Really Bad Chess makes chess fun even if you’re really bad
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: Really Bad Chess makes chess fun even if you’re really bad
#2I like chess960 but I like to go further and randomize the positions of the hind row completely and do it differently. I havent tried varying the composition of the pieces or messing with the pawns, but once I started learning opening books plain ordinary chess became depressing for me.
Re: Really Bad Chess makes chess fun even if you’re really bad
#3> This gulf in skill and experience meant that the two couldn’t play together in a meaningful way; if they tried, Gage would get crushed, and the match wouldn’t be much fun. So he decided to fix the problem.
This problem has already been solved for hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_handicap
Re: Really Bad Chess makes chess fun even if you’re really bad
#4> This gulf in skill and experience meant that the two couldn’t play together in a meaningful way; if they tried, Gage would get crushed, and the match wouldn’t be much fun. So he decided to fix the problem. This problem has already been solved for hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_handicap
I imagine it's more fun to play with many more interesting pieces.
> Yet, in spite of this, after playing Really Bad Chess for the past week, I’ve found myself with a much better understanding of the game, and how the various pieces interact with each other.
Not to mention that you can potentially learn tactics much quicker with more practice using the interesting pieces.
Re: Really Bad Chess makes chess fun even if you’re really bad
#5> This gulf in skill and experience meant that the two couldn’t play together in a meaningful way; if they tried, Gage would get crushed, and the match wouldn’t be much fun. So he decided to fix the problem. This problem has already been solved for hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_handicap
Thank you for the link. I was unaware of the handicap system. Although I think this is a novel approach because you don't need to first rank the players, both players are equally disadvantaged.
In theory, I still bet that a strong player would win regardless of which pieces are on the board.
Re: Really Bad Chess makes chess fun even if you’re really bad
#6I'd be interested to see how the poster in this article compares to the same poster but with a QR code instead of a tag to tear off.
Re: Really Bad Chess makes chess fun even if you’re really bad
#7Martin Gardner noted in one of his Mathematical Games columns that chess variants are great for evening the playing field between players of different skill levels. There are so many variants out there. I like how this one works well with a computer-run game (a physical Really Bad Chess would require lots of extra pieces).
Re: Really Bad Chess makes chess fun even if you’re really bad
#8> This gulf in skill and experience meant that the two couldn’t play together in a meaningful way; if they tried, Gage would get crushed, and the match wouldn’t be much fun. So he decided to fix the problem. This problem has already been solved for hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_handicap
In my opinion, there is no acceptable handicap system for chess; its symmetry isn't conducive. It is also something that is almost never done - I've never seen a handicap (beyond time and color) used in any chess club. Allotting more time to the weaker (and less to the stronger) player is probably the best method of balancing skill discrepancy. This is one of the reasons I abandoned chess for go (baduk, weichi, igo, etc.), where the handicap system is fully functional up to 9 additional stones (pieces) for the weaker player. The gameboard sizes can range from 19x19 to 5x5 (refers to the intersecting lines within grid). While this system is almost perfect in go, it is at best a blemish to the game in chess. However, loser's chess can be quite entertaining. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losing_chess
Re: Really Bad Chess makes chess fun even if you’re really bad
#9> This gulf in skill and experience meant that the two couldn’t play together in a meaningful way; if they tried, Gage would get crushed, and the match wouldn’t be much fun. So he decided to fix the problem. This problem has already been solved for hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_handicap
This only proves that "solve" can be a pretty arrogant term. It's speaks of a contained finality that often doesn't exist.
Re: Really Bad Chess makes chess fun even if you’re really bad
#10They’re advertising an URL that shows an “Download iOS app” button. This is so dumb, I will gladly take all your down-votes. What were they thinking?!
P.S. Progressive Web Apps.