Am I a “Chess Tourist”?

@peppie23 said in #58:
> I agree that professional chess is deteriorating but I don't agree that playing standard chess doesn't make sense anymore because of computers.
Playing standard chess does make sense (at least for some -- as much as any other game is attractive to some range of people), but thinking that standard chess is still something very prestigious, creative and therefore well paid - doesn't.

@Former_Player said in #63:
> Playing standard chess does make sense (at least for some -- as much as any other game is attractive to some range of people), but thinking that standard chess is still something very prestigious, creative and therefore well paid - doesn't.

I do think it is not good at all for chess that professional chess is dying. Most amateurs don't care but it will also impact them at the long term. Professional chess is the advertising board for chess and once you take that away then less people will be attracted to chess. Unfortunately I don't have the money nor the connections to counter this trend.

Also I think that chess even played by humans can be as beautiful/ interesting as e.g. a painting or music. Nobody will argue that art are part of the most valuable accomplishments of the human being and therefore artists deserve financial support. The same counts for chess. I disagree with many players that playing high quality human games has no value. Games of even centuries ago are still replayed by many every day.

@peppie23 said in #59:
> I don't think it is just fide. I see around me very little interest for chess960. Even here at lichess you can see not more than 0,5% of the games are played with chess960. So there is no market for it.
>
How would you expect chess960 to get popular if there are literally no events to play otb and those which exist employ ridiculously short time controls and usually very scarce prize money? Obviously the fact that 960 events are not FIDE rated can only discourage the potential organizers. Even so, whenever something serious happens (which is around twice a year), the number of live spectators is comparable to the one in classical chess events.

People want to play but don't find where to play so they give it up. I for one, were I a kid, would rather switch to a readily available video game, one of a thousand, than devote the best years of my life to either studying the boring standard chess position or digging up scarce chess960 events and pieces of information. Even so, here on Lichess there were thousands of players in the qualifiers to the [apology for a] World Championship 2022. This in spite of Lichess still having no quick pairing system for 960 and offering no explanation of 960 rules to be easily found by everyone. The 960 ratings are a joke as 30-sec and 30-min games are counted alike. Etc etc.

Chess960 is being treated by both FIDE and online platforms as a third-rate variant. A lot is being done not to attract people but to discourage them from taking it up.

@Former_Player said in #65:
> How would you expect chess960 to get popular if there are literally no events to play otb and those which exist employ ridiculously short time controls and usually very scarce prize money? Obviously the fact that 960 events are not FIDE rated can only discourage the potential organizers.

I think there are 2 aspects here.
1) It is a chicken -egg problem. Something has to start first. No much people playing 960 will cause not many organizers choose for 960. Not many organizers choosing 960 will cause not many people play 960.
2) Fide has always concentrated on their core business which is standard chess. Fide is not involved in solving chess, composition chess, correspondence chess and has missed the boat of online chess. I don't know if this is right or wrong. I can only tell that fide has limited resources and it makes some sense to use those resources for the core business.

@Former_Player said in #65:
> Even so, whenever something serious happens (which is around twice a year), the number of live spectators is comparable to the one in classical chess events.

Do you have any proof of this? Also I find it bit strange if something is happening only twice a year that the number of spectators is only same compared to classical chess events which are happening x times more frequently. This doesn't sound very promising as normally rare things get much more attention.

Anyway I would also like to hear why you think 960 is a solution for the computer. Stockfish made recently massive improvements exactly in this area see e.g. stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/stockfish-14-1/
The tools to analyse openings in 960 chess are already available. It will be much harder to remember but in the end it will still be the same story as in standard chess in which prefab-games will be built at labs instead of at the board.

Personally I don't get excited about 960 chess. I tried it a few times. I don't look at games played in 960 tournaments. I am not alone see e.g. www.chess.com/article/view/do-you-like-weird-chess Grandmaster Gregory Serper writes : "I'll dare to say that I don't like Fischer random chess (chess960)." and "Now imagine what I, a grandmaster who has been playing chess for over 40 years, feel when I look at any initial position of Fischer random chess and have no clue what's going on there. In moments like this I feel that I would rather watch soccer! Actually, this is exactly what I did. I've ignored all Fischer random events, including the recent Carlsen-Nakamura match."

In a more recent article www.chess.com/article/view/the-only-problem-of-fischer-random-chess the same grandmaster made a slight change to his earlier statement: "I have upgraded my personal opinion on Fischer Random from "strong dislike" to just "dislike." and "The main and only idea of this chess variant is to avoid opening theory. While it makes sense in super-tournaments, where top players have analyzed many opening lines to a draw, that is hardly a concern for the more than 90% of other people who enjoy chess."

@Former_Player said in #65:
> I for one, were I a kid, would rather switch to a readily available video game, one of a thousand, than devote the best years of my life to either studying the boring standard chess position or digging up scarce chess960 events and pieces of information.

My son of 13 years old is exactly doing that so picking up a readily available video game. I taught him at the age of 3 !! chess and he became multiple champion in my country. However at the age of 10 he stopped studying chess and now only plays for fun chess a few tournaments per year which obviously slowed down or even cancelled any further improvement.

He saw how much I work at chess and was smart enough to realize no fun (?) and no money in it so better do something else (besides playing video games, he is playing soccer in a club and there of course rewards are much higher).

Anyway don't feel sorry for the past. I never do and always try to look forward. You are only 30 years old (I am 46) so you still have many options.

@peppie23 said in #66:
> 2) Fide has always concentrated on their core business which is standard chess.

Really? The post by GM Durarbayli is the best illustration of FIDE's "efforts". The fact that chess960 can breathe a new life into chess is beyond FIDE, or rather deliberately ignored (probably because of some considerations of a higher order). But if the point is to let chess die gradually and quietly (which might be not so bad after all, as it will release young talented brains for more essential activities), then FIDE couldn't have managed better. The only thing that remains for FIDE is just to announce it out loud: "Quit chess before you are 20 and hooked".

> Do you have any proof of this?

See e.g. escharts.com/tournaments/chess/fide-world-fischer-random-chess-championship-2022, escharts.com/tournaments/chess/champions-showdown-chess-9lx-field , escharts.com/tournaments/chess/fide-world-fischer-random-chess-championship-finals and other events using this website.

> Personally I don't get excited about 960 chess. I tried it a few times.

Let me ask you - what was the time control you've tried chess960 with? Was it blitz? Was it longer than 10 minutes per game?
As for the Serper argument: what about all these 960-positive quotes by prominent chess personalities? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Views_of_grandmasters

> Anyway I would also like to hear why you think 960 is a solution for the computer. ... The tools to analyse openings in 960 chess are already available.
Because the positions are fresh and the patterns/tactics not known. To improve, people will have to master the game of chess on the whole in creative ways, and not just one start position with the help of Stockfish, databases and opening video courses. This will be much more of an unknown territory, much more interesting and creative - I feel sorry for those who think otherwise.

> It will be much harder to remember but in the end it will still be the same story as in standard chess in which prefab-games will be built at labs instead of at the board.

Excuse me but this is nonsense. No one will learn exact theory by heart in all the 960 start positions, knowing that drawing of lots for the start pos happens just before the round.

@peppie23 said in #68:
> My son of 13 years old is exactly doing that so picking up a readily available video game. I taught him at the age of 3 !! chess and he became multiple champion in my country. However at the age of 10 he stopped studying chess and now only plays for fun chess a few tournaments per year which obviously slowed down or even cancelled any further improvement.
> He saw how much I work at chess and was smart enough to realize no fun (?) and no money in it so better do something else (besides playing video games, he is playing soccer in a club and there of course rewards are much higher).
>
Well done your son, but also his father for not insisting.

@Former_Player said in #69:
> Really? The post by GM Durarbayli is the best illustration on FIDE's "efforts".
Well I agree of course that fide is doing very little for standard chess. However I don't agree that fide is explicitly ignoring 960 chess. It is ignoring anything else than standard chess. It is their policy. As I wrote in another post I think it is also not completely senseless to follow such policy with the limited resources they have. Putting your (little) money at one place doesn't sound too bad to me. I can understand that fide doesn't want yet to give up standard chess for 960 chess. That would be a very bold and risky decision today.

@Former_Player said in #69:
> See e.g. escharts.com/tournaments/chess/fide-world-fischer-random-chess-championship-2022, escharts.com/tournaments/chess/champions-showdown-chess-9lx-field , escharts.com/tournaments/chess/fide-world-fischer-random-chess-championship-finals and other events using this website.

Thanks but I remain sceptical. How to compare with normal classical tournaments? Also those 960 tournaments are world championships, Kasparov involved, .. so not a normal classical tournament. Anyway you do have a point that 960 tournaments can attract spectators. On the other hand so does Carlsen playing football or Kasparov talking about politics.