He said the openings were all really routine/reactive, and the endgame was way too much chasing. To him, it was fairly obvious who was going to win after the midgame if it isn't evenly matched, but you're still spending most of the time repeating the same moves to advance pawns and pretty much waiting for mistakes in the endgame.
Xiangqi has a much more tactical opening, longer more varied midgame, and usually the game ends pretty quickly if someone has an advantage coming out of midgame, but otherwise at least the endgame doesn't get repetitive. But also because no matter how far behind you are in the endgame, you're still a threat because of the flying general rule so it doesn't feel as bad being on defensive.
>He said the openings were all really routine/reactive, and the endgame was way too much chasing.
Openings in normal chess are indeed pointless memorization. I would never have gotten into chess as well, if i had to memorize openings. However Chess960 nowadays exists, and it is thriving. Granted 15 years ago, no one played that variant.
Chess 960 expands the surface area of opening move possibilities by a factor of a thousand (960 to be more accurate). So if someone wants to memorize openings for 1 move, i.e. 2 plys, he has to memorize 2.000 possibilities. If someone wants to memorize 3 moves ahead, i.e. 6 plys, he has to memorize 6.000 possibilities.
In normal chess memorizing ten or fifteen moves ahead (i.e. 20 or 30 plys) is pretty much the norm.
>and the endgame was way too much chasing.
With all due respect to your dad, that's nonsense. Endgames almost always have the potential to outsmart and outmanoeuvre the opponent, like any other part of the game.
See a game [1] i played against goga-magoga ranked 200 in the site, in which for 70 moves i was always losing or equal, and i won the last 3 moves. Endgames are so unintuitive, almost like programming, that even the best players in the world get confused and fatigued by the complexity.
> Endgames almost always have the potential to outsmart and outmanoeuvre the opponent, like any other part of the game.
In an evenly matched endgame, sure. I think those endgames are fun, but rare when playing in person since there's usually a skill mismatch. He was complaining about the typical game where there's a mismatched endgame where one side has an obvious advantage but there's still a bunch of chase to close out the game.
There's no doubt that the endgame can get complex, but with chess a different kind of problem solving than the rest of the game and one that I understand why people don't find it fun.
I always thought there was a bit of irony with how much he disliked the chess endgame, because he was hopelessly addicted to playing go which is not that unlike to a pawns-only chess endgame in thinking.
Endgames get sometimes boring indeed, but are other games exciting all the time? Soccer for example has it's exciting moments and it's boring moments.
That's why the endgame is called the technical part of the game. More like an electrician connecting electrodes together, or maybe programming, the end result might be beautiful, regardless of some boring moments.
Oh, Fischer Random Chess. Except Bobby Fischer made some Nazi-level antisemitic comments, so new name. 960 because of 960 possible starting layouts. So, Chess960 it is, then.
No, not really. Compared to just about any game I’ve played it rarely gets stuck, and when you are up decisively it usually ends quickly.
Also most everyone plays time controls that completely avoid this.
Feels like people are reaching for reasons to dislike it here. It’s the most balanced and fun game I’ve found, and these issues ring totally hollow I think to anyone who plays it regularly.
There are some other issues you could point out, but they mostly exist entirely in classical time controls, or perhaps if you enjoy a less rigid and punishing game.
> ring totally hollow I think to anyone who plays it regularly
Obviously for a hobbyist player the experience is very different from people learning the ropes. Think the "kid playing against his dad at the cottage" experience. The kind of people who don't know any named openings other than the scholar's mate. The kind of players that don't know their own ELO.
Idk I picked it up for the first time basically just 6 months ago and had a blast from the start. I'd say 99% of people play rapid or faster time controls and never get into slogs, it's one of the least sloggy games I've played. Catan for example is like 10x more prone to annoying endgames.
