Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32
  1. #16
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    159
    Chess does not need this at all.

  2. #17
    CC Candidate Master MatsW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    54
    Oh, yes it does. Rapid chess on Internet servers isn't very engaging in the long run, because chess isn't designed to be played at this rapid pace. With Xiangqi it works very fine, however. One is always presented with tactical problems, from the first to the last move. There is no monotonous wood-chopping, so it's suitable for rapid play. Rapid chess would be much more fun if the tactical vistas were to be opened up. However, slow standard chess at amateur level is a different matter.

    Mats

  3. #18
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    159
    You did not actually answer my question about wood-chopping.

  4. #19
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,961
    Quote Originally Posted by black
    You did not actually answer my question about wood-chopping.
    I think he's referring to games that are constantly full of exchanges, simple tactics and hack-attacks with relatively little positional skill or depth.

  5. #20
    CC Candidate Master MatsW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    54
    In this Chessbase article series "Give up the sissy version – play Chinese chess!" prof. David H. Li expounds on his love of Xiangqi.
    http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2455

    Don't let yourself be fooled, chess is the superior game. The difference is that Xiangqi is never boring, because there are always clever little tactics, sometimes involving the cannon. Cannon tactics, unknown to Western chess players, is very peculiar. The conclusion is that Xiangqi is more rewarding when played over the Internet, with the exception of blitz and bullet games, which involve a race against the clock. Chess in this form is exciting but not very sophisticated.

    Chess involves many standard methods, like realizing a passed pawn on a wing, thereby forcing the enemy king to hunt it down, whereupon you can enter his position, capture his pawns, advance your own pawn and promote to queen. Such methods don't exist in Xiangqi. You always have to figure out how to mate the other party before he mates you, with whatever little material there is left. Pawns don't promote.

    Chess, when played rapidly, always boils down to standard methods of tactics, standard piece exchanges, standard mating methods, standard positional plans (taking control of an open file with the heavy pieces is a theme repeated over and over again). It is a matter of technique and opening knowledge. I admit that rapid chess is slightly fun, but Xiangqi is much more exciting when played over the Internet, because one cannot apply monotonous standard techniques. A player who tries, will lose immediately. You always have to be on your guard.

    Chess is deep and must be played deeply. However, since chess is so extremely methodical, it also lends itself to blitz and bullet games. It occupies the extremes, that is. It is not possible to play blitz and bullet games in Xiangqi. There are too many exacting moves to be done. Too a high-degree chess can be played with the auto-pilot switched on. This is not possible with Xiangqi. But when chess is played with the auto-pilot you soon get tired of the wood-chopping, although there is a nice combination now and then.

    Do you begin to see my point now? Xiangqi and Shogi overflow with tactics, which is why these games are never boring and monotonous. I am arguing that we are doing chess a disservice when we refuse to provide chess players with an alternative variant in which they can get an outlet for their creativity and tactical imagination. It would function as a complement to Fide-chess, and would serve to enrich chess, in order for it to remain popular.

    Mats Winther

  6. #21
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    12,628
    Quote Originally Posted by MatsW
    The flank pawn can make the oblique jump move to an empty square if blocked. In an alternative variant the pawn can only make this jump move if blocked on the enemy side.
    Had you considered, instead of a knight's move by the pawn, allowing it to move a square forward diagonally, as it would if it makes a capture. Would be a slightly smaller departure from the accepted rules.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  7. #22
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by MatsW
    This will revolutionize chess. The dynamic pawn, together with the queen swap method, is tomorrow's chess.
    Wasn't Fischer random (shuffle chess) going to revolutionise chess, and be tomorrow's chess?

    Maybe this one will be the day after tomorrow.

  8. #23
    CC Candidate Master MatsW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    Had you considered, instead of a knight's move by the pawn, allowing it to move a square forward diagonally, as it would if it makes a capture. Would be a slightly smaller departure from the accepted rules.
    No, it would be too disruptive, as the move could never be prevented by placing a piece on the same square as the capture square. Moreover, the knight pawns would get two extra moves, which is one too many, i.e., it gets too strong.

    Mats

  9. #24
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    159
    Chess does not yet need any repairs. There already exist numerous variants. This suggestion does not improve chess but offers a variant.

    It appears MatsW enjoys circles a little more than I.

  10. #25
    CC Candidate Master MatsW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by black
    Chess does not yet need any repairs. There already exist numerous variants. This suggestion does not improve chess but offers a variant.

    It appears MatsW enjoys circles a little more than I.
    Petrosian said that "chess players are seldom intelligent", a statement that is easy to verify.

    Mats

  11. #26
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    12,628
    Quote Originally Posted by MatsW
    No, it would be too disruptive, as the move could never be prevented by placing a piece on the same square as the capture square. Moreover, the knight pawns would get two extra moves, which is one too many, i.e., it gets too strong.

    Mats
    Yet the knight move gives the pawn influence over a whole new set of squares. Take your example in post 1, it is very easy to see the pawn on g5 exerting pressure on d7. This is a square he could otherwise never reach.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  12. #27
    CC Candidate Master MatsW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    Yet the knight move gives the pawn influence over a whole new set of squares. Take your example in post 1, it is very easy to see the pawn on g5 exerting pressure on d7. This is a square he could otherwise never reach.
    In the general case, it is easy to control these squares, or to occupy them, thus preventing the pawn from going there. In many cases it is simply bad to go there. However, it opens up many new attacking possibilities. This pawn move isn't illogical. It moves forward one rank, which is natural to the pawn. Remember that the pawn is already different from all other pieces in that it can only advance to an empty square, different from the capture square. In this variant, yet another pawn advance to empty square is added, if the flank pawn is blocked by a pawn. It is a natural move that already belongs in chess in the form of the knight jump.

    Mats
    Last edited by MatsW; 28-04-2012 at 06:44 PM.

  13. #28
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    12,628
    Quote Originally Posted by MatsW
    In the general case, it is easy to control these squares, or to occupy them, thus preventing the pawn from going there. In many cases it is simply bad to go there. However, it opens up many new attacking possibilities. This pawn move isn't illogical. It moves forward one rank, which is natural to the pawn. Remember that the pawn is already different from all other pieces in that it can only advance to an empty square, different from the capture square. In this variant, yet another pawn advance to empty square is added, if the flank pawn is blocked by a pawn. It is a natural move that already belongs in chess in the form of the knight jump.

    Mats
    I was referring to your comment about the strength of the pawn increasing by too much. A consideration of piece strength in chess is the piece's mobility; how many squares it can move to - now and potentially. As I said, the knight move gives the pawn access to squares that it otherwise never has.

    As far as aesthetic considerations go - what is the more natural to add to a pawn - that it may move the same way it already captures, or that it channels a knight? I think the former. You can argue the latter, but I doubt many will agree.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  14. #29
    CC Candidate Master MatsW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    I was referring to your comment about the strength of the pawn increasing by too much. A consideration of piece strength in chess is the piece's mobility; how many squares it can move to - now and potentially. As I said, the knight move gives the pawn access to squares that it otherwise never has.

    As far as aesthetic considerations go - what is the more natural to add to a pawn - that it may move the same way it already captures, or that it channels a knight? I think the former. You can argue the latter, but I doubt many will agree.
    Aesthetics don't count. It's about logic. The increase in the flank pawn's value is very little, considering the conditions for allowing the move. Moreover, it is unlikely that the move is made more than once by the same pawn. It's a once-in-a-lifetime event for a flank pawn.

    Mats

  15. #30
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    12,628
    Quote Originally Posted by MatsW
    Aesthetics don't count. It's about logic. The increase in the flank pawn's value is very little, considering the conditions for allowing the move. Moreover, it is unlikely that the move is made more than once by the same pawn. It's a once-in-a-lifetime event for a flank pawn.

    Mats
    Meh, I couldn't be bothered with discussing your silly reasoning any more.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Annotated games
    By Bereaved in forum Games and Analysis
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 01-01-2008, 11:46 AM
  2. 2007 Australian Junior Championships
    By Libby in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 343
    Last Post: 07-08-2007, 11:22 AM
  3. Richard J vs b1_ - Some tips for you Richard.
    By b1_ in forum Correspondence Matches
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-09-2005, 11:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •