Thread by @KrisAtLarge

"The Immortal Game". it's one of the most famous #chess games ever played, and today...nobody in professional chess plays like this, or *can* play like this.

lichess.org/study/agESaWbF…

Adolf Anderssen launches a direct sacrificial attack on his opponent's King, and wins.

(1/x)

this was from the so-called "Romantic" era of modern #chess, when grandmasters were still working out the higher-level rules of chess—the "heuristics" that govern what we think of as chess strategy. the concept of "the center", for example, is just such a heuristic.

(2/x)

"the center" is a slightly vague term even now, in #chess. the sort of fool who thinks that everything has rigid definitions might draw a sharp line around the squares d4, e4, d5, e5 and define that as "the center", but center play *may* involve nearby squares as well.

(3/x)

what's even *less* certain is how one should make use of "the center" in chess. there's two general approaches: try to occupy the center right from the start with pawns; or permit your *opponent* to occupy the center with pawns, while you take steps to undermine them.

(4/x)

the first method of center play in #chess openings is generally called the "classical" approach; the second method is called "hypermodern", and I don't exactly know the origin of that term. a number of early 20th century grandmasters contributed to "hypermodern" theory.

(5/x)

the work of these grandmasters in elaborating their theories of chess is partly why nobody can play sacrificial masterpieces like Anderssen's swift defeat of Kieseritzky in "the Immortal Game" any more. Anderssen's risky approach worked because chess was less understood.

(6/x)

modern players (with the aid of computer analysis) have almost exhausted our theoretical understanding of #chess opening play. the modern-day Kieseritzsky would undoubtedly play more cautiously, not giving his opponent the opportunity to play such brilliant sacrifices.

(7/x)

as a result, elite #chess has become (for a lot of people) very *dull*. games now feel very _prepared_. there have been rumblings about "draw death" in chess for a long time now; the great Cuban champion, Raul Capablanca, devised a new game on a 10x8 board because of this.

(8/x)

it's never gained much traction. nor has GM Yasser Seirawan's 8x8 variant.

unfortunately, the only #chess variant to gain much traction comes from the repulsive and destructive person of Robert J. Fischer, who with typical sloppiness introduced *randomness* into chess.

(9/x)

"Fischerrandom", or #chess960 as it's been more widely called because it's always good to kick Fischer's name as far away from #chess as possible, has some superficial advantages, but it's a violation of the deterministic spirit of chess, I venture to say.

(10/x)

many of the positions resulting from the randomization of #chess960 are highly unbalanced towards one player or the other, so now the result of a pairing in a tournament is heavily biased by simple chance. whatever that is, it's not proper #chess.

(11/x)

I'd like to see #chess continue into this post-modern, post-apocalyptic era, without weird scrambling tricks, without merely turning a game that I love (even though I'm bad at it) into just another video game. ideally I'd like to see a game with the same board and pieces.

(12/x)

but others have had this thought, plainly; Capablance and Seirawan did. they were among the best players of #chess and yet their inventions didn't go much of anywhere—blame #capitalism I suppose, which likes to keep things just where they are, and hates true innovation.

(13/x)

there's a massive corporate #chess bureaucracy to support; that corporate empire, centered round the International Chess Federation (@FIDE_chess) and a myriad subsidiary organizations, might be puny compared to corporate #sports—but still, it's sizeable and long-enduring.

(14/x)

I'd love to see it shattered into pieces.

(not chess pieces, of course, though that would be cool to see)

~Chara of Pnictogen

@threadreaderapp unroll