Do you like chess?

[MystyrMystyry]

I recall someone describing the problem as 'it isn't with chess being too long for life, but that life is too short for chess' (an afficianado might know who said it). And that's the main issue since I can remember - there just isn't time. Apparently it's a pretty big pursuit in prison for this reason: lots of slow time to kill.

There's the quote by someone else about there being more possible moves than grains of sand - now I'd be open for a game at the beach any time (which is the place where I tend to embrace my personal insignificance anyway), but on a computer these days give me Human Revolution or Alpha Protocol!

[Emil Miller]

Fischer didn't just win becauase of psychological warfare. Yes, he acted way, way out of line and shouldn't have been allowed to continue the match. However, that doesn't detract from his genius. He beat Larsen 6-0, Taimanov 6-0, and Petrosian 6.5-2.5, a total score of 18.5-2.5 against three of the top grandmasters in the world - a feat that has simply never been done before or since. As a friend of mine said, "Fischer played about 200 points higher than the competition and drug the world with him."

He was erratic, unstable, paranoid, in the final match, yet he was brilliant.

I didn't mean to imply that Fischer wasn't a great player but Spassky's demeanour throughout the contest was such that I thought he should have won. Fischer demeaned his victory, in the eyes of those watching, by his attitude which was as you have described. One wonders what the outcome would have been had he played without the histrionics.

[symphony]

I love chess and I so wish I could play it, I mean, actually play it. I know the rules and all, but I'm pathetic really. I remember this last summer when my best friend came in for a visit, we used to go to a nearby 24/7 café in ungodly hours (2am, 4am...) with a chess board that we recently bought. Luckily he loves chess too, and he's on the same level as I - well, more or less. And although we could easily play against each other on our computers (via chessmaster or something), the idea of playing on a real board was just different, so we bought it even though both of us were badly broke. It was awesome.

[MarkBastable]

It's obviously apocryphal

Ah - so he apocryphally used a word that means the opposite of what he was trying to express, but the chieftain apocryphally knew what he'd intended.

Incidentally, the rice-on-a-chessboard legend - which usually involves the inventor of chess and the potentate for whom he invented it - is a story about the power of exponentials, not about the complexity of the game. It's the movement of the pieces that leads to the almost infinite number of variations, not the number of squares on the board. If it was the number of squares on the board, then draughts (or checkers, if you prefer) would have an almost infinite number of moves too. Which it doesn't. Even apocryphally.

[JuniperWoolf]

Incidentally, the rice-on-a-chessboard legend - which usually involves the inventor of chess and the potentate for whom he invented it - is a story about the power of exponentials, not about the complexity of the game..

Right, it makes the same point as the old scenario: "which would you prefer, a lump sum of a million dollars or a penny doubled each day for a month?"

[Calidore]

If it was the number of squares on the board, then drafts (or checkers, if you prefer) would have an almost infinite number of moves too. Which it doesn't. Even apocryphally.

In fact, a group of computer guys cracked checkers a few years ago. Using their program, a computer can now play a perfect game.

[Big Dante]

It's fantastic, I played throughout primary school but haven't played in a while since I'm at college. Might be time to get back into it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I, unlike most anything else, can't play chess on a computer, whether my opponent is the computer or someone real. There's something about having an actual board with actual pieces, and having a person sit across from you who you can look at and chat with. I think facing your opponent is a huge part of chess--much like poker--unless I'm the only one who pays attention to my opponent's face and eyes. Plus, I always lose on a computer.

[Emil Miller]

Ah - so he apocryphally used a word that means the opposite of what he was trying to express, but the chieftain apocryphally knew what he'd intended.

Incidentally, the rice-on-a-chessboard legend - which usually involves the inventor of chess and the potentate for whom he invented it - is a story about the power of exponentials, not about the complexity of the game. It's the movement of the pieces that leads to the almost infinite number of variations, not the number of squares on the board. If it was the number of squares on the board, then draughts (or checkers, if you prefer) would have an almost infinite number of moves too. Which it doesn't. Even apocryphally.

It is nothing to do with squares on the board although the chieftain thought it was. The exponentiality of the rice grains was to show that the chieftain didn't understand that within that exponentiality chess pieces have an infinite number of moves.

[Taliesin]

Chess is a nice tactical game, although I usually don't play it while I'm sober, mainly for two reasons - first,when I lose I can always blame the alcohol and second, I play more bravely (or foolhardily) when somewhat tipsy - don't know whether that means that my game is better, but it's certainly more interesting.

Oh, and if you assume the following two rules
1) When a board position has repeated 3 times, the game is a draw.

2) When 50 moves have been made on each side without the exchange of a piece or the advancement of a pawn, the game is a draw.

then chess doesn't have an infinite number of moves. It is bounded by about 10 to the power of 17 000, I think, which, although a rather large number, is still finite.


However, wouldn't call it the best game in the world, since that spot is in my mind reserved to Go, a game that is older than chess, has simpler rules than chess and is much more complex than chess. (best humans are no match for best chess computer programs where even middle-level professional Go players can beat - Go is considered the last stronghold of abstract strategy games that humans still hold; the game tree is much, much larger, the average number of possible moves in a given state is 300 compared to 40 of chess et cetera)

But since it is harder to find people who play Go than people who play chess, then it might even be that I play chess more often than Go, haven't really counted.

[Emil Miller]

Chess is a nice tactical game, although I usually don't play it while I'm sober, mainly for two reasons - first,when I lose I can always blame the alcohol and second, I play more bravely (or foolhardily) when somewhat tipsy - don't know whether that means that my game is better, but it's certainly more interesting.

Oh, and if you assume the following two rules
1) When a board position has repeated 3 times, the game is a draw.

2) When 50 moves have been made on each side without the exchange of a piece or the advancement of a pawn, the game is a draw.

then chess doesn't have an infinite number of moves. It is bounded by about 10 to the power of 17 000, I think, which, although a rather large number, is still finite.


However, wouldn't call it the best game in the world, since that spot is in my mind reserved to Go, a game that is older than chess, has simpler rules than chess and is much more complex than chess. (best humans are no match for best chess computer programs where even middle-level professional Go players can beat - Go is considered the last stronghold of abstract strategy games that humans still hold; the game tree is much, much larger, the average number of possible moves in a given state is 300 compared to 40 of chess et cetera)

But since it is harder to find people who play Go than people who play chess, then it might even be that I play chess more often than Go, haven't really counted.

It is correct that a position repeated 3 times equals a draw but it usually occurs in a perpetual check situation in which no side can win.
It is highly unlikely that 50 moves would be played without a piece being exchanged or a pawn being advanced.
Nothing is infinite except for space, but within the context of board games the number of possible moves are to all intents and purposes as numerous as makes no difference, with the possible exception of computer chess of course where number crunching is a major determinant of play.

[Taliesin]

Nothing is infinite except for space

As a mathematician, I would disagree (e.g there are "games" which could go on forever), but this would take us heavily offtopic, so I'll better be silent. (also since I can't be bothered to argue about the platonic and intuitionistic schools of thought)

[Emil Miller]

As a mathematician, I would disagree (e.g there are "games" which could go on forever), but this would take us heavily offtopic, so I'll better be silent. (also since I can't be bothered to argue about the platonic and intuitionistic schools of thought)

I should have added time as well.

[MystyrMystyry]

I was going to say time alone, and then realised that it's a construct limited to itself, from universe to universe.

Only infinites are sets within given parameters. Thus rock formations are infinite, human faces are infinite - but best of all musical possibilities are infinite.

[The Comedian]

I don't really like chess. But I've never really enjoyed any sort of game like that: board games, cards (of any type), checkers, . . . . Even in college, when my friends played chess and cards a a lot, I usually found something else to do because I found the sitting around, taking turns, worrying about this move or that move. . .insufferable.