What makes it more interesting?
size of the board, handicap system, no linearity,
growing, more assymetrical, more wild play, more strategic,
more options etc
It has more dinamics and its more balanced, its way better
but that does not mean its more enjoyable.
Chess has lots of shortcomings but I dont feel like critizing the game as It has given me great pleasure, despite all,
chess might be more enjoyable than go even if its less interesting as in go You can never crush your opponent
and you never obtain that feeling of perfect game which is more a mirage but anyway.
growing, more assymetrical, more wild play, more strategic,
more options etc
It has more dinamics and its more balanced, its way better
but that does not mean its more enjoyable.
Chess has lots of shortcomings but I dont feel like critizing the game as It has given me great pleasure, despite all,
chess might be more enjoyable than go even if its less interesting as in go You can never crush your opponent
and you never obtain that feeling of perfect game which is more a mirage but anyway.
@Hellball can you please explain what you meant by "abstract concepts"?
#13, go theory is based a lot around, let's say, Chinese-inspired ways of education. So a lot of them are based around animal analogies like "tiger mouth" and "tiger and crane" and "low pincer" strategies and so on.
And all of those can then by combined in hybrid strategies and more.
More importantly, Go puzzles definitely exist, but Go education is generally less hands-on than chess education (where you are expected to do a lot of tactics puzzles). Go education is much more theoretical than practical, in other words. That's where the 'abstract' part came from in my valuation (as opposed to the greater immediacy of chess tactics).
And all of those can then by combined in hybrid strategies and more.
More importantly, Go puzzles definitely exist, but Go education is generally less hands-on than chess education (where you are expected to do a lot of tactics puzzles). Go education is much more theoretical than practical, in other words. That's where the 'abstract' part came from in my valuation (as opposed to the greater immediacy of chess tactics).
I can see how Go is abstract. There are not established lines like in chess; go is about taking territory by taking corners.
Chess is more concrete and arguably shallow with it's different lines; go is deep and abstract with intuitive territorial play.
Chess is more concrete and arguably shallow with it's different lines; go is deep and abstract with intuitive territorial play.
this is why i love chess
cause u can play unsound beautiful tactics
what a beautiful fight
http://en.lichess.org/O3VAxyub#102
Go is better
in chess you can not apply big ideas is all about tactics
only the opening is profound enough but its already studied
Chess rewards simplicity of thought, clarity and direct play
its all about simplification thats why I value so much weird play
and chaotic play cause it goes against the axiomatic rules of chess hence you are playing at a disadvantage but the game is more alive.
Chess is about the king, the king has a huge power in inmediate play, he is the center and the end of the game,
chess is only profound in understanding pawn structures like caro kann games but even in caro kann there is plenty of tactics to disrupt the strategic element.
Chess is about the excitement of the moment, its not really an intellectual game, its more like an hedonistic pleasure at least for me, the rush u know like a gamble.
Tactics rule chess 99% of it someone already said it maybe on d4 or fianchetto one can play more subtle play but it can not be compared to go by many other things,
they are just two different worlds.
perhaps if u look at my painting that noone made a comment except one, u can try to understand the corners on chess
http://en.lichess.org/ZZY0NnFJ/black#26
and why its almost impossible to create simultaneous battles in different places.
cause u can play unsound beautiful tactics
what a beautiful fight
http://en.lichess.org/O3VAxyub#102
Go is better
in chess you can not apply big ideas is all about tactics
only the opening is profound enough but its already studied
Chess rewards simplicity of thought, clarity and direct play
its all about simplification thats why I value so much weird play
and chaotic play cause it goes against the axiomatic rules of chess hence you are playing at a disadvantage but the game is more alive.
Chess is about the king, the king has a huge power in inmediate play, he is the center and the end of the game,
chess is only profound in understanding pawn structures like caro kann games but even in caro kann there is plenty of tactics to disrupt the strategic element.
Chess is about the excitement of the moment, its not really an intellectual game, its more like an hedonistic pleasure at least for me, the rush u know like a gamble.
Tactics rule chess 99% of it someone already said it maybe on d4 or fianchetto one can play more subtle play but it can not be compared to go by many other things,
they are just two different worlds.
perhaps if u look at my painting that noone made a comment except one, u can try to understand the corners on chess
http://en.lichess.org/ZZY0NnFJ/black#26
and why its almost impossible to create simultaneous battles in different places.
Chess as hedonism... I love it.
@motion
The most profound and most difficult to understand part of chess is generally thought to be strategical endgames, when the gunsmoke has cleared and the board is more empty, more silent. This is also the part of the game where humans can still at least equal computers.
Remember arguably the most beautiful move ever made in competitive chess: Shirov's Bh3 against Topalov, Linares 1998. It's the only move to win, it's a tactical move and still Stockfish 6 cannot find it on depth 50. It was a bishops of opposite colors endgame.
The most profound and most difficult to understand part of chess is generally thought to be strategical endgames, when the gunsmoke has cleared and the board is more empty, more silent. This is also the part of the game where humans can still at least equal computers.
Remember arguably the most beautiful move ever made in competitive chess: Shirov's Bh3 against Topalov, Linares 1998. It's the only move to win, it's a tactical move and still Stockfish 6 cannot find it on depth 50. It was a bishops of opposite colors endgame.
I disagree there, endgames are not deep, computers understand them with databases, maybe there are a couple of exceptions,
besides knowing opening includes knowing endgame and knowing endgame means only knowing endgame.
By the way I have nothing against your style, I sometimes try to play like that, direct and clear, this was my last game but I missed the checkmate combination, well its mabye not ur style
since we did not reach the proper endgame
http://en.lichess.org/dSsU6ZH88APQ
and the other game ive played was this one
http://en.lichess.org/AxbRhtMS3aLX
Another thing although I am a total newbie in endgame
if the middlegame is equal and there are plenty of exchanges,
Im sure most endgames are drawish by nature no matter how well you play them.
Endgame seems to be like counting who promotes first
that is calculation, that is not profund at all, u should play go
if u have not.
Profound is knowing when to push e4,
(although another kind of profoundity not much like go) knowing the implications that square has in the whole board and what happens if one does that move or if he does not.
For example it is the only central square which is not inmediate protected by a piece, whereas d by queen and c and f by bishop, so by playing e4 you are creating a strong affirmation
but are giving counterattacking chances, whereas if you play d4 first it means you will need to build the position to play e4
(if needed),
the fact that the first move such a huge complications, its profound and I would not say profound I would say very profound, although the gameplay will be decided by the next moves, understanding the first one, is no way easy.
Not only that the gunsmoke is the sould of chess as chess is sure a draw, we are 99.99% sure of it, the ability to create gunsmoke is the more valuable to avoid the fatal result, the draw.
I would say that endgames are the most difficult but not the most profound which is quite different
to do a 156156198519 by 194184518444 using only ur head
is difficult but not profound, now in endgames there is only one move so there is no imagination, no fantasy, they are dull
It is the middlegame and the preparation of the middlegame in the opening where one can try to do something beautiful but as I said the board is too small and the amount of sacrifices are limited by that, the number of pieces, and also because each piece has almost an equal power defending than attacking, now I dont believe that sacrifices are profound, they are raw tactical ability, like a show off, or magic tricks etc
but the positional understanding to create that possible it is,
still I dont think chess is profound, It is from a theoretical perspective but from a practical perspective, It is not, cause You can play one opening, without knowing the ones that are not being played, so the profoundity in chess lies in what is not being played I would say.
besides knowing opening includes knowing endgame and knowing endgame means only knowing endgame.
By the way I have nothing against your style, I sometimes try to play like that, direct and clear, this was my last game but I missed the checkmate combination, well its mabye not ur style
since we did not reach the proper endgame
http://en.lichess.org/dSsU6ZH88APQ
and the other game ive played was this one
http://en.lichess.org/AxbRhtMS3aLX
Another thing although I am a total newbie in endgame
if the middlegame is equal and there are plenty of exchanges,
Im sure most endgames are drawish by nature no matter how well you play them.
Endgame seems to be like counting who promotes first
that is calculation, that is not profund at all, u should play go
if u have not.
Profound is knowing when to push e4,
(although another kind of profoundity not much like go) knowing the implications that square has in the whole board and what happens if one does that move or if he does not.
For example it is the only central square which is not inmediate protected by a piece, whereas d by queen and c and f by bishop, so by playing e4 you are creating a strong affirmation
but are giving counterattacking chances, whereas if you play d4 first it means you will need to build the position to play e4
(if needed),
the fact that the first move such a huge complications, its profound and I would not say profound I would say very profound, although the gameplay will be decided by the next moves, understanding the first one, is no way easy.
Not only that the gunsmoke is the sould of chess as chess is sure a draw, we are 99.99% sure of it, the ability to create gunsmoke is the more valuable to avoid the fatal result, the draw.
I would say that endgames are the most difficult but not the most profound which is quite different
to do a 156156198519 by 194184518444 using only ur head
is difficult but not profound, now in endgames there is only one move so there is no imagination, no fantasy, they are dull
It is the middlegame and the preparation of the middlegame in the opening where one can try to do something beautiful but as I said the board is too small and the amount of sacrifices are limited by that, the number of pieces, and also because each piece has almost an equal power defending than attacking, now I dont believe that sacrifices are profound, they are raw tactical ability, like a show off, or magic tricks etc
but the positional understanding to create that possible it is,
still I dont think chess is profound, It is from a theoretical perspective but from a practical perspective, It is not, cause You can play one opening, without knowing the ones that are not being played, so the profoundity in chess lies in what is not being played I would say.
@ motion
Endgame tablebases exist for 7 or less pieces only. (it took 8 years to go from 6 to 7 pieces) That's 1K, 1R and 2P for white and 1K, 1R and 1P for black for instance. Anything above that and the computer is down to it's own resources again.
You are right that pawn endgames, and many race situations (pawns on opposite sides of the board), are calculation heavy. Strategical endgames on the other hand demands _understanding_ which is very difficult to formalise.
Endgame tablebases exist for 7 or less pieces only. (it took 8 years to go from 6 to 7 pieces) That's 1K, 1R and 2P for white and 1K, 1R and 1P for black for instance. Anything above that and the computer is down to it's own resources again.
You are right that pawn endgames, and many race situations (pawns on opposite sides of the board), are calculation heavy. Strategical endgames on the other hand demands _understanding_ which is very difficult to formalise.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.