Relocation In The Initial Array - OzChess

**MatsW** · 05-10-2009, 02:02 AM

Today it's necessary to learn long and tedious theory in order to play
serious chess. Today's grandmasters must be theoretically
well-prepared rather than intuitive and creative. Had orthochess been
somewhat more complex, then a greater choice of opening lines would be
at their disposal. In this way professional chess could remain
creative and stimulating. This would be a boon for chess at large and
ensure that it won't lose in popularity. In that way the game can
attract other categories of people who aren't particularly
theoretical, nor interested in becoming memorization artists. They can
become strong players anyway. My proposal is to enhance orthochess by
a relocation procedure, whilst keeping the option to play the standard
position. See the following link to an article with diagrams, and
programs that implement these changes:
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/che...onvariants.htm

/Mats

**Just2Good** · 05-10-2009, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by MatsW

Today it's necessary to learn long and tedious theory in order to play serious chess.

I disagree. Opening theory is only one aspect of the game. If you want to improve quickly, a person is best off studying tactics.

**Jaydon** · 05-10-2009, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

I disagree. Opening theory is only one aspect of the game. If you want to improve quickly, a person is best off studying tactics.

Yes, first the endgame then the middle game. Opening theory comes last.

**MatsW** · 05-10-2009, 01:59 PM

The issue is, rather, how chess can remain fun and exciting. Chess is
still engaging, but it's not at all like it was before. Comparatively,
imagine how an American trapper felt in the 18th century, moving
into Western territory. It was an unimaginable feeling of freedom.
Today, people can only travel along the highways.

The problem is real and cannot be waved aside like this. For instance,
chessplayers sometimes learn opening theory to the umpteenth move in
order to reiterate the moves soullessly in a game. I once observed two
reasonably strong amateurs repeating the moves of a very long Sicilian
Dragon variant that ended in a draw. Then they shook hands. What's the
point, for an amateur, to travel to the tournament hall, and waste
their valuable time reiterating moves like a machine? There must be
some psychological attractancy in this curious behaviour. For
instance, had he instead played 8.h3, then they would have been
involved in an engaging fight, demanding creativity.

My argument why we must sooner or later do something to breath fresh
life into chess can be summed up like this. The best opening move is
1.e4. But after 1...e5 you have no other choice than to
go into 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4, etc. etc. There is no other
option than to play the long variations in Ruy Lopez because all
alternatives are inferior. One can't really play the King's gambit
anymore, and combine like Adolf Anderssen. There is no point, anymore,
to play the Vienna Game, etc. Today, its becoming less and less
worthwhile to play inferior variants, due to opening preparations.

Hence you must analyse and play the same professional opening lines
over and over. It's like squeezing out the last from a tube of caviar.
It would be a great relief if there existed an equally good line
against 1...e5. Only one single alternative would be a great
boon.

It is "freedom of choice" that I am after. But there exist no
satisfactory alternatives because the variance in chess is just too
small. Whether the computers know everything, and have analysed every
line, that doesn't bother me much. It is of no consequence. It
suffices if one had had recourse to several variations that are fully
adequate. On this link is my article which presents a possible
solution. The other day I added yet another variant, capable of
creating 484 different positions.
Regroupment Chess
/Mats

**Calvin** · 05-10-2009, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by MatsW

The best opening move is 1.e4. But after 1...e5 you have no other choice than to go into 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4, etc. etc. There is no other option than to play the long variations in Ruy Lopez because all alternatives are inferior.

What? I don't think so. The Scandinavian is still played at the highest levels because it is good for black. The king's gambit is also fully playable, it has not been refuted. Even the more positional 2. b3 is playable. No one is forced to play 1...e5, and even if black plays that, white is not then forced to play 2.Nf3.

**Just2Good** · 05-10-2009, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Calvin

What? I don't think so. The Scandinavian is still played at the highest levels because it is good for black. The king's gambit is also fully playable, it has not been refuted. Even the more positional 2. b3 is playable. No one is forced to play 1...e5, and even if black plays that, white is not then forced to play 2.Nf3.

Agreed, but I like Mats' intention to jazz chess up and increase its popularity. Those are noble aspirations.

**MatsW** · 05-10-2009, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Calvin

What? I don't think so. The Scandinavian is still played at the highest levels because it is good for black. The king's gambit is also fully playable, it has not been refuted. Even the more positional 2. b3 is playable. No one is forced to play 1...e5, and even if black plays that, white is not then forced to play 2.Nf3.

I said that after 1.e4 e5, *White* really has no good option, other than to play the long variants in Ruy Lopez if he wants to be certain to get a small advantage. I never argued against the Scandinavian.

The King's gambit is perhaps not refuted, but at least it's equal for black. And with 2.b3 White cannot expect to get an advantage. Should White play the English opening then Black has many roads to equality. If White wants to play "scientifically correct" and maximize his chances, then the path is very narrow. I never argued that White cannot play "Crocophant gambit" and survive.
/Mats

**Jaydon** · 05-10-2009, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by MatsW

I said that after 1.e4 e5, *White* really has no good option than to play the long variants in Ruy Lopez if he wants to be certain to get a small advantage. I never argued against the Scandinavian.

The King's gambit is perhaps not refuted, but it is at least equal for black. And with 2.b3 White cannot expect to get an advantage. Should White play the English opening then Black has many roads to equality. If White wants to play "scientifically correct" and maximize his chances, then the path is very narrow. I never argued that White cannot play "Crocophant gambit" and survive.
/Mats

I do see your point but I don't think the Ruy Lopez is the only serious option. But the most common response to e4 is c5 anyway..

**MatsW** · 05-10-2009, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Jaydon

I do see your point but I don't think the Ruy Lopez is the only serious option. But the most common response to e4 is c5 anyway..

Of course, 1...e5 is not the only serious defence, Aljechin is a superb alternative, as well as the Sicilian. I only gave an example of the frustrating quality of the game, i.e. that after 1...e5 you don't really have the same freedom of moves as you had in the beginning of the 20th century. Theory is narrowing down because it's not worthwhile to play the King's gambit when playing against a prepared opponent.
/Mats

**Jaydon** · 05-10-2009, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by MatsW

Of course, 1...e5 is not the only serious defence, Aljechin is a superb alternative, as well as the Sicilian. I only gave an example of the frustrating quality of the game, i.e. that after 1...e5 you don't really have the same freedom of moves as you had in the beginning of the 20th century. Theory is narrowing down because it's not worthwhile to play the King's gambit when playing against a prepared opponent.
/Mats

Yeah I agree and I don't like how chess has become so theory oriented but I guess just that's the way it's heading.

**Just2Good** · 05-11-2009, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Jaydon

Yeah I agree and I don't like how chess has become so theory oriented but I guess just that's the way it's heading.

Doesn't Fischer Random chess already solve the theory problem?

**Jaydon** · 05-11-2009, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Doesn't Fischer Random chess already solve the theory problem?

Yes but fischer random isn't played an awful lot. At least nowhere near as much as regular chess. Although I did enter a fischer random tournament once and it was quite fun, I also did better then I had been in the regular tournaments.

05-10-2009, 02:02 AM	#1 (permalink)
MatsW Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Sweden Posts: 22	Relocation In The Initial Array Today it's necessary to learn long and tedious theory in order to play serious chess. Today's grandmasters must be theoretically well-prepared rather than intuitive and creative. Had orthochess been somewhat more complex, then a greater choice of opening lines would be at their disposal. In this way professional chess could remain creative and stimulating. This would be a boon for chess at large and ensure that it won't lose in popularity. In that way the game can attract other categories of people who aren't particularly theoretical, nor interested in becoming memorization artists. They can become strong players anyway. My proposal is to enhance orthochess by a relocation procedure, whilst keeping the option to play the standard position. See the following link to an article with diagrams, and programs that implement these changes: http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/che...onvariants.htm /Mats

05-10-2009, 11:49 AM	#2 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by MatsW Today it's necessary to learn long and tedious theory in order to play serious chess. I disagree. Opening theory is only one aspect of the game. If you want to improve quickly, a person is best off studying tactics. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

05-10-2009, 12:39 PM	#3 (permalink)
Jaydon SCTC Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Queensland, Gold Coast Posts: 1,101 ICC Handle: Aussieboy007 FICS Handle: Bermusia	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One I disagree. Opening theory is only one aspect of the game. If you want to improve quickly, a person is best off studying tactics. Yes, first the endgame then the middle game. Opening theory comes last.

05-10-2009, 03:41 PM	#5 (permalink)
Calvin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 268	Originally Posted by MatsW The best opening move is 1.e4. But after 1...e5 you have no other choice than to go into 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4, etc. etc. There is no other option than to play the long variations in Ruy Lopez because all alternatives are inferior. What? I don't think so. The Scandinavian is still played at the highest levels because it is good for black. The king's gambit is also fully playable, it has not been refuted. Even the more positional 2. b3 is playable. No one is forced to play 1...e5, and even if black plays that, white is not then forced to play 2.Nf3.

05-10-2009, 04:45 PM	#6 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Calvin What? I don't think so. The Scandinavian is still played at the highest levels because it is good for black. The king's gambit is also fully playable, it has not been refuted. Even the more positional 2. b3 is playable. No one is forced to play 1...e5, and even if black plays that, white is not then forced to play 2.Nf3. Agreed, but I like Mats' intention to jazz chess up and increase its popularity. Those are noble aspirations. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

05-10-2009, 01:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
MatsW Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Sweden Posts: 22	The issue is, rather, how chess can remain fun and exciting. Chess is still engaging, but it's not at all like it was before. Comparatively, imagine how an American trapper felt in the 18th century, moving into Western territory. It was an unimaginable feeling of freedom. Today, people can only travel along the highways. The problem is real and cannot be waved aside like this. For instance, chessplayers sometimes learn opening theory to the umpteenth move in order to reiterate the moves soullessly in a game. I once observed two reasonably strong amateurs repeating the moves of a very long Sicilian Dragon variant that ended in a draw. Then they shook hands. What's the point, for an amateur, to travel to the tournament hall, and waste their valuable time reiterating moves like a machine? There must be some psychological attractancy in this curious behaviour. For instance, had he instead played 8.h3, then they would have been involved in an engaging fight, demanding creativity. My argument why we must sooner or later do something to breath fresh life into chess can be summed up like this. The best opening move is 1.e4. But after 1...e5 you have no other choice than to go into 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4, etc. etc. There is no other option than to play the long variations in Ruy Lopez because all alternatives are inferior. One can't really play the King's gambit anymore, and combine like Adolf Anderssen. There is no point, anymore, to play the Vienna Game, etc. Today, its becoming less and less worthwhile to play inferior variants, due to opening preparations. Hence you must analyse and play the same professional opening lines over and over. It's like squeezing out the last from a tube of caviar. It would be a great relief if there existed an equally good line against 1...e5. Only one single alternative would be a great boon. It is "freedom of choice" that I am after. But there exist no satisfactory alternatives because the variance in chess is just too small. Whether the computers know everything, and have analysed every line, that doesn't bother me much. It is of no consequence. It suffices if one had had recourse to several variations that are fully adequate. On this link is my article which presents a possible solution. The other day I added yet another variant, capable of creating 484 different positions. Regroupment Chess /Mats

05-10-2009, 07:48 PM	#7 (permalink)
MatsW Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Sweden Posts: 22	Originally Posted by Calvin What? I don't think so. The Scandinavian is still played at the highest levels because it is good for black. The king's gambit is also fully playable, it has not been refuted. Even the more positional 2. b3 is playable. No one is forced to play 1...e5, and even if black plays that, white is not then forced to play 2.Nf3. I said that after 1.e4 e5, White really has no good option, other than to play the long variants in Ruy Lopez if he wants to be certain to get a small advantage. I never argued against the Scandinavian. The King's gambit is perhaps not refuted, but at least it's equal for black. And with 2.b3 White cannot expect to get an advantage. Should White play the English opening then Black has many roads to equality. If White wants to play "scientifically correct" and maximize his chances, then the path is very narrow. I never argued that White cannot play "Crocophant gambit" and survive. /Mats Last edited by MatsW : 05-10-2009 at 08:39 PM

05-10-2009, 08:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
Jaydon SCTC Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Queensland, Gold Coast Posts: 1,101 ICC Handle: Aussieboy007 FICS Handle: Bermusia	Originally Posted by MatsW I said that after 1.e4 e5, White really has no good option than to play the long variants in Ruy Lopez if he wants to be certain to get a small advantage. I never argued against the Scandinavian. The King's gambit is perhaps not refuted, but it is at least equal for black. And with 2.b3 White cannot expect to get an advantage. Should White play the English opening then Black has many roads to equality. If White wants to play "scientifically correct" and maximize his chances, then the path is very narrow. I never argued that White cannot play "Crocophant gambit" and survive. /Mats I do see your point but I don't think the Ruy Lopez is the only serious option. But the most common response to e4 is c5 anyway..

05-10-2009, 08:44 PM	#9 (permalink)
MatsW Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Sweden Posts: 22	Originally Posted by Jaydon I do see your point but I don't think the Ruy Lopez is the only serious option. But the most common response to e4 is c5 anyway.. Of course, 1...e5 is not the only serious defence, Aljechin is a superb alternative, as well as the Sicilian. I only gave an example of the frustrating quality of the game, i.e. that after 1...e5 you don't really have the same freedom of moves as you had in the beginning of the 20th century. Theory is narrowing down because it's not worthwhile to play the King's gambit when playing against a prepared opponent. /Mats

05-10-2009, 08:57 PM	#10 (permalink)
Jaydon SCTC Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Queensland, Gold Coast Posts: 1,101 ICC Handle: Aussieboy007 FICS Handle: Bermusia	Originally Posted by MatsW Of course, 1...e5 is not the only serious defence, Aljechin is a superb alternative, as well as the Sicilian. I only gave an example of the frustrating quality of the game, i.e. that after 1...e5 you don't really have the same freedom of moves as you had in the beginning of the 20th century. Theory is narrowing down because it's not worthwhile to play the King's gambit when playing against a prepared opponent. /Mats Yeah I agree and I don't like how chess has become so theory oriented but I guess just that's the way it's heading.

05-11-2009, 02:54 PM	#11 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Jaydon Yeah I agree and I don't like how chess has become so theory oriented but I guess just that's the way it's heading. Doesn't Fischer Random chess already solve the theory problem? __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

05-11-2009, 06:29 PM	#12 (permalink)
Jaydon SCTC Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Queensland, Gold Coast Posts: 1,101 ICC Handle: Aussieboy007 FICS Handle: Bermusia	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Doesn't Fischer Random chess already solve the theory problem? Yes but fischer random isn't played an awful lot. At least nowhere near as much as regular chess. Although I did enter a fischer random tournament once and it was quite fun, I also did better then I had been in the regular tournaments.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: