Does chess need to get more complicated?

Question

Alot champion chess champs have said that chess is dead. Like Fischer, and Capablanca. The latter actually wanted to add a few pieces! I actually think it would make it very interesting to good chess players, but I am not sure how the general public would like it.

Answer 1

"In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorisation is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position. It is really deadly, and that is why I don’t like chess any more."

Answer 2

I think what is killing chess is opening analysis. The most popular openings have been virtually analyzed out, which reduces the game to memorization.

The easiest way to eliminate this is to vary the starting position; for example, Fischer was a proponent of having the White pieces on the first rank assigned their starting positions randomly, with the Black pieces arranged in a mirror image. You'll hear some top players say this variation seems less esthetic, but I doubt the general public would react this way.

Answer 3

The game is complex enough as it is. Unless your name happens to be Bobby Fischer or Kamsky or Kasparov, you still have a lot to learn. (Even if your name happens to be Fischer, Kamsky or Kasparov, you don't win all your games).

Fischer is a bit crazy and always had an ego problem. Sure, he dominated his time, but he still lost games. And as far as the problems with opening theory goes - that's only a problem at the very top levels of the game (And even then, nobody's mastered it enough that they can rely entirely on opening).

As for Capablanca, he was a great player, but lo and behold! the theory of chess kept developing after his death and now we have stuff like hypermodern theory, endgames studies he would never have dreamed up, etc...

Chess is far from having been conquered, and for the very, very, very vast majority of us, the proposition is simply preposterous.

Besides, wouldn't more complexity eventually lead people to rely even more on pre-studied openings, not less?

Answer 4

I disagree with this approach because it doesn't adress the issue of the sport of chess in the first place.
Fischer was quoted to say chess is dead is because his life is chess and he doesn't compete in regular chess anymore, as per not only is he too old to play at the world class level, but also his ego-driven personality couldn't withstand a loss.
As a result, he had to make a form of chess that he could win at.
If someone wants to make the argument and say that chess is already completly, then test that theory by asking any grandmaster about the development of theory and the "proof of correct moves in theory".
Finally, if chess was dead then people would not be promoting the game to appeal to a more world-wide audience with the idea of promotion: chess software, chess instruction, chess in the schools, etc.

Answer 5

Such games exists, but aren't well known among general public. Chess is so complicated it's hard for any human to play good moves consistently. So, as long as this is the case regular chess will be played. Of course, more possibilities might make it harder for a computer to play..at least for a few years. Check online if you want to know more, the amount of variations is amazing.

Answer 6

chess is just tough to learn at first, like any game of strategy. first you learn the basics. then damage control and strategy. last is on the fly manipulation and strong defensive posturing so that you can bait and set. im not good, but ive won a few games. ive played since 10 or 11 or so.

ive always wanted to play a life sized round with human pieces and the players as well as the controler has to drink for every move, so if you chose queen, you drink and so does the queen and the piece attacked downs. what a cluster fuzz

Answer 7

Adding pieces would make chess like a child's game. Also there is always blindfold chess, which makes things harder.

Answer 8

No, chess does not need anymore pieces. It's great the way it is! There's still plenty of strategy involved, and it's going to stay that way.

Answer 9

i think no need to add few pieces with that setup it very very very dificult to master all opening how much more if u add another piece chess is difficult but chess is my life....

Answer 10

i think they can add it for people that bored for chess that exist nowadays