The Chess Thread

[Dome]

11 minutes ago, Ty21 said:

Some people just like the way it makes them feel 

Some people want to kill their sorrow 

[Ty21]

Speaking of vibrating butthole cheat beads, the guy actually allegedly guilty of it VS Magnus is resolved now and he’s allowed back on chess.com.  Gonna be an unprecedented event when they start checking his anus before every match. 

[AngusMcFife]

On 8/14/2023 at 7:36 PM, Tugboat said:

I've never really got the appeal of Chess.  It feels so...limiting.  It basically discourages lateral or unconventional thinking.

It's just applying a bunch of rigid set principles and calculating from there.  When i play, i generally just get bored immediately and start moving pieces around because who cares.  Maybe something funny will happen.

 

 

It's always touted as this epitome of "strategic thinking".  But in reality, the best strategic thinkers are people who are actually able to think outside of the rigid patterns and conceive of completely different alternatives.

Yeah I'm not sure about this.

If you are a general in a war you have certain amount of troops and equipment and you have a terrain to negotiate. A great strategic thinker will figure out the optimal strategy given limited resources. 

Your idea of a great general sounds like someone who can invent flying unicorns equipped with rotary cannons 

[Tugboat]

On 9/4/2023 at 1:24 PM, AngusMcFife said:

Yeah I'm not sure about this.

If you are a general in a war you have certain amount of troops and equipment and you have a terrain to negotiate. A great strategic thinker will figure out the optimal strategy given limited resources. 

Your idea of a great general sounds like someone who can invent flying unicorns equipped with rotary cannons 

The thing is...if you're a general in a war, your world isn't laid out in checkered squares that dictate every single aspect of your strategy.  Nor are all your pieces (or the enemy's pieces) going to behave in set, expected patterns and rules.  Terrain matters.  Individual efforts and skill at lower levels matters.  Technical nuances of force capabilities and the limits that can and cannot be pressed matter.  Simultaneous combined action matters.  History has shown this time and time again.  If anything, Chess is much more analogous to the political maneuvering that is often the precursor to war.

 

 

Think in history, how many "empires" have bumbled into Afghanistan for instance...thinking they've got this sumbitch in checkmate because of vastly superior "strategy" based on the pieces they have on the board.  Only to get embarrassed and turn tail in defeat.  Because "war" in Afghanistan is nothing like Chess.  They aren't playing the same game so it's all pointless.

 

Has nothing to do with imaginary fantabulous creations.  Everything to do with the fact that chess people don't seem to realize how detached it is from reality and pragmatic, logistical concerns that aren't just set in stone and accepted by all combative parties equally.  It's insane to even think that it has any real world strategic value in combat terms when it's premise is so rigid and balanced...when the real world is very much the opposite.

[AngusMcFife]

8 hours ago, Tugboat said:

The thing is...if you're a general in a war, your world isn't laid out in checkered squares that dictate every single aspect of your strategy.  Nor are all your pieces (or the enemy's pieces) going to behave in set, expected patterns and rules.  Terrain matters.  Individual efforts and skill at lower levels matters.  Technical nuances of force capabilities and the limits that can and cannot be pressed matter.  Simultaneous combined action matters.  History has shown this time and time again.  If anything, Chess is much more analogous to the political maneuvering that is often the precursor to war.

Think in history, how many "empires" have bumbled into Afghanistan for instance...thinking they've got this sumbitch in checkmate because of vastly superior "strategy" based on the pieces they have on the board.  Only to get embarrassed and turn tail in defeat.  Because "war" in Afghanistan is nothing like Chess.  They aren't playing the same game so it's all pointless.

 

Clearly the war metaphor will only go so far. Chess of course is thousands of years old so it represents a much older conception of the battlefield and attacking forces. 

Chess is a game, so therefore subject to the premise that each side should have a roughly 50/50 chance at winning. Any game that begins with the premise that one side has a decisive advantage over the other would fail and never catch on. 

Quote

Has nothing to do with imaginary fantabulous creations.  Everything to do with the fact that chess people don't seem to realize how detached it is from reality and pragmatic, logistical concerns that aren't just set in stone and accepted by all combative parties equally.  It's insane to even think that it has any real world strategic value in combat terms when it's premise is so rigid and balanced...when the real world is very much the opposite.

I don't think anyone plays chess thinking that is applicable to the real world. It's a game to escape in. 

Quote

It's just applying a bunch of rigid set principles and calculating from there.  When i play, i generally just get bored immediately and start moving pieces around because who cares.  Maybe something funny will happen.

If you are not interested in strategy then obviously chess is not for you. But it doesn't seem like you've ever even bothered to learn basic strategies in chess. Do you prefer controlling the center with pawns in a classical style or use a hypermodern style of allowing space for bishops to cut across the board? Are you going for a direct assault on the king? Or do you want to wear down the opposing forces through attrition, or try to force the passed pawn to the end rank? Can you play defensively and see if the opponent gets low on time? Do you like a closed position and positional struggle or wide open spaces with combination attacks? Are you willing to sacrifice material to gain a positional advantage? Can you restrict the space of the opponent so much that he cannot find a winning move (zugzwang)? 

It's fine if you don't like chess, but you are crazy to think there are not intricate strategies involved. And those strategies often have military analogies, just like football! 

[Tugboat]

On 9/20/2023 at 12:02 PM, AngusMcFife said:

Clearly the war metaphor will only go so far. Chess of course is thousands of years old so it represents a much older conception of the battlefield and attacking forces. 

It's never really represented actual battlefield strategy though.  At no point in history has it truly reflected that.  Like i said...it's far more applicable to political strategy than anything else.  Where there are set rules and accepted and expected avenues to the maneuvering.

 

On 9/20/2023 at 12:02 PM, AngusMcFife said:

Chess is a game, so therefore subject to the premise that each side should have a roughly 50/50 chance at winning. Any game that begins with the premise that one side has a decisive advantage over the other would fail and never catch on. 

I don't think anyone plays chess thinking that is applicable to the real world. It's a game to escape in. 

If you are not interested in strategy then obviously chess is not for you. But it doesn't seem like you've ever even bothered to learn basic strategies in chess. Do you prefer controlling the center with pawns in a classical style or use a hypermodern style of allowing space for bishops to cut across the board? Are you going for a direct assault on the king? Or do you want to wear down the opposing forces through attrition, or try to force the passed pawn to the end rank? Can you play defensively and see if the opponent gets low on time? Do you like a closed position and positional struggle or wide open spaces with combination attacks? Are you willing to sacrifice material to gain a positional advantage? Can you restrict the space of the opponent so much that he cannot find a winning move (zugzwang)? 

It's fine if you don't like chess, but you are crazy to think there are not intricate strategies involved. And those strategies often have military analogies, just like football! 

 

You're really just reinforcing the idea that chess isn't about real strategic thinking and creativity or pushing the envelope.  Rather, it's about memorizing and choosing from among a set of rote, accepted, classically established stratagems and approaches.  It's not a "battlefield" that changes or evolves.  It's not a game of "innovation".  It's a game of stagnant repetition.

 

 

Real strategic thinkers and writers approach the subject in a far more organic, nuanced way than a rigid chess board represents.  Prescribing more general and situational principles, rather than sets of established "moves".

[AngusMcFife]

50 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

It's never really represented actual battlefield strategy though.  At no point in history has it truly reflected that.  Like i said...it's far more applicable to political strategy than anything else.  Where there are set rules and accepted and expected avenues to the maneuvering.

You have a limited imagination if you can't see how chess is a simulation of a battle. You have infantry, cavalry, and artillery. You have terrain and an opponent that you beat through attrition (killing his forces) or capturing the leader. Football is also a great battle simulation, but not quite as literal. 

Quote

You're really just reinforcing the idea that chess isn't about real strategic thinking and creativity or pushing the envelope.  Rather, it's about memorizing and choosing from among a set of rote, accepted, classically established stratagems and approaches.  It's not a "battlefield" that changes or evolves.  It's not a game of "innovation".  It's a game of stagnant repetition.

Now it is obvious you've never played or understood how the game is played. You are just imagining what people are thinking when they are playing chess, with no actual experience of what it is like. Let's say there are 50 strategic principles that you are keeping in mind at one time. How do you decide which ones to execute and which ones to ignore? The battlefield changes every move. 

Quote

Real strategic thinkers and writers approach the subject in a far more organic, nuanced way than a rigid chess board represents.  Prescribing more general and situational principles, rather than sets of established "moves".

It's fine if you have a group of strategic thinkers you admire, and there's no reason to include chess players in that group. 

But your criticisms of chess are pretty ignorant. You don't seem to understand what it is about the experience of playing chess that makes it so enjoyable. Hundreds of millions play, and people have been playing for thousands of years and play in every country. Chess has a universal appeal across humanity, and that would never be so if it was mere memorization like you think it is. It is engrossing because each game involves deep strategic thinking. 

[Ty21]

Chess.com’s $17/mo membership is so unconscionable and egregious. It should be less than 1/3 of that. 

[Malfatron]

On 10/2/2023 at 7:12 AM, Ty21 said:

Chess.com’s $17/mo membership is so unconscionable and egregious. It should be less than 1/3 of that. 

Does it come with a chess improvement toy?

[Ty21]

16 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

Does it come with a chess improvement toy?

I don’t think so but you could probably find a free one hidden in your dresser