@A-T_A-S I suggest that you write in English, or at least translate your original texts into English using Google Translate or Deepl before posting. It's not difficult but it shouldn't be the task for those who don't speak your language, because this thread has been started and continued in English. Thanks in advance.
@Former_Player said in #30:
> @nicbentulan That's an excellent question! I'm definitely for B. The only point is that the tournaments must employ a slower (preferrably classical) time control in order for chess players and fans to be able to realise the genuine beauty and profundity of this complex game. Otherwise, many would indeed find no harmony in chess960, or not enough time to solve the problems it poses during games, and feel no need to take it up altogether.
>
> It's similar to complicated music which needs a thorough repeated listeting in order to be appreciated and admired while sounding like a cacophony or uninteresting if listened to on-the-run. But when it comes to chess, historically the game has been seen as a complex mental activity which made people think. That is what has been making it so attractive and giving it an aura of something that improves intellect, personality etc. So why should we agree to shrinking it all down to rapid, 3-minute and 1-minute? Because the 'fashion setters' say so? 'The time is different now, there's no place for slow events and we must comply with the demands of our time'? Well, who exactly has the authority to decide what is characteristic of the current time and what isn't? Does this overwhelming speeding-up of the game really benefit many people - aside from the organisers who are now able to conduct more events in a given period of time and thus collect more money?
>
> BTW here's what Magnus said last year (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Views_of_grandmasters):
>
> "I would love to see more Fischer [Random] Chess being played over-the-board in a classical format. That would be very interesting to me, because I feel that that particular format is pretty well suited to classical chess as basically you need a lot of time in order to be able to play the game even remotely decently. And you can see that in the way that Fischer [Random] Chess is being played now when it is played in a rapid format. The quality of the games isn't very high because we make such fundamental mistakes in the opening. We don't understand it nearly enough and I think that would increase a lot if we were given a classical time control there".
I support. I also spoke about this
twitter.com/romanovchess/status/1466385085620539403
twitter.com/romanovchess/status/1466394236400586760
But they listen to Magnus (Google Translate)
> @nicbentulan That's an excellent question! I'm definitely for B. The only point is that the tournaments must employ a slower (preferrably classical) time control in order for chess players and fans to be able to realise the genuine beauty and profundity of this complex game. Otherwise, many would indeed find no harmony in chess960, or not enough time to solve the problems it poses during games, and feel no need to take it up altogether.
>
> It's similar to complicated music which needs a thorough repeated listeting in order to be appreciated and admired while sounding like a cacophony or uninteresting if listened to on-the-run. But when it comes to chess, historically the game has been seen as a complex mental activity which made people think. That is what has been making it so attractive and giving it an aura of something that improves intellect, personality etc. So why should we agree to shrinking it all down to rapid, 3-minute and 1-minute? Because the 'fashion setters' say so? 'The time is different now, there's no place for slow events and we must comply with the demands of our time'? Well, who exactly has the authority to decide what is characteristic of the current time and what isn't? Does this overwhelming speeding-up of the game really benefit many people - aside from the organisers who are now able to conduct more events in a given period of time and thus collect more money?
>
> BTW here's what Magnus said last year (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Views_of_grandmasters):
>
> "I would love to see more Fischer [Random] Chess being played over-the-board in a classical format. That would be very interesting to me, because I feel that that particular format is pretty well suited to classical chess as basically you need a lot of time in order to be able to play the game even remotely decently. And you can see that in the way that Fischer [Random] Chess is being played now when it is played in a rapid format. The quality of the games isn't very high because we make such fundamental mistakes in the opening. We don't understand it nearly enough and I think that would increase a lot if we were given a classical time control there".
I support. I also spoke about this
twitter.com/romanovchess/status/1466385085620539403
twitter.com/romanovchess/status/1466394236400586760
But they listen to Magnus (Google Translate)
@A-T_A-S said in #29:
> Таким образом будет выявлен Абсолютный чемпион по шахматам с последующим переходом только на новые шахматы
OMG like this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2006
> Спасибо
you're welcome i guess XD
> Таким образом будет выявлен Абсолютный чемпион по шахматам с последующим переходом только на новые шахматы
OMG like this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2006
> Спасибо
you're welcome i guess XD
@Former_Player said in #30:
> @nicbentulan That's an excellent question! I'm definitely for B. The only point is that the tournaments must employ a slower (preferrably classical) time control in order for chess players and fans to be able to realise the genuine beauty and profundity of this complex game. Otherwise, many would indeed find no harmony in chess960, or not enough time to solve the problems it poses during games, and feel no need to take it up altogether.
>
> It's similar to complicated music which needs a thorough repeated listeting in order to be appreciated and admired while sounding like a cacophony or uninteresting if listened to on-the-run. But when it comes to chess, historically the game has been seen as a complex mental activity which made people think. That is what has been making it so attractive and giving it an aura of something that improves intellect, personality etc. So why should we agree to shrinking it all down to rapid, 3-minute and 1-minute? Because the 'fashion setters' say so? 'The time is different now, there's no place for slow events and we must comply with the demands of our time'? Well, who exactly has the authority to decide what is characteristic of the current time and what isn't? Does this overwhelming speeding-up of the game really benefit many people - aside from the organisers who are now able to conduct more events in a given period of time and thus collect more money?
>
> BTW here's what Magnus said last year (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Views_of_grandmasters):
>
> "I would love to see more Fischer [Random] Chess being played over-the-board in a classical format. That would be very interesting to me, because I feel that that particular format is pretty well suited to classical chess as basically you need a lot of time in order to be able to play the game even remotely decently. And you can see that in the way that Fischer [Random] Chess is being played now when it is played in a rapid format. The quality of the games isn't very high because we make such fundamental mistakes in the opening. We don't understand it nearly enough and I think that would increase a lot if we were given a classical time control there".
FYI: i think i made a mistake. lol
i think the word 'interest' in option A is different from the word 'interest' in option B idk but thanks for replying!
www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/r6fjlz/when_are_we_getting_a_world_chess960_championship/hmzobyr/?context=3
> @nicbentulan That's an excellent question! I'm definitely for B. The only point is that the tournaments must employ a slower (preferrably classical) time control in order for chess players and fans to be able to realise the genuine beauty and profundity of this complex game. Otherwise, many would indeed find no harmony in chess960, or not enough time to solve the problems it poses during games, and feel no need to take it up altogether.
>
> It's similar to complicated music which needs a thorough repeated listeting in order to be appreciated and admired while sounding like a cacophony or uninteresting if listened to on-the-run. But when it comes to chess, historically the game has been seen as a complex mental activity which made people think. That is what has been making it so attractive and giving it an aura of something that improves intellect, personality etc. So why should we agree to shrinking it all down to rapid, 3-minute and 1-minute? Because the 'fashion setters' say so? 'The time is different now, there's no place for slow events and we must comply with the demands of our time'? Well, who exactly has the authority to decide what is characteristic of the current time and what isn't? Does this overwhelming speeding-up of the game really benefit many people - aside from the organisers who are now able to conduct more events in a given period of time and thus collect more money?
>
> BTW here's what Magnus said last year (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Views_of_grandmasters):
>
> "I would love to see more Fischer [Random] Chess being played over-the-board in a classical format. That would be very interesting to me, because I feel that that particular format is pretty well suited to classical chess as basically you need a lot of time in order to be able to play the game even remotely decently. And you can see that in the way that Fischer [Random] Chess is being played now when it is played in a rapid format. The quality of the games isn't very high because we make such fundamental mistakes in the opening. We don't understand it nearly enough and I think that would increase a lot if we were given a classical time control there".
FYI: i think i made a mistake. lol
i think the word 'interest' in option A is different from the word 'interest' in option B idk but thanks for replying!
www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/r6fjlz/when_are_we_getting_a_world_chess960_championship/hmzobyr/?context=3
@Former_Player said in #31:
> @A-T_A-S I suggest that you write in English, or at least translate your original texts into English using Google Translate or Deepl before posting. It's not difficult but it shouldn't be the task for those who don't speak your language, because this thread has been started and continued in English. Thanks in advance.
well yeah i guess. but so far i didn't have many issues with the translation.
however... i wish we could see
>Ваш вопрос нужно формулировать иначе, должен ли Магнус Карлсен быть включен в турнир претендентов по 960.
in english XD
> @A-T_A-S I suggest that you write in English, or at least translate your original texts into English using Google Translate or Deepl before posting. It's not difficult but it shouldn't be the task for those who don't speak your language, because this thread has been started and continued in English. Thanks in advance.
well yeah i guess. but so far i didn't have many issues with the translation.
however... i wish we could see
>Ваш вопрос нужно формулировать иначе, должен ли Магнус Карлсен быть включен в турнир претендентов по 960.
in english XD
@nicbentulan said in #33:
> @ A-T_A-S сказал в No 29:
>
>
>
> OMG как это?
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2006
>
Точно! Сперва устроить войну, перепалку с игроками в обычные шахматы. А потом сыграть с ними объединительный турнир. =) Какой мир без войны? =))) Хотя есть надежда, что новые шахматы поддержат сразу.
Но, у нас плохой пример с 960, когда Фишера мало кто поддержал. Тогда, как мне кажется компьютеры и дебютная теория были не так весомы, как сейчас. Можно было дышать творчески. А сейчас же ситуация созрела для решительных действий и изменений в шахматах.
> @ A-T_A-S сказал в No 29:
>
>
>
> OMG как это?
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2006
>
Точно! Сперва устроить войну, перепалку с игроками в обычные шахматы. А потом сыграть с ними объединительный турнир. =) Какой мир без войны? =))) Хотя есть надежда, что новые шахматы поддержат сразу.
Но, у нас плохой пример с 960, когда Фишера мало кто поддержал. Тогда, как мне кажется компьютеры и дебютная теория были не так весомы, как сейчас. Можно было дышать творчески. А сейчас же ситуация созрела для решительных действий и изменений в шахматах.
@nicbentulan хорошая идея реванша между Уэсли Со и Магнусом Карсленом (увидел ваши комментарии) на Youtube. Поддерживаю! Даже в том случае, если чемпионат мира по 960 не проводится...
@A-T_A-S said in #37:
> (увидел ваши комментарии)
Благодарю/Спасибо. который комментарии?
which i hope translates to:
thanks/thank you. which comments?
> (увидел ваши комментарии)
Благодарю/Спасибо. который комментарии?
which i hope translates to:
thanks/thank you. which comments?
@nicbentulan said in #38:
> @ A-T_A-S сказал в No 37:
>
>
> Благодарю/Спасибо. который комментарии?
>
> which i hope translates to:
>
> thanks/thank you. which comments?
На Youtube в комментариях под роликом 960 у Накамуры
> @ A-T_A-S сказал в No 37:
>
>
> Благодарю/Спасибо. который комментарии?
>
> which i hope translates to:
>
> thanks/thank you. which comments?
На Youtube в комментариях под роликом 960 у Накамуры
@A-T_A-S said in #39:
> На Youtube в комментариях под роликом 960 у Накамуры
this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5my99K-eSI
> На Youtube в комментариях под роликом 960 у Накамуры
this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5my99K-eSI
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.