokes (funnily, in both cases it doesn't really matter if it comes from your enemy or yourself). At least that's what my impression is. Opinions may differ :)

sanxiyn 7y ago

How would you tweak Go?

roenxi 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_variants#Sunjang_Baduk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_variants#Sunjang_Baduk Very entertaining variant with a proud history. None of the usual defensive corner forms work.

gwd 7y ago

> Of course every micro-variant of chess is going to open up new vistas, the challenge is this, is it better (how do we define better?) than the original chess? They talk about that specifically. The claim is that at the moment, one grandmaster, unilaterally, can play in such a way as the result will be an inconclusive draw with a very high probability. I say "unilaterally" because even if the other grandmaster they're playing wants a higher-risk-higher-reward game, they can't force the game that way. Such games certainly require a lot of skill, but they're very boring to play and to watch. "Better" in this case means more entertaining; and specifically, the claim is that with the king in the center, it's not possible to "bunker down" and play a very static, defensive version of chess. It is not however, a completely new game. All the skills regarding pins, forced sacrifices, open files, and so on still hold. It's the same as if both players been forced early in the game to not be able to castle: the basic game is the same, but certain "boring" states are hard to get to. I do agree that the whole thing about opening book seems a bit overblown to me: obviously getting rid of castling means you have to mostly throw out the current "book"; but surely a new one will be written. I'd always thought another way to make tournaments more interesting would be to take a page from wrestling. In wrestling matches, each player takes a turn starting from a disadvantaged position, where it should be easier for the other person to pin them. They get points if they manage to break out of the position while avoiding the pin. Having some games start "in the middle" after an early "blunder" by one side would make things more interesting as well.

igravious 7y ago
> "Better" in this case means more entertaining; and specifically, the claim is that with the king in the center, it's not possible to "bunker down" and play a very static, defensive version of chess. > I do agree that the whole thing about opening book seems a bit overblown to me: obviously getting rid of castling means you have to mostly throw out the current "book"; but surely a new one will be written. This is my point. I wasn't denigrating the effort to make chess more entertaining. I'm arguing that they haven't made a more entertaining version, they're confusing novelty with entertainment. I'm really not trying to troll you by suggesting that a more entertaining variant of chess is go. I mean, if we have to stick with the current set of pieces and how they move then I think that Fischer Random (Chess960) or something like it is the obvious improvement to go for. NoCastlingChess to me is a strange route to go down. Of course novelty makes an old form less jaded but that I'm not convinced it's intrinsically more entertaining – if it were shouldn't we ditch boring old chess?
- diogofranco 7y ago
  > I'm arguing that they haven't made a more entertaining version, they're confusing novelty with entertainment Is your position that disallowing castling does not lead to less king safety and thus less draws, more mating attacks, piece sacs and complex tactical games? Or is it that you think these things do not contribute to more entertaining games?
  - igravious 7y ago
    What I'm arguing is that disallowing castling totally changes the opening book and that a lot of the supposed increased "entertainment" being felt by Kramnik is the delight in having an a plethora of opening lines to explore (opening lines having long being exhausted by humans and machines in trad. chess). The fact that it leads to games which are more exciting because the king is more exposed is a small bonus – notice most of the article talks about all the changes you have to make to opening theory owing to the fact that you can't castle. My argument is that Kramnik is not recognising that most of the entertainment value comes from the fact that this is a new game (granted that it is an existing game tweaked), not that it forces more aggressive less draw-y games. Which is why I suggested, either go for a lot more novelty and combinatorial complexity within the game (Fischer960) or drastically overhaul the game (but in my opinion that has been done, and the game is called go). You can disagree with my opinion but it's not as if I'm not understanding what being said to me, it's just that I disagree with what's being said to me.

mrob 7y ago

Chess and Go have completely different feels. They're both abstract representations of combat, but the combat is in no way similar. Chess feels kind of like a sniper duel. You have two high value pieces (the kings), and the rest form a kind of terrain for them to fight in (although the kings don't literally attack each other). It's all about careful maneuvering so you can take a clear shot at the enemy king. Victory depends on high pressure calculation, with no room for the slightest error. Knowing the terrain in advance (memorizing openings) gives you a big advantage. Go feels more like a huge bar fight between two criminal gangs. It starts off with just posturing, but the participants move into position and prepare, and eventually the violence breaks out and you get multiple fights. Sometimes fights merge together into a big chaotic brawl. The winner is determined by calculating which side got the best of it after it's all over, and both preparation and fighting skills matter.

Tarsul 7y ago
thank you for your very figurative analogues, they are fitting quite well imo. The point you make about chess about having "no room for the slightest error" is also why I never liked it as much as Go (as most westerners, i grew up with chess but then learned Go as adolescent): In Go you are baffled by genius strokes, in chess you are baffled by idiotic strokes (funnily, in both cases it doesn't really matter if it comes from your enemy or yourself). At least that's what my impression is. Opinions may differ :)