Great blog! I quite enjoyed your phrasing and ideas. Yet there are 2 points on which i wanted to make a remark:
"Despite its complexity, Antichess has garnered a dedicated community of players who relish the mental challenge it offers. "
Not in the upper echelons (rn and for past year or two), though it is quite fortunate that major part of people are bonded together.
"In Antichess, no two games are alike."
I see what you wanted to say, yet there are some players who only play by Watkins's ("1.e3 wins for white" paper) proof, which makes all of their games pretty similar. Also some other exceptions exist, such as myself as I too play by proof (albeit it is not fully done yet).
Keep blog writing going, as I believe you deserve wider recognition for it.
"Despite its complexity, Antichess has garnered a dedicated community of players who relish the mental challenge it offers. "
Not in the upper echelons (rn and for past year or two), though it is quite fortunate that major part of people are bonded together.
"In Antichess, no two games are alike."
I see what you wanted to say, yet there are some players who only play by Watkins's ("1.e3 wins for white" paper) proof, which makes all of their games pretty similar. Also some other exceptions exist, such as myself as I too play by proof (albeit it is not fully done yet).
Keep blog writing going, as I believe you deserve wider recognition for it.
I can argue with a lot of things. With the development of theory, the game loses its meaning. There is no longer a strategic game as such, because in many variants there is simply no middlegame. A lot of options are already known for more than 30 moves ahead, and this is just a theory.
An excellent solution is Anti 960, where you need to think from the first move. Here is all the madness of creativity and craftsmanship. That's where the skill lies, not the cramming of the opening.
It's just that I myself am an ardent opponent of the game only in theory. You need to be able to think for yourself. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄
An excellent solution is Anti 960, where you need to think from the first move. Here is all the madness of creativity and craftsmanship. That's where the skill lies, not the cramming of the opening.
It's just that I myself am an ardent opponent of the game only in theory. You need to be able to think for yourself. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄
@Rasul_Dzh said in #2:
> Great blog! I quite enjoyed your phrasing and ideas. Yet there are 2 points on which i wanted to make a remark:
> "Despite its complexity, Antichess has garnered a dedicated community of players who relish the mental challenge it offers. "
> Not in the upper echelons (rn and for past year or two), though it is quite fortunate that major part of people are bonded together.
>
> "In Antichess, no two games are alike."
> I see what you wanted to say, yet there are some players who only play by Watkins's ("1.e3 wins for white" paper) proof, which makes all of their games pretty similar. Also some other exceptions exist, such as myself as I too play by proof (albeit it is not fully done yet).
>
> Keep blog writing going, as I believe you deserve wider recognition for it.
omg tysm but i can't tell the info am. still researching i just did a lil researching am ten so idk all of antichess but again ty
> Great blog! I quite enjoyed your phrasing and ideas. Yet there are 2 points on which i wanted to make a remark:
> "Despite its complexity, Antichess has garnered a dedicated community of players who relish the mental challenge it offers. "
> Not in the upper echelons (rn and for past year or two), though it is quite fortunate that major part of people are bonded together.
>
> "In Antichess, no two games are alike."
> I see what you wanted to say, yet there are some players who only play by Watkins's ("1.e3 wins for white" paper) proof, which makes all of their games pretty similar. Also some other exceptions exist, such as myself as I too play by proof (albeit it is not fully done yet).
>
> Keep blog writing going, as I believe you deserve wider recognition for it.
omg tysm but i can't tell the info am. still researching i just did a lil researching am ten so idk all of antichess but again ty
@aleksschtin said in #3:
> I can argue with a lot of things. With the development of theory, the game loses its meaning. There is no longer a strategic game as such, because in many variants there is simply no middlegame. A lot of options are already known for more than 30 moves ahead, and this is just a theory.
> An excellent solution is Anti 960, where you need to think from the first move. Here is all the madness of creativity and craftsmanship. That's where the skill lies, not the cramming of the opening.
> It's just that I myself am an ardent opponent of the game only in theory. You need to be able to think for yourself. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄
tysm i love ur feed back
> I can argue with a lot of things. With the development of theory, the game loses its meaning. There is no longer a strategic game as such, because in many variants there is simply no middlegame. A lot of options are already known for more than 30 moves ahead, and this is just a theory.
> An excellent solution is Anti 960, where you need to think from the first move. Here is all the madness of creativity and craftsmanship. That's where the skill lies, not the cramming of the opening.
> It's just that I myself am an ardent opponent of the game only in theory. You need to be able to think for yourself. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄
tysm i love ur feed back