I took some of the advice here and worked with it. and I did something else too. some thing I should have thought of long ago because its so obvious. I started focusing on checkmating my opponent early on. Very aggressively, to a fault, just so I can get an idea from the where he is coming from. I have never been aggressive in the opening, and have always been much more methodical and careful, and tend to do better the closer I get to the end.

I think that relates closely to my personality outside of chess, as I always research things carefully before doing them, probably too carefully, i wait too long and end up missing opportunities.

Thats one thing I love about chess: how my personality on the board is part of me, derived from my real personality, so you can spot similarities if you look.

I like your point of view and I think that we can use games like chess to control very pronounced traits of our personal nature which we consider harmful. Someone very agressive can try to be a little more patient on the board and experiment the beneficial effects and so on.

In relation to openings study: I don't like it either and think that fischer chess should take the place of classic chess. It is exactly the same game, but with a different approach to openings. Even if one likes to study openings, he must consider that it takes alway a fase of the game that would be full of surprises and unpredictability.

I don't like very much chess variants, since one of the aspects of chess I like the most is it's universal appeal... it constitutes a global reference, so that you can travel to any city in the world and be able to find people who play it; it created it's own language. What I like about fischer chess is that, apart from opening theory, it remains in the same universe: people who play chess can play fischer.

I agree completely. I like what you said about it being a global reference. A good point is if you are in a strange city and don't speak the language and do not know anyone you can play chess without any lingual communication. I have done that before with people who don't speak English, and I would imagine doing it in a strange country would make you feel less lost or homesick.

I really don't like the competitive aspect of chess. Its not because I lose. In fact, the people I play with lose to me more than I lose to them (with a couple of exceptions). I care about personal gain as well as helping others. I'm fine with the game being about winning but its the approach that people take to it that i dislike. It does not need to be a intellectual **** measuring competition.

you are right! And I really don't think that chess can measure intelectual capacity. It is a game and we just learn how to operate patterns mentally; I'm not saying that the facility to do specific kinds of mental operations can't help with chess, but that is the case with music, painting, writing etc. All those activities demand different kind of intellectual operations, but they prove nothing about one's intelectual capacity taken as a whole. However, it is undeniable that the game of chess is intense in what concerns mental use in the course of it's duration.
The problem with openings, in my point of view, is that they favour knowledge to calculation (mental database competition). The problem with that is that calculation enables creation and knowledge (in what concerns chess) brings repetition.
Fischer chess is chess with creation from the beginning. As far as I know, at least - I don't play it a lot and I'm not a great chess player, also.

quote:

Originally posted by Damezzi:
you are right! And I really don't think that chess can measure intelectual capacity. It is a game and we just learn how to operate patterns mentally; I'm not saying that the facility to do specific kinds of mental operations can't help with chess, but that is the case with music, painting, writing etc. All those activities demand different kind of intellectual operations, but they prove nothing about one's intelectual capacity taken as a whole. However, it is undeniable that the game of chess is intense in what concerns mental use in the course of it's duration.
The problem with openings, in my point of view, is that they favour knowledge to calculation (mental database competition). The problem with that is that calculation enables creation and knowledge (in what concerns chess) brings repetition.
Fischer chess is chess with creation from the beginning. As far as I know, at least - I don't play it a lot and I'm not a great chess player, also.

Thats correct, because with Fischer Chess aka Chess960 there are 960 different possible opening set ups, so it isn't useful to memorize specific opening sequences, only general concepts.

I just don't know why chess programs like fritz or chessmaster don't offer the possibility of playing fischer chess.
I think their engines should be able to analise any position from the beginning even without an opening book. I don't know about the changes necessary to deal with the different castling possibilities, but that can't be so challenging to implement (maybe I'm wrong).
Anyway, I just hope it isn't for reactionary reasons. Conservative thinking may be necessary (to some extend) to keep the universal character I quoted above, but too much of it holds back natural evolution. A game like chess shouldn't be changed arbitrarily, since it is a formula that evolved through centuries and that works very well, but from time to time some adaptations may prove necessary.

Computers will soon more or less "solve" the game of chess and when that happens chess will quickly become even more of a memory game. I can t wait for that to happen personally.

Checkers has been solved by a computer already. And if you are familiar with Moore's Law, you will understand that chess wont be too far behind.

By the way, Damezzi, I decided to write down all my reasons about why I like chess, and I'm gonna post it in a new thread.