You know what this board is in need for?

[Skybird]

We have political discussion, religious discussion, cultural discussion, military discussion, game-related discussion, stupid discussion, useless discussion, we all have that and then quite some more, and in English and Japanese and Korean and who-knows-what as well. But we do not have - a chess corner! Hell, every provincial newsppaer with 4 page-editions has a chess corner, but we do not!? A nice little place for the chessies amongst us, about chess computers old and new, chess programs, chess tournaments man-computer, and maybe an occasional live correspondence chess match between interested board members?

[Sixpack]

I tried to establish exactly that years ago @ simhq.com, but lack of interest prevented such.

Shame, as it is the oldest game-simulation of tactical battle in written history, at least that I know of.

[now some bright kid here is going to look that up and post a schmuck reply soon thereafter ]

[jumpy]

Chess... hmm, reminds me of my one-time excursion into the shady/cliquey world that was my middleschool after school chess club;
I was about 9 or 10 years old and really the most interesting thing on my mind back then was how I could avoid the afterschool sports activitys. So, being the bright spark that I was I thought I'd have a go at the 'Chess Club' - game of skill and strategy as ancient as the oldest thing I knew about - which at that time was my dad, and the strange old geezer who used to cycle the wrong way up the fast lane of the duelcarridgeway on our morning run to school.
Anyway, the first session came and I was looking forwards to being shown the rudiments of how the game was played and understanding some slightly more advanced methods of humilliating your opponent. It was I who ultimately was in for the humilliation, however.
At this point I should point out how the chessclub kept score of the games played- there was a 'chess-ladder' fixed to the wall with (predictably) the names of all those playing, jostelling for position, firmly convinced of their own superiority of intent, their status as a credible humanbeing dependent on their ability to move off the proverbial 'bottom rung'.
So, my first game came along and after about 30 - 40 minutes I had comfortably decimated my opponents pieces and backed him into a corner before administering the coup de grace checkmate.
Buoyed up by my recent success, I validated my being by moving my name tag up one position from the bottom of the ladder, whilst my erstwhile foe tasted the bitterness of defeat and sank to the lowest of the low; sullied for evermore by this elementary failure in a battle of witts and guile.
The next game was a little different. My adversary (a spotty little oikk from form 12) and I sat opposite eachother, each eyeing the other with suspision and I wager I caught a glimpse of carefully concealed contempt directed at me. Evidently I could expect trouble; the game might even last untill next week! Even in my wildest speculations I had not counted on being thrashed so spectacularily and in so few moves.
Ten minutes later it was all over; Checkmate! (or for those of the younger txt generation 'chekm8').
My position on the ladder of success plumeted from the dizzying heights of penultimate to ultimate bottom and to make things even worse, my first opponent had moved on by winning a game of his own, so I did not evan have the solidarity of misery loving company. Still, it was early days yet and I was sure that as the weeks progressed our club organiser would begin to impart such subtle knowlege and cunning stratagems as to make the whole process an endevour to be inspired by. Wrong again.
In an effort to regain the shreds of my dignity, I began another game - with the same result - defeat! This pretty much marked out the pattern for the next several games, until crushed by my continuing lack of success (visible to all and sundry on the shining ladder of worth) I finally quit the chess club to find a more worth while persuit for my tallents - hockey, which as it turned out I was pretty good at.

Now, I must leave this view of the yester-year of my youth and reflect upon an important lesson in life which I realised later was summed up rather succinctly in my above tale. All of existance is a struggle to get off the bottom rung of society, to distance one's self from the lowest of the low, weather in employment or deeds and beliefs; everyday life is filled with such little pointers of our worth as an individual or part of a greater whole, some only visible to ourselves, others are in such plain view of everyone else that it can be quite a challenge to even admit their existance to yourself.
As analogys go, the ladder is a fairly obvious one, yet it is none the less an accurate one at that, but filled with such gems as: if at first you do not succeed, try, try again- or more interestingly for me- if you are totally rubbish at something, try something else, you might be plesantly supprised that there are many other things you might be good at or even excell at.
It was not until many years later I understood what lay at the heart of my abysmal preformance at the school chess club. It was not that I lacked ability to learn (as proved by my surviving to adulthood and gaining some reasonable qualifications and, eventually, a job I can live with), nor that the other kids were any better at chess than me. The simple and shocking fact was they cheated. I know, I know, how is it possible to cheat at chess? I mean, it's hardly possible to sneak an extra knight up your shirt cuff or rigg the pieces before you deal them hehe. No, these young people had read one of those 'how to win at chess in x number of moves' books and learned the winning formula by rote.
Indeed this revalation contains more than an acceptable amount of truth when viewed in line with the ladder analogy of life. No matter how hard you try at something there will usually be somebody out there who is better at it than you; if not now, then there soon will be. But how they came by their knowlege of how to be better at it than you is what is most important; there's no rule that says knowlege must be aquired by hard work and dedication to a cause, particularily if someother shmuck has done all the legwork for you.

I might not have learned to be a great chess player, but I learned that the quick and dirty route to a goal is usually the most efficient. The chances are that everybody else is up to the same thing, so if you don't want to be left on the bottom rung for the rest of your life, wise up and start taking advantage now!

So, in summation - Chess; not just a game for smart russian dudes and dumb supercomputers which can callculate pi to a million decimal places but couldn't co-ordinate bipedal appendages to remain upright for more than a few seconds. There's deffinately more to it than pushing carved figurines about a chequered board, oh yes indeedy.

[Skybird]

How can reading chess books be considered as cheating?

Many novices at young age do make a big mistake. They think the most intersting part of a match is the opening, and so they start learning chess openings. But they learn them like a tape recorder records music, they do not understand them. So they sit down during the next match, and try to play down the sequence of moves they just have learned.

and then their oppenent throws in a move they have not learned, and all of a sudden they are in trouble, and mess it up. Because now they have to think of their own moves, instead of blindly copying that sequence. since they never have understood what the idea behind this or that opening system is, they violate it's inherent strategic ideas, or give up the potential that they - unknowingly - had build up before.

No, they had not cheated you, Jumpy. No matter how limited their and your abilities were: at that popint of time they just were better prepared than you, that is all!

In tournament chess, sometimes even the first twenty moves of both sides are being played by the books, eventually. Two opponents may copy the complete first half of a match that they did in the past, until one adds a new move of which he thinks it is the better move than that he made back then and that costed him the match.

That's why theory fills whole encyclopedias nowadays. reading chess book is no cheating. It's part of the training, to be better prepared.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But we do not have - a chess corner!

Interesting idea Skybird.

[Iceman]

I'm down with dat idea I played an online game a while back Asheron's Call and was kinda cool they had put chess boards around in the game with pieces like the monsters in the game ..was very cool....we should design one with the naval theme possibly....?DD's....Subs...I don't know.

Only thing I don't like about playing other people is if they are in a rush...I understand there are time limit type games but I don't care for them.....and the occasional lamer who has to use some type of computer to caculate out there moves in order to beat ya...in this case the time limit game is kinda cool cause it does'nt give ample time for the cheat to do his caculations out....anyway good idea Bird.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Iceman

I'm down with dat idea I played an online game a while back Asheron's Call and was kinda cool they had put chess boards around in the game with pieces like the monsters in the game ..was very cool....we should design one with the naval theme possibly....?DD's....Subs...I don't know.

Only thing I don't like about playing other people is if they are in a rush...I understand there are time limit type games but I don't care for them.....and the occasional lamer who has to use some type of computer to caculate out there moves in order to beat ya...in this case the time limit game is kinda cool cause it does'nt give ample time for the cheat to do his caculations out....anyway good idea Bird.

King = Battle ship
Queen = Air craft carrier
Bishop =Light Cruiser
Knight = Destroyer
Rook = Heavy Cruiser
Pawn = Sub

How about that?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Sixpack

Shame, as it is the oldest game-simulation of tactical battle in written history, at least that I know of.

You never heard of Go (AKA Weiqi or Baduk). It dates back to around 2000 BC.

Originally Posted by STEED

King = Battle ship
Queen = Air craft carrier
Bishop =Light Cruiser
Knight = Destroyer
Rook = Heavy Cruiser
Pawn = Sub

How about that?

Battleship and CV should probaly be reversed.

Originally Posted by Skybird

We Hell, every provincial newsppaer with 4 page-editions has a chess corner, but we do not!?

I don't think ours does. Of coruse we don't have "Provinces" here in the US...

[Sixpack]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

You never heard of Go (AKA Weiqi or Baduk). It dates back to around 2000 BC.

Ofcourse ! How could that one slip my mind ?!

[August]

Originally Posted by jumpy

Chess... hmm, reminds me of my one-time excursion into the shady/cliquey world that was my middleschool after school chess club;
I was about 9 or 10 years old and really the most interesting thing on my mind back then was how I could avoid the afterschool sports activitys. So, being the bright spark that I was I thought I'd have a go at the 'Chess Club' - game of skill and strategy as ancient as the oldest thing I knew about - which at that time was my dad, and the strange old geezer who used to cycle the wrong way up the fast lane of the duelcarridgeway on our morning run to school.
Anyway, the first session came and I was looking forwards to being shown the rudiments of how the game was played and understanding some slightly more advanced methods of humilliating your opponent. It was I who ultimately was in for the humilliation, however.
At this point I should point out how the chessclub kept score of the games played- there was a 'chess-ladder' fixed to the wall with (predictably) the names of all those playing, jostelling for position, firmly convinced of their own superiority of intent, their status as a credible humanbeing dependent on their ability to move off the proverbial 'bottom rung'.
So, my first game came along and after about 30 - 40 minutes I had comfortably decimated my opponents pieces and backed him into a corner before administering the coup de grace checkmate.
Buoyed up by my recent success, I validated my being by moving my name tag up one position from the bottom of the ladder, whilst my erstwhile foe tasted the bitterness of defeat and sank to the lowest of the low; sullied for evermore by this elementary failure in a battle of witts and guile.
The next game was a little different. My adversary (a spotty little oikk from form 12) and I sat opposite eachother, each eyeing the other with suspision and I wager I caught a glimpse of carefully concealed contempt directed at me. Evidently I could expect trouble; the game might even last untill next week! Even in my wildest speculations I had not counted on being thrashed so spectacularily and in so few moves.
Ten minutes later it was all over; Checkmate! (or for those of the younger txt generation 'chekm8').
My position on the ladder of success plumeted from the dizzying heights of penultimate to ultimate bottom and to make things even worse, my first opponent had moved on by winning a game of his own, so I did not evan have the solidarity of misery loving company. Still, it was early days yet and I was sure that as the weeks progressed our club organiser would begin to impart such subtle knowlege and cunning stratagems as to make the whole process an endevour to be inspired by. Wrong again.
In an effort to regain the shreds of my dignity, I began another game - with the same result - defeat! This pretty much marked out the pattern for the next several games, until crushed by my continuing lack of success (visible to all and sundry on the shining ladder of worth) I finally quit the chess club to find a more worth while persuit for my tallents - hockey, which as it turned out I was pretty good at.

Now, I must leave this view of the yester-year of my youth and reflect upon an important lesson in life which I realised later was summed up rather succinctly in my above tale. All of existance is a struggle to get off the bottom rung of society, to distance one's self from the lowest of the low, weather in employment or deeds and beliefs; everyday life is filled with such little pointers of our worth as an individual or part of a greater whole, some only visible to ourselves, others are in such plain view of everyone else that it can be quite a challenge to even admit their existance to yourself.
As analogys go, the ladder is a fairly obvious one, yet it is none the less an accurate one at that, but filled with such gems as: if at first you do not succeed, try, try again- or more interestingly for me- if you are totally rubbish at something, try something else, you might be plesantly supprised that there are many other things you might be good at or even excell at.
It was not until many years later I understood what lay at the heart of my abysmal preformance at the school chess club. It was not that I lacked ability to learn (as proved by my surviving to adulthood and gaining some reasonable qualifications and, eventually, a job I can live with), nor that the other kids were any better at chess than me. The simple and shocking fact was they cheated. I know, I know, how is it possible to cheat at chess? I mean, it's hardly possible to sneak an extra knight up your shirt cuff or rigg the pieces before you deal them hehe. No, these young people had read one of those 'how to win at chess in x number of moves' books and learned the winning formula by rote.
Indeed this revalation contains more than an acceptable amount of truth when viewed in line with the ladder analogy of life. No matter how hard you try at something there will usually be somebody out there who is better at it than you; if not now, then there soon will be. But how they came by their knowlege of how to be better at it than you is what is most important; there's no rule that says knowlege must be aquired by hard work and dedication to a cause, particularily if someother shmuck has done all the legwork for you.

I might not have learned to be a great chess player, but I learned that the quick and dirty route to a goal is usually the most efficient. The chances are that everybody else is up to the same thing, so if you don't want to be left on the bottom rung for the rest of your life, wise up and start taking advantage now!

So, in summation - Chess; not just a game for smart russian dudes and dumb supercomputers which can callculate pi to a million decimal places but couldn't co-ordinate bipedal appendages to remain upright for more than a few seconds. There's deffinately more to it than pushing carved figurines about a chequered board, oh yes indeedy.

Geez and i've always just considered the game of chess as "fun"...

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by August

/snip/ Geez and i've always just considered the game of chess as "fun"...

lol what can I say? it was a slow day at work... though I do say I hope somebody appreciated the slight humour there

[porphy]

I'm in. Chess rules. Warning, I have some chess books in my home Hope I won't be looked at as a cheater... For example I read Attack with Mikhail Tal, however I will never be able to attack in a way that looks like a Tal attack...

Cheers Porphy

[Takeda Shingen]

I play as well. Neat idea.

EDIT: To add, the digesting of material found in books is not cheating. The developing player is supposed to study openings and games, as well as keep abreast on the continuously developing theory. How else is one supposed to keep up on the ever-evolving world of hypermodern chess? Personally consult with Yasser Seirawan? That's just silly.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Personally consult with Yasser Seirawan? That's just silly.

Funny you should say that. Yasser Seirawan grew up in Seattle. Saw him play in a tournament once.

I played on a team in high school. However, I gave up chess years ago. So many games ended in a draw or perpetual checkmate. No luck factor to keep things interesting. Plus you never know if the opponent you are playing on-line is cheating by using a chess program set to the 'Deep Blue' level.

[Skybird]

The use of books was considered to be perfectly acceptable in correspondence chess at least when I played that for some years during the mid-80s. Correspondence chess even was high-rated due to it'S educational effect - becasue the using of books. It made you a better player for sure. I do not know, but the use of computers for that probably is acceptable as well today. You couldn't control it anyhow. Maybe it's importance has faded out in the last years and gave room to the online chess forums and virtual arenas. Does anyone know about the status of correspondence chess today?

Almost become sentimental, when thinkling of those years, and my early board computers. Today I am collecting certain models of that age. My pride is Sargon 2.5 ARB by Chafitz, unfortunately it is broken and does not work. Gave it away to experts two times, for repair, but they said it needs two parts that are very hard to be found nowadays. I have several others from that period as well, Chess Challengers and Mephistos.