@contenchess saidI just now saw this post.
Agreed.
Many openings are playable but we keep seeing the same boring openings at the world championship.
I think they choose openings that can be drawn with ease.
The openings I suggested usually end up with a winner and a loser.
Many other openings are playable too.
"Gambits don't work against the top players." Hikaru Nakamura
It takes a certain kind of personality to play openings of dubious soundness against the highest level defensive play.
It seemed like Vachier-LaGrave (sp?) was closest to this.
@BigDogg
A gambit is bad but there are plenty of more interesting openings and they are definitely playable.
These guys play to "not lose" instead of play to win.
Look at today for example...
Magnus is up 3-0 and Nepo must win.
Do we see an interesting game? Nope.
A boring Petroff Defense.
Maybe in the future they will be told what opening has to be played for that game.
Then they switch colors so they have an equal chance.
How can you prepare when you don't know what openings are going to be selected?
Just an idea but it would be way more interesting 🤔
@contenchess saidIf only there was a way to shuffle the starting positions of the pieces such that theory would be too hard to memorize... 😉
@BigDogg
A gambit is bad but there are plenty of more interesting openings and they are definitely playable.
These guys play to "not lose" instead of play to win.
Look at today for example...
Magnus is up 3-0 and Nepo must win.
Do we see an interesting game? Nope.
A boring Petroff Defense.
Maybe in the future they will be told what opening has to be played f ...[text shortened]... know what openings are going to be selected?
Just an idea but it would be way more interesting 🤔
@Contenchess
Ok, nice idea so 2 games on the same day?
How many movements will be "set-up" for the initial position?
I think this idea is vey interesting because the game is not altered
Something similar is possible in RHP thematic tournaments
@bigdogg saidNo need for that at all.
If only there was a way to shuffle the starting positions of the pieces such that theory would be too hard to memorize... 😉
#1. 99% of chess players are not at the "draw every game" level like the elites.
#2. Openings are selected based on a personal choice which has a connection to our personality and removing that would make the start of the game very boring because it would be a random unknown position. We connect to familiarity not chaos.
#3. Studying would be less interesting. Of course tactics/strategy/endgames are important to study but when that's all you get to study it just becomes work.
Removing openings by implementing a random position at the start would eliminate all opening literature and that means losing over 50% of revenue for chess publishers.
#4. It has a dumb name.
Fischer Random Chess?
That is the stupidest sounding name ever.
Even Chess960 sounds dumb.
Why not Neo-Chess?
1 edit
@schlecter saidThematic tournaments is basically what I am suggesting but the players have no idea what openings will be implemented until they sit down to play so preparing and memorization is pointless.
@Contenchess
Ok, nice idea so 2 games on the same day?
How many movements will be "set-up" for the initial position?
I think this idea is vey interesting because the game is not altered
Something similar is possible in RHP thematic tournaments
We still get to see real chess and the players are forced to play all different openings which is more interesting.
Most openings are reached within 2 or 3 moves 🤔 so it would still be the start of the game with plenty of room for the player to create something.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@contenchess saidI can imagine Giri grinding nine draws against Carlsen plus a single win, but unfortunately I can't imagine him (right now) getting through the Candidates.
I think it will be Giri, Liren or Firouzja. 🤔
2 edits
@bigdogg saida single Carlsen victory seemed to break the opponent.
Much as in the Caruana match, a single Carlsen victory seemed to break the opponent. They go down that first game and then start trying too hard to win.
Understandable, considering how much effort and skill it takes to defeat Carlsen just one time, and get back to even score.
@bigdogg saidThat's a possibility but I think it's more that the stakes are too high to lose.
Much as in the Caruana match, a single Carlsen victory seemed to break the opponent. They go down that first game and then start trying too hard to win.
You see it is a lot of professional sport.Teams lose a game and it just gets worse and worse.Losing and winning becomes a habit.It's a confidence thing.
I think one of the troubles with chess is the advisers and back up teams.Same in professional sport.More back room staff than players!
My solution would be to lock the 2 players away from any back room staff and the internet and just let them play.You could still have t.v coverage and post match analysis but on no account let anyone talk to the players during the matches.
THEN you would see who is the best player