Author |
Topic: Steve Giddins: "Computers are killing chess" (Read 4362 times) |
|
Luis Bolaños
Forum Junior Member
Arimaa player #3226
Gender: 
Posts: 8
|
 |
Steve Giddins: "Computers are killing chess"
« on: May 18th, 2012, 2:11am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8162
I agree with his analysis, but I think draws would be killing chess anyway even if computers didn't exist.
|
| « Last Edit: May 18th, 2012, 4:24am by Luis Bolaños » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Steve Giddins: "Computers are killing che
« Reply #1 on: May 18th, 2012, 5:00am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 18th, 2012, 2:11am, luigi wrote:http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8162
I agree with his analysis, but I think draws would be killing chess anyway even if computers didn't exist. |
|
Hi Luis, welcome 
As I've argued in the Anand-Gelfand thread, Chess, like any sport, needs the occasional upgrade in material, albeit less frequently because the 'material' is actually immaterial.
These upgrades have taken place before in Chess, as in Draughts, and even in Go, and the direction of the evolution has always been towards more decisiveness end less draws.
Grand Chess has been developed towards competeness, more freedom of movement and faster promotion, but I've held back at one point because I agree with the aesthetical view of Philidor.
Quote:Likewise, Philidor did not like the possibility of having two queens, and in all editions of his book (1749 to 1790) he stated that a promotion could only be to a piece previously captured. Lambe also stated this rule in a 1765 book (Davidson 1981:60–61). If none of the promoting player's pieces had yet been captured, the pawn remained inactive until one of the player's pieces was captured, whereupon the pawn immediately assumed that role (Staunton 1848:7). A player could thus never have two queens, three knights, three rooks, or three bishops (Staunton 1848:7).
wiki |
|
I've always disliked Chess' promotion rule because it is a means to an end to reduce draws. Chess cannot very well do without it.
In GC it's different: the wider choice of heavy pieces allows the return to 'promotion to a previously captured piece' without much of an impact on the margin of draws.
For the foreseeable future at least  .
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Luis Bolaños
Forum Junior Member
Arimaa player #3226
Gender:
Posts: 8
|
|
Re: Steve Giddins: "Computers are killing che
« Reply #2 on: May 19th, 2012, 12:40am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 18th, 2012, 5:00am, christianF wrote:| As I've argued in the Anand-Gelfand thread, |
|
Oh, lol, I didn't even notice there was such a thread  .
I just stopped by after reading the ChessBase article without reading the topics list here...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print