Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order Later
[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
M Winther wrote on Fri, Jan 18, 2008 08:02 PM UTC:
'In defense of chess as a party game'

Chess during the medieval era was a very popular parlour game, especially among the upper classes. But by the turn of the seventeenth century it was no longer fashionable. Marilyn Yalom says:
 
'Ironically enough, it may be that the elevation of the chess queen and the bishop to new levels of strength had something to do with the dwindling numbers of female participants. Once those two pieces acquired a greater range of mobility, it took fewer moves, on average, to complete a match. New chess was no longer suited to leisurely encounters between ladies and gentlemen that could last a day or more, with interruptions for eating, drinking, dancing, and singing, or, in more plebian settings, for stirring the pot and nursing the baby. New chess was fast and fierce. A match could be over in a few hours or even a few moves if you didn't pay strict attention. Hands had to be ready to grasp a piece on the board, and not a knee under the table. Chess would no longer tolerate dalliance of any sort.
As chess became less social and more competititive, the professional chess player arrived on the scene. Forget the troubadour chess partner or the attentive lover or even the town Wunderkind who was allowed to take time off after the harvest to play with the local lord. Now there were full-time champions earning their living from arranged matches in princely settings throughout Europe' (Yalom, Birth of the Chess Queen, pp. 228-9).

It is against this backdrop that we must view many chess variants of later date. For instance, certain big board variants (10x10) fulfil the criterion of a slower game suitable for the leisurely parlour. I mention two examples, Paulovits's variant c. 1890 : 
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/paulovitsgame.htm 
and my own Mastodon Chess:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/mastodon.htm 

To the modern chess players the empty spaces at the flanks must appear like immense deserts where pieces can roam about without seeing much sign of enemy opposition. Such a game can never acquire the 'nerve' of standard chess. But this is a good quality because then we are somehow back at the leisurely parlour game where the technique of moving pieces needn't be that exacting. 

I want to strike a blow for a form of chess which isn't that competitive. The above two big board variants contain many finesses, but if played by strong players they are likely to end in a draw, I suppose. Outside the sporting context this is not disadvantageous. If we want a still slower game then we can turn to 1000 year old Shatranj Kamil, allegedly invented by Timur Lenk. There are also slow standard board variants, like Thai Chess (Makruk).

The conclusion is that it's much up to the character of the game and its rules if a game is to become a popular social occupation. Chess had acquired an immense romantic status during the medieval era, but now there is almost nothing left of this. During the 19th century, people could still be seen playing chess in a lounge, smoking a cigar, sipping from a glass of cognac. But today chess is merely professional. Occasional park players also want money.

Mats

Charles Daniel wrote on Fri, Jan 18, 2008 09:39 PM UTC:
It seems to me that chess may be even MORE popular than ever before. You can easily get a live game at freechess.org at any time. I think it would be more reasonable to assume that the general public is less interested in GM chess now than during the Fischer era.
Having also created a number of large board variants (e.g. see Insane Ninja Chess) and needing to compare them playtesting-wise to orthodox chess, I was forced to play quite a few games and have come to realize that standard chess really does live up to the 'hype' touted by chess lovers.

M Winther wrote on Sat, Jan 19, 2008 07:10 AM UTC:
Truth is that chess is on the decline. Clubs are closing down all over the
Western world. 

Mats

Gary Gifford wrote on Sat, Jan 19, 2008 03:04 PM UTC:
Though physical clubs are on the decline there has been an evolution toward the virtual chess club. ICC, for example. is a very serious, large worldwide on-line chess club... and there are many more of these electronic sites. If we take all the on-line members and players we may see that chess is not actually on the decline... but simply transitioning to the Internet era. In my local club, which folded after 10 years of operation, I perhaps played no more than 20 different people over and over again. However, on-line I have played hundreds of games with different players from all over the world.

P.S. My Google search for 'online chess' showed 3,180,000 results.


Sam Trenholme wrote on Wed, Jan 23, 2008 05:27 PM UTC:
I think the problem with Chess as a social game is that there isn't enough luck in the game. It's a game where, when two people sit down to play, you pretty much know who is going to win the game.

A good social game is one with easy rules that people can learn quickly; I'm thinking the card game 'spoons': One less spoon in the center than the number of players; each person has four cards, gets one card from the left, passes one card to the right. When someone has 4-of-a-kind, they grab for a spoon; then everyone else grabs a spoon, irregardless of whether they have a 4-of-a-kind. The last person won't have a spoon, and is eliminated and the next round begins.

Chess is not a social game; women in particular are very uncomfortable playing Chess because of its competitive aspects. It's a game where men are in a contest to see who the better man is. Since, these days, a computer can give the world champion a hell of a game, I don't see the point of seeing how well I can do something a computer can do much better.

I can see why chess clubs are dying out and going to the Internet; people generally don't play chess to make new friends, and the game is no fun when two players have different skill levels.

- Sam


Charles Daniel wrote on Wed, Jan 23, 2008 06:30 PM UTC:
Boxing and mixed martial arts are violent sports where two men compete to see who the better man is - no problem in popularity there. And with the commentator mentioning at least 5 times during the match that this is a 'chess match'.
Chess as a social game to meet new friends may decline but as an exciting battle of wits between two people on the internet - quite clearly increasing in popularity.

Regarding the luck attribute - the chess analogy also shows up in poker commentary when two players are trying to outwit each other are in commentator's words 'playing a chess match'.

I doubt if anyone cares if computer plays chess better than them (except perhaps some top level GMs). Cars can travel faster than runners too, - do we see a decline in marathon/running sports?

Interesting Luck /gambling motif in chess : No Limit Bet Chess

Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Jan 23, 2008 06:55 PM UTC:
We could hope that variants might fill the game role for parlor chess. The
competitive aspect is there, but with new and different games available,
Sam's assertion that you know who will win when you sit down no longer
holds as true. And while they do not usually bring luck into the picture,
variants do generally bring unpredictability into the game, which plays a
similar role. I fear, however, the only way to bring women back into
chessplay in numbers roughly equaling men is through early education [aka:
brainwashing]. After all, it was 'suitable education and pursuits' that
had noble women and men playing the game in the beginning.

7 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.