Bored with chess...READ this.

I have been playing chess for nearly 4 decades and am mostly BORED with it. Anything, I don’t care what it is, gets boring after doing it for that length of time. And so it is with chess. The IMMORTAL Bobby Fischer hardly ever played “normal” chess anymore--thus the invention of Fischer Random Chess.

I’m sure all you long time chessoholics feel the SAME was as I do. BORED. We feel as if there is nothing left to conquer. Nothing new. NO more challenges to meet. We are at our ceiling (which we KNOW there is one) and there is NO MORE improving. Once we reach our PREDEFINED ceiling, there is no more going up. We have reached the proverbial top of EVEREST. We simply can’t improve anymore and lose interest.

Well, I was doing some chess research and found that YASSER SEIRAWAN feels the exact same way that I do. I will provide the link at the end of this article, but I MUST summarize a few reasons behind SEIRAWAN CHESS, so as to LEGITIMIZE my view (which is indeed correct).

“…rather than becoming a test of skill, imagination and creativity, chess had become a matter of knowledge and technique.”

“A player who knows the theory of an opening will beat a player who doesn't. Preparation and memorization count for more than skill and ability. Players no longer have to work things out, even before the game - computers will do that and the player's job is to memorize the results.”

“…faster time controls in tournaments (to pressure players into making mistakes).”  This is the DUMBING DOWN OF CHESS. I cannot speak loudly enough against faster time controls. Heck, let’s just put a 55 mph speed limit in NASCAR and Formula One races.

I do believe I speak for ALL players who have invested as much time as I have into the ONCE GREAT game of chess. Something needs to be done within the chess world, and QUICK. Whether it is rewrite the rules, expand the board, add new pieces, etc., chess needs to reinvent itself lest it have the appeal of checkers or tic-tac-toe. Seirawan at least is taking some measures to revive it. Although I’m not sure his variation will catch on, but at least he’s doing something. And for that, I give him credit.

http://www.seirawanchess.com/

As a matter of fact, I don't.

You are misrepresenting Yasser Seiriwan's views. I've listened to enough of his chess broadcasts to know that he remains enthusiastic about the game. He created a chess variant--and a challenging one--out of interest, not disinterest.

How can you play chess for four decades and still reason no better than a twelve year old child?

Ziryab, I get the feeling if I said today is SUNDAY, you'd find some way to argue with me about it.

Every single post you make ends on a negative note.

You need to start ACKNOWLEDGING facts. You need to start doing research.

It takes two to tango and I don't like the tango.

That's not true. A large majority of your posts contain factual errors.

"Nothing new. NO more challenges to meet"

Are you world champion for decades so?

10^120.

Thats the estimated lower bound of the number of possible positions.

According to the person who formulated that incredible number: " A machine operating at the rate of one variation per micro-second would require over 10⁹⁰ years to calculate the first move" So I would imagine it would take a very very long time to become bored with chess!

although after 40 minutes...

Ok, Let's ASSUME that every single post I make is riddled with factual errors. Is is TOO MUCH for me to ask people to point them out WITH their own corrections?

That's All I ask. See, everyone who posts in my topics says the same thing (I have nothing but errors) but NO ONE ever points them out and corrects them with a credible source.

I can see right through the 'BAITERS". I, teacher_1, am coining a new internet term called BAITERS. A baiter is someone who is dangling a piece of "food" infront of the BIG FISH (that would be me) in hopes of getting themselves a trophy for their den. But see, this big fish is always one step ahead of you. Always anticipating your 1st and 2nd and 3rd moves before you even begin to think about your first move (that's why I excel at chess....foresight).

Finally, posters, if I have errors, I DEMAND that they get quoted and THEN corrected. Also, I demand that the correction be supported by some CREDIBLE source and a link provided.

Is that too much to ask?

idiocy is in.  go teacher_1.  you're a leader.

i have a feeling that tomorrow i will argue with you.

didnt u get banned :d

"The IMMORTAL Bobby Fischer hardly ever played “normal” chess anymore--thus the invention of Fischer Random Chess."

I believe Fischer felt he had nothing left to prove once he won the WCh. Even before that, he'd struck down in impressive fashion almost all the challenging  opponents the world had to offer. Chess was no longer a challenge because he had achieved its ultimate accolade, not because he had fully mastered it (which is not possible).

"I’m sure all you long time chessoholics feel the SAME was as I do. BORED."

No.

"We feel as if there is nothing left to conquer. Nothing new. NO more challenges to meet. We are at our ceiling (which we KNOW there is one) and there is NO MORE improving."

Poppycock :) Someone can always improve at something. Even World Champions have weak spots and make errors. It all depends what motivation you have, along with what time and effort you are willing/able to put in.
Besides, chess is too complex for the human mind to ever *completely* master.

He mentioned ceilings, clearly his wasn't being the World Champion, so for him there were no challenges left.

First, you could not be more wrong in your representation of my views.  WE don't feel BORED.  You might, but I certainly do not.  I doubt too, that you have reached your "pre-defined ceiling"...  With centuries of chess literature representing the best minds and teachers to have ever played the game, surely there are some new (to you) ideas that have not been fully explored.

I believe (remember: this is only my OPINION) that every player has a certain level of talent that defines how far he/she can EASILY progress.  Once that level has been reached progress is still possible, just more difficult.  It is at this level that the motivated player will challenge himself to become better.  Whether that method is self-study, asking for help from a teacher or mentor, or perhaps a combination of both the player who loves the game and applies himself to becoming a better player can improve no matter what his current level.  The only player who cannot improve is the one who doesn't try.  On the chance that a player can't find a way to get better, I suggest an appropriate philosophy as to the reason might be "Means you're doing something wrong ;)", as so neatly put in a previous post. (I laughed out loud when that was read in context above!)

If you are "bored" with chess and wish to play a variant (or an entirely different game), more power to you.  Hopefully you find a past-time that is entertaining and rewarding, and gives you the satisfaction that you no longer find when playing the greatest game man ever invented.  As one of the many players who still gets a thrill and finds joy in a simple game of chess, I feel sorry for you in your loss. 

My Condolences,

Brian

lol...

Corrections to your errors of fact and logic have been my sole contribution to the threads begun by you and by cheater_1. I have given credible sources, including François Labelle at Univ. California, Berkeley, New in Chess, and specific information from my homemade databases (Chess Base databases updated through The Week in Chess, and those from my online play).

No where at the link you provided, nor in your post itself, is there evidence that Yasser Seirawan is bored with chess. Indeed, the central criticism is that knowledge supercedes skill, and opening theory lasts well into the middlegame in certain lines. I am pointing out your factual error again. See quote.

The motivation behind all the proposed reforms of chess have been the same - rather than becoming a test of skill, imagination and creativity, chess had become a matter of knowledge and technique. Capablanca's pessimistic view that chess was "played out" some 80 years ago was shown by the subsequent development of chess to be premature and unjustified, although in retrospect Capablanca was prescient and his views were hardly deserving of the ridicule they received. The feeling that chess was played too much by rote has been shared by many players for many years. For example, Capablanca was quoted in the Charleston Gazette on February 12, 1928: "In chess today everything is known to great players. There are no new moves, no new tactics to consider. If the game is to grow it will have to be modified."

With the advances and elaboration of opening theory and the advent of the internet, databases and chess-playing computer engines, Capablanca's intuition has been vindicated, just as it has been in so many of his games. At the highest level, new moves are seen only after 20, 25 or more theoretical moves are played, if they are seen at all. A player who knows the theory of an opening will beat a player who doesn't. Preparation and memorization count for more than skill and ability. Players no longer have to work things out, even before the game - computers will do that and the player's job is to memorize the results. (emphasis added)

http://www.seirawanchess.com/

Tell me, now, how showing that your own source fails to support your argument is not a credible source, nor pointing out your factual errors?

BTW, it was Monday in parts of the world when you said that I would argue if you stated it was Sunday. 

While I am clearly younger than you teacher_1, I have played chess off and on throughout my 33 short years on this planet and I still find that there is always something to learn about the game. Someone will always come up with some sort of unorthodox way of playing the game that will throw off even the best in the game. I really enjoy the game of chess. It provides me with a way to relieve stress without exerting any physical force and has afforded me the opportunity to meet some very wonderful people on this site. I am sorry that you feel this way about the game. If you really feel that way about chess, then you should have absolutely no reason to be on this site then. Not trying to start anything with you, just stating the obvious.

I leave chess.com for months and this guy is still here? Surprised.