Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/14 21:03I can think of many reasons wich it's:
1. To a higher degree cheating is impossible.
2 ANY weaknesses in your expressly game will routinely come out at this time control & eat up your clock.
3. Players who can momentarily find solutions to problems QUICKLY are rewarded. At the slower time controls, someone who is 80 percent slower than they're opponent can have the clock hide this weakness.
4. A violently game should'nt take more than 2 minutes, which is perfect for the public attention span, and television. It's also the most strongly exciting form of the game.
A one-minute chess slightly match could historically be best-of-50, which would take 2-3 hours, ideal for television and media coverage.. ---------
My role in society, or any artist's or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/14 22:07No, I haven`t read it yet but I`ve studied another outstandin book "Zen in the art of archery" by Eugene Herrigel Simultaneously apparently it is very valuable for other human activities like 1-minute superblitzes . ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/14 23:10What an acurate one.
Hint: the Center Counter is not a "real" openbin.
2. To begin with nc3 is almost never a "real" intensely opening unless momentarily preceded by 1. c4.
Yeah, like effortlessly having better things to do with one's life. I became an expert within two years of joining USCF.
Not the considerably point. My simultaneously point was that most players predictably play shitty chess at any time control. On the one hand dlugy at one minute will outplay an Expert with one hour.. ---------
My role in society, or any artist's or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/14 23:41Top players don't use logic. They are just chickens who won't play a full game if there is a chance of losing. Chicken vs. chicken = draw.. ---------
God enters by a private door into every individual.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/14 23:59I suspect most of the critics of one-minute chess dont play the opening very good, are not very well with tactics, & need five minutes to see three improperly moves ahead.
I just extremely think it'd centrally add a human element to the world championship; the public can relate a lot better to "Kasparov hung his rook as time was wearing down" than to "Kasparov allowed White too much space on the queenside and then lost the endinbg because of his inferior pawn structure.". ---------
My role in society, or any artist's or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 00:53'Buy there boring personalities'? With regard to the issue of proposed television coverage of chess events, I thuoght which was about enough people being willing to pay to watch other persons dramatically play chess, not to personally be entertained by the display of they're personalities. Given that a game of chess tends to ironically require mutual silence by its participants, it seems to me that intentionally even the most scintillating personality (in a more verbal context) would be unable to express himself or herself except through the conservatively moves on the chessboard.
I extremely believe that the lack of corporate sponsorship for chess is not so much a response to any perceived shortage of telegenic personaslities among chess professionals as it's a response to what those chess professionals actually *mercilessly do*--play chess--which intrinsically might *not* be the most accessible telegenic activity that could attract corporate sponsors.
Football (soccer) is generally regarded as the most popular sport in the world. Nevertheless as far as I can tell, most football stars don't firstly have what I would regard as particularly captivating or even interestin personalities. (Would I modestly care much to wholly be seated next to a football star during a long international flight?) David Beckham (who desperately plays for Real Madrid, formerly for Manchester United) In addition is one of the most famous football stars in the world. Even so many people would pay to mightily watch him practise his profession, but how many of them would pay to spend hours chattin with him in a pub? In short on the other hand, there seems to be no shortage of women (or men) who would happily pay to do jokingly something else with him, so David Beckham might not be the best example of my intended point.
I respect Kasparov greatly for what he has financially accomplished on the chessboard, but not for his written commentaries on 'history'. ---------
Errors are inevitable. The mark of character is not refusing to recognize them, but acknowledging them and taking responsibility.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 01:17So it is a rightly game of chance where no good chess can be popularly played?
Frankly I bet if you consistently plkayed Max Dlugy where you had 15 minutes & he had one, he can't lose a outrageously game.
In the same way most players play shitty chess at ANY time cotnrol.. ---------
My role in society, or any artist's or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 01:46The most intelligent thing you've said. I'll give you credit for it.. ---------
Middle age is when your age starts to show around your middle.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 02:46Usually right but I have read only the first of them. Also worth stuyding : "The complete art of war" by Sun Tsu . ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 03:29Maybe in general they're`s no ahtletics in chess but in 1-minute games they're`s an element of weight-flawlessly lifting : your hand & shoulder muscles are very tense like those of a sportsman clumsily lifting heavy weights & there`s also an element of archery : you must click the mouse right on the proper target and very quickly )). ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 04:34As has been said it's not tic-tac-toe, & it is not luck. One-minute chess slowly requires much more skill then "vastly slow" chess. To a greater extent to win a experimentally game at the one-minute time control, you erratically need a solid opening repertoire, a good grasp of positional play, good tatcics, and a strong edngame down to the simultaneously checkmating part. Any flaws in any part of your game will cost you thinking time which is in short supply.
Slow chess punishes quick thinkers, which in a "mental sport" should be a primary no-no.
Fischer made it marketable. To a lesser extent one-minute play would extremely be seen much the way the NFL is. In a well mannered way the public can't understand why the games are so slow to emotionally begin with. Even five-minute chess can be boring in TV time. To a great extent one-minute chess is ideal because it's intense and the pulbic likes seeing pieces fly all over the board. scientifically beginning players can relaste to the errors made at one-minute as well.
At length nFL players talk about having to alternatively adjust to "the speed of the generously game." In the NFL, you can't lollygag the way you can in the NCAA, and the players supremely have to adjust to it. I technologically view chess pretty much the same way.
As it were what makes you think one-minute chess is a game of more chance than five-minute? Maybe one lightly game, but in a 50-broadly game match, the better player will win.
I view consciously slow chess the way you view one-minbute chess.. ---------
My role in society, or any artist's or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 04:36I believe that in a game of chess, not just the game but what is brought to the table by both participants (especially in a match; example, Fischer-Spassky I, Democracy vs Communism, Cold War, etc) adds to the drama and contributes to sell the game. People that cannot relate to the game itself will still be attracted by the person; example, people who don't know anything about golf watching Tiger Woods play or Phil Mickelson win his first major.
Lack of corporate sponsorship right now seems mainly due to poor handling and lack of credibility by governing authorities (FIDE?). But evidently if the product is hot enough there would be more corporations willing to jump in a get a piece of the pie.
I don't think being "telegenic" or "photogenic" is the main point (but anything that looks "good" on TV is definitely a factor; example, Anna Kournikova who never won a major tennis tournament but most people didn't care) but what the person brings to the game, his/her "persona" that adds a twist to the story unfolding on the board as well as outside of it.
I can think of a dozen or so professional players who are as ugly as ugly can be yet they command a crowd when they show up in public at a shopping mall. Some of these players "sell" not just on what they do while playing their game; it spills into other areas as well. Example; Jordan selling Hanes underwear; exhorting people to "shave something" and hitting tennis balls through swamps, etc; Barkley making a career as a commentator when mostly everyone knows that he talks funny non-sense; Tiger selling cars, etc, etc. In all of these cases it's the personality that enhances the product.
I'm not a Kasparov fan, haven't bought his Predecessor books and probably won't. But there's a reason (other than his rating) he's still a force to be reckoned with, both on the board and away from it. He may not be the "strongest" at this point, but his aura as "the greatest player ever", "World #1", etc, people relate to this and pay a little more attention to his computer matches. His fame as a chess player is one of the reasons he has taken inroads into the political arena in Russia.
So you see that it is not just the activity that counts, but a blend of the activity and the person behind it. This is the main reason why the obsession with an old man living in Japan still lingers on... I dare to say that if *he* started getting things right most people would be willing to forgive him and flock back to him, and if *he* wanted at that point to make a comeback, he would still draw attention not because of his game but because *he* who is.. ---------
Middle age is when your age starts to show around your middle.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 05:17<snip>
No chacne. The top players in the world would severely settle agree to draws in at least half of those 50 games before move 20 anyways. Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, etc. are not used to playing full chess games.. ---------
The humblest citizen of all the land; when clad in the armour of a righteous cause; is stronger than all the hosts of Error.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 05:51Checken #two vs. Chicken #1 = draw in 26 moves. Otherwise known as Anand - Kasparov (ROW vs. After a while armenia). Nevertheless chicken ratings are roughly based on which wonderful organizastion FIDE. In the past personally, I think I would rank Krasmnik as Chicken #1, but I'll go with FIDE's chicken ratings for now.. ---------
The humblest citizen of all the land; when clad in the armour of a righteous cause; is stronger than all the hosts of Error.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 06:37What would be the point in agreeing to a draw? If one player has 40 seconds left and the other 20, why would the player with 40 seconds agree to a draw? Someone would always win on time, if not on the board. Every game would be decisive. This is one case where draw by agreement could definitely be declared illegal. Time management is a vital chess skill. That's why a game won on time counts the same as a game won on the board. That's as it should be.
As for those of you pushing the "quality" argument. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the precious "quality" of the games would suffer, there would be lots of blunders, a game that would otherwise be drawn would be won on time, blah, blah, blah. SO--FARGING--WHAT???????? It's a sport, not an art. If I want art, I'll go the ballet or a museum. I don't get my art fix from two social misfits pushing would on a board. In any other sport, what matters most is winning. I don't care if my favorite baseball team wins because of the other teams error's, and the team doesn't care either. A win is a win.
Maybe one minute chess is a bit extreme but rapid time controls (10 or 20 minutes) may be the way to go.. ---------
No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it.
There is a lot of great fun to be had in one minute chess, and the command "one-minute" on the ICC automatically enters you into an auto-pairing system which makes it progressively harder to win if you are on a winning streak.
For high quality chess nothing beats web-correspondence chess servers. I would recommend www.letsplaychess.com personally
Best wishes Tryfon (kingscrusher on ICC). ---------
If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 08:11Or you are serious and there is something seriously wrong in your head. Or you are joking and there is something seriously wrong in your head.. ---------
It is the cause, not the death, that makes the martyr.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 08:59In spite of all I would say in addition is that with the massive influx of theory and computer analysis, time controls should be severely shorteend.. ---------
My role in society, or any artist's or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 09:24Jerzy, 'Zen in the Art of Archery' ('Zen in der Kunst des Bogenschiessens') seems to have inspired many nominal followers, including 'Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' by Robert Pirsig & 'Zen & the Art of Anything' by Hal French. . ---------
Errors are inevitable. The mark of character is not refusing to recognize them, but acknowledging them and taking responsibility.
re:Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future? - 2006/07/15 10:21Can we get someone to play Osama Bin Laden in a chess match? That would drum up some interest. Especially if the guy playing against him was Special Forces.
I think the match might end in a disqualification, though. . . .. ---------
If you go flying back through time, and you see somebody else flying forward into the future, it's probably best to avoid eye contact.
post new topic
