Hacker News Reader

Comment by me_me_me | Hacker News Reader

I got back to chess few years back, and following scene a bit.

The classical long for chess is basically dead. Its boring, with majority draws (close to solved game - de0incentivizing aggressive play). I am glad there is shift towards shorter time formats.

Shorter time control creates more urgency and allows to play subpar moves to throw off your opponent. Its much more interesting to observe.

Armagedon rules are being used now as tie breakers and there is a lot more discussion about changes/rules tweaks.

So who knows what next year will bring.

View on HN

I strongly disagree with the assertion that chess is a "close to solved game" in human OTB play in particular.

Top GMs currently will probably score 0/12 against Leela/Stockfish. We see innovations frequently in recent years as we learn from engines themselves, h4/h5 pushes as a simple example, but also in terms of style like favoring rapid development and attacking play.

Yes, draws are frequent but that doesn't mean there is no excitement in long games. Rapid/blitz is damn fun to watch and play but there's a certain, different kind of elegance in carefully considered moves as well.

> I strongly disagree with the assertion that chess is a "close to solved game" in human OTB play in particular.

I meant 90min +30mins classical format. It really is stale and boring to watch. And it seems like its mainly a memory game with some meta counter preparations pre-tournament. Where you develop and memorize lines to counter your opponent. That's what I meant by "close to solved game" - as both players are almost role playing for first 20-30 moves. With tiny variations throughout the tournament.

That results in quite uneventful games, usually same line being played in multiple games.

Anyhow that's just an opinion, if someone enjoys classical more power to them.

Slow chess is not solved by any human; it's broken. It's dead-ended because some better players avoid aggression so they can play short-time tiebreakers instead.

agreed - 'solved' is wrong term. Maybe peaked to the point top players are almost equal.

Agreed. Also seem to be not enough incentive to win games. E.g. if Magnus Carlsen thinks he can probably win, he'd settle for a draw if that is the safer alternative. Perhaps it could be changed so that wins count for three points and draws only one. No idea if that would encourage players to become more aggressive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com