The April Fool tradition
Almost all countries have a day very much like the United States April Fool's
Day. On this day dignity is discarded and everyone plays practical jokes. Americans
do their fooling on April 1 because the early Scottish, English, and French
settlers brought the custom with them. Also known as All Fools' Day, the occasion
provides pranksters of every description an opportunity to play a wide variety
of jokes upon their friends and neighbors.
ANCIENT ROME: The custom of playing practical jokes on friends was part of
the celebrations in ancient Rome on March 25 (Hilaria). The timing seems related
to the vernal equinox and the coming of spring a time when nature fools us with
sudden changes between showers. and sunshine.
ENGLAND: In England, tricks can be played only in the morning. If a trick is
played on you, you are a "noodle". Widespread observance in England
began in the 18th century.
SCOTLAND: In Scotland, April Fools Day is 48 hours long and you are called
an "April Gowk", which is another name for a cuckoo bird. In Scotland,
April Fools Day is 48 hours long. The second day is called Taily Day and is
dedicated to pranks involving the buttocks. Taily Day's gift to posterior posterity
is the still-hilarious "Kick Me" sign.
FRANCE: In France, the April Fool's is called "April Fish" (Poisson
d'Avril). The French fool their friends by taping a paper fish to their friends'
backs and when someone discovers this trick, they yell "Poisson d'Avril!"
SPAIN: Dia de los Santos Inocentes is held in Spain on December 28th. This
is The Feast of the Holy Innocents. It is celebrated similarily to April Fool's
Day, with practical jokes.
AMERICA: The English, Scotch and French introduced the custom to their colonies
in America. One of our forefathers' favorite jokes was to send someone on a
"fool's errand." For example, one might have been asked to go out
and obtain a copy of "The History of Adam's Grandfather," or bring
back some "sweet vinegar."
MEXICO: The "foolish" tradition is celebrated in Mexico, too, but
on a different day and for different reasons. "El Dia de los Inocentes,"
which is December 28, was set aside as a day for Christians to mourn Herod's
slaughter of innocent children. Over time, the tone of that "unluckiest
of days" has evolved from sadness to good-natured trickery.
"The first of April is the day we remember what we are the other 364 days
of the year. " American humorist Mark Twain.
In the 24 hours after the "Fischer move" report was published
the messages came in thick and fast. About half our readers saw through the
joke, the other half were quite upset by the idea of sanctioning takebacks in
chess. You may be interested to hear what some of our readers had to say. We
start with the ones who recognised the joke.
Devangshu Datta: Dear ChessBase team, come, come! If only your news
format didn't include a dateline under the header! That's a big giveaway with
this item. Lovely idea though and I liked the Judit quote with its tongue in
cheek reference to Kasparov's infamous move that wasn't! A request: Please track
the replies and count the ones who fall for it versus the ones who don't. Could
be an interesting psychological experiment. A) Chess players are popularly supposed
to be paranoid and suspicious. B) They are also supposed to be mostly resident
on another planet and quite unaware of mundane details of dates etc. If the
first character trait has more actual weightage than the second, you'll get
a high percentage of people who see through this item.
D. Al Sault: April Fool to you too.
Richard Howitt: Great April Fool's joke. Wacky Germans!
Johan Ostergaard: Good one :) You had me going there for a while...the
legal language was quite convincing and I didn't actually realise what date
it was until I reached the part where plans were introduced to let this replace
normal chess. Interesting idea though :)
Scott Doughty: Happy April Fools Day! Is this really practiced in Germany?
And I thought Germans were such serious people. Very funny!
Chris Taylor: What was the date again?
Pierre et Monique: Nice try guys. Happy April's fools day!!
Tan Choon Hwa: Happy April Fool's Day! Germans do have a sense of humour!
I visit your site almost every day, so keep up the good work!
James Coleman: Tremendous April Fool piece, best I have ever seen.
Righetti Michele: ROTFL!!! Have a good day of the fools. Or, as we say
in Italian, April's Fish. I really enjoy your site, go ahead!
Jes Knudsen: Splendid joke! In particular I appreciate the remarks concerning
how the move would (more completely) reflect the "original flavour of the
game".
Richard Tervo: Great April Fool Report, although there are times when
I would love this rule. Of course, it should apply "only to a player and
not to his/her opponent"!
Bill Gathright: Very clever indeed! Thanks for the humor. Happy April
Fools!
R.D. Keene: Nice April fool.
Michael Fitch: April Fools :-))) LOL.
Graham Sorgard: Happy April Fool's.
A. Termaat: I do not believe a word of it!
Benjamin Goh: And a happy April Fool's Day to you too ;-)
Jonathan O'Connor: Guys, brilliant. I read the news story, and thought,
oh yeah, I am not surprised by that. But the second last paragraph suddenly
got me thinking. And wham! I remembered what day it was.
Johannes Steckner: I've been laughing tears! Very good 1st of April
news!
Douglas Reid: Nice April Fool's joke. Enjoyed it. It's a great site,
so keep up the good work.
Dimitris Skyrianoglou: Nice try guys!!! I almost believed it!!! Then
I noticed that it was posted on 1st of April. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised
if Fischer came up with such a proposal. It fits his style I think. However
I was very surprised to see that FIDE was thinking seriously of adopting the
idea! It is completely opposite with their currnt efforts to shorten the duration
of the games and to promote the sportive character of chess. In this respect,
FIDE is in favour of blunders since, according to their opinion, these blunders
make the game more fascinating (???!!!). Then it was this event with Polgar
that it was a bit odd. How could noone else have heard about it before :-) As
for the proposal itself, I think it would be interesting but I'm not sure that
the advantages are more than the disadvantages...Maybe each player could be
allowed to make a "retractor" move only once per game just like the
castling move :-)
Tom Anderson: I read with interest your article on Fischer's idea for
allowing retractor moves. Perhaps you might like to give examples of one or
two games which include these moves, demonstrating how the quality of the chess
is improved. I'm encountering this idea for the first time, and would very much
like to see how it works in practice. I myself an am ordinary club player. I
can see how retractor chess can potentially lead to high quality games at top
level chess, but am doubtful that the idea will be useful at club level. For
me, much of the appeal of chess is the high-adrenaline atmosphere that is created
during a game, knowing that a single mistake will potentially cost the game.
Yes, many games are won and lost due to tactical blows, but of course positional
play is also important. I believe that nullifying the tactical element by allowing
retractions will not appeal to club players. On a practical note, how do retractions
affect the number of moves played? Also, it seems to me that a player could
abuse this rule . For example, what if player A leads 1.d4 and player B plays
1...d5. If player A doesn't like double Q-pawn positions, could he then retract
those two moves and start again with 1.e4? Perhaps I've misinterpreted the rules,
but if such a scheme is possible then that is entirely against the spirit of
the game. I would suggest that the number of retractions for each player should
be limited (e.g. to 1 or 2), and that no retractions should be permitted before
move 10.
Tom Anderson: Don't bother to reply to my earlier email I hadn't
woken up with the hour change yet! Only just realised its 1st April.
IM Jovan Petronic: If I may be allowed to comment on the "Frankenstein
move": I have read your article and I consider it as another "pile
of rubbish" invented by the "chess patzers and insanes" of this
world, trying to find any possible way not to expose themselves as such, making
"idiots" out of the professional chess players around the world who
study chess seriously. FIDE officials also do not seem to know what they are
talking about... You should expose them by naming them when quoting the high
ranking FIDE officers. I am very surprised that FIDE is considering such a suggestion
at all (as according to your website report). Fischer's (or whoever's) "idiotic"
idea sounds to me like "stabbing someone to death", followed by the
corpse pulling the knife out long live Frankenstein!! P.S. Your website is
the best, anyway! And April fools on you too...
Shivkumar Shivaji: The fischer moves article has got to be part of the
April Fool special!!
Case Blue: Yep you got me for about 90 seconds. Then the little light
came on above my head!!
Eugene Lewis: This is the best april fools joke yet.
Jean Efpraxiadis: Given that today is April 1st, I do not believe the
Fischer Moves story
Dennis Monokroussos: Nice April Fool's joke. :)
Jeff Ledford: Very cute! Of course, the first thing I did was to check
today's date, March 31st. But then, there is that time zone difference. But
I must also ask -is the mate in 262 also an April Fool's joke?
Terry McCracken: This is an April Fool's joke isn't it? It's a horrific
concept! Questionable is Advanced Chess advocated by IGM Gary Kasparov, but
this idea of Fischer Moves (Retractable Chess), if so, brings the game to an
all time low. I'm hoping it's just a bad joke:o)
David Moore: It was with keen interest that I read your most interesting
article on the Fischer move. From personal experience playing my Mephisto chess
computer I know all too well how sharp the computer is tactically. I have found
that my play is of a much higher caliber when I "retract" moves, but
I have always felt a little guilty about doing so. Now, with this change to
the rules I won't have to feel this way. The only difficulty I have with this
new rule is in that maybe it doesn't go far enough. I have found that sometimes
I have to retract a whole sequence of moves in order to arrive at a satisfactory
position where I once again feel able to compete with my computer. Usually though,
I am just delaying the inevitable, as I still end up losing , no matter how
many retractor moves I make. Also, we all know how much of an advantage computers
have in the opening and in sharp tactical positions, so I think only human players
should be allowed to invoke the Fischer move rule, no retractor moves for computers.
This will also benefit the programmers as they will not have to write all that
extra code, and can instead focus their attention on refuting the "anti-computer"
stratagies being adopted by human players. In closing let me say I strongly
endorse the "Fisher move" rule change. and encourage all chess players
to do likewise. Indeed, you would have to be a fool to not see how much the
Fischer rule will benefit the great game of chess. Keep up the excellent work
at Chessbase News, my favourite chess site!
We now come to people who believed the story and were alarmed to different
degrees by it. We have left out the full names and simply used initials to spare
our readers any embarrassment.
E.N. Uh, uh, there could be a way tp exploit that new idea. If you're
playing with Fischer-style timers (for example 2+12) and you're running out
of time, then you can just do lots of Fischer Moves in a row to get back as
much time as you want... Let's say you have 5 seconds left on your clock, then
you just do a Fischer Move (= Undo) and get 12 seconds back on your clock (with
the +12 example). Then you play anything. The opponent plays. Then you do another
Fischer Move again, and keep going...
D.P. This suggestion is ridiculous. How could a player like Kasparov,
Kramnik, or Anand ever lose a game? The only way to have a decisive result in
a game is for someone to make a mistake, the only way this type of chess would
produce a winner is if someone made two mistakes in a row. When was the last
time someone like Kramnik made two mistakes in a game let alone two in a row?
Mistakes are a part of the game. The only way to truely avoid making blunders
is not to play; Fischer is the prime example of this strategy.
M.B. For eons chess players have been told that retractor moves are
tantamount to cheating. Coaches have always cautioned their wards to think first
and then move the pieces. Chess is a mirror image of life. In life any move
we make can't be taken back and we have to suffer the cosequences of our actions.
Chess was actually invented to teach people values like pragmatism, hard work,
discipline, dedication, courtesy, and to never take anyway or anything lightly.
Even the strongest must treat the weakest opponents with respect or pay the
price. I disagree with Fischer. This will do more harm than good to the game.
If both opponents keep taking back moves and playing good ones, most games especially
at the higher levels will end up drawn. Fischer was once a great player. Now
he is a pathetic disillusioned figure, who is trying hard to be recognised and
to stay in the limelight. It is best in the interests of chess itself to ignore
his ravings and rantings and let him continue to dwell in the imaginary world
that he has created for himself.
S.M.: I am totally disagree to the continuous effort by FIDE to change
the chess rules. This new rule deserve no real merit but to destroy the chess
history. How many classical games back to centuries will render irrelevent because
of this asshole new proposed rule. They will destroy chess history,art and chess
industry. Time control and knock out and now the very essance of chess art and
tradition inherited for centuries. The FIDE existing office bearer should resign.
They will bring more harm to chess in future.
K.K: I totally disagree with the Fischer move. Tactics and blunders
are all part of the game of chess. Retracting moves? Isn't that like asking
your opponent if you can take back a move cause you made a fatal blunder? This
would ruin classic chess and all the studies and efforts that people have gone
through to truly understand it's artistic and scientific nature. I hope this
rule is never universally accepted and that it never enters tournament play.
I urge you to vote No to this proposition.
A.B.: I am a genuine patzer, rated in the triple-digits USCF, who has
made many a blunder. I sure wished I could have taken some of those blunders
back. However, the ability to make binding blunders is part of the game, as
is the ability to visualize over the board. I hope the so-called "Fischer
move" does not make its way into the game. Incidentally, I think the move
as proposed to FIDE could be subject to some abuse by players trying to stick
their opponents in time trouble. A player with a definite time advantage could
make a complicating move. The opponent could then take too much time planning
his or her next move, also planning several after it (a la Silman in "How
to Reassess Your Chess"). Then, after the move is finally made, the player
with a time advantage could execute a Fischer move (however unnecessary), and
the player already in time trouble would then have to repeat the process. Another
abuse could be that a player intent on a draw, particularly as White, could
make a Fischer move to see the opponent's response to every legal move in a
position, starting as early as move 1. Nineteen moves could be played before
getting around to 1. e4. This could get ridiculous in a hurry. Anyway, this
is just one patzer's opinion...
F.R: The Fischer Move Rule is terrible. I hope it is rejected. You spend
a lot of energy trying to arrive at a position where you should be able to find
a combination due to the fact that your position is good and your opponent's
position is bad. This rule can turn your effort into wasted energy. The rule
is VERY BAD for chess.
P.G.: Blunders are part of chess and should not be eliminated by modifying
the rules of this ancient game. The path to the elimination of blunders is better
preparation and more practice.
A.P.: The introduction of the Fischer move would be bad for chess. Mistakes,
strategic or tactical blunders are a essential part of the game, contributing
to it's rich nature. The triumphs and tragedies are what makes chess such a
fascinating game.
A.A.: First, I would like to thank you for your very interesting and
up-to-date chess news section on your. Second, I think that Fischer move is
a very good idea, because sometimes one blunder can decide the outcome of the
game no matter what were the plans or the position before. And I think that
is not what chess- the ultimate strategy game- is all about. Fears of this new
rule are only psychological just because it is new. Hopefully we'll see FIDE
implement it soon.
A.V.: What about more extensive information? Especially some games with
notes where you can see where a player have chosen to take back. I have an idea
of that in the early opening phase the Fischer Move could be exploited, destroying
all the fun. (1. e4 b6 Uh thats looks annoying i better take bake: 1. g3!)
And how many games are drawn compared with todays rules? Otherwise quiet interesting,
players could earn some more years on top level and perhaps will even correspondence
players start to play "normal" chess.
J.L.: I just heard about this rule a few minutes ago when I read the
article. I have a quick question: Can the game with this rule go back a few
moves if both players execute the retractor consecutively? Also, even though
I am a mere 1800 player, I propose an addition to this rule that would not allow
a player to make the same move that he retracted. In other words, let's say
that I start my game with e4 and my opponent answers with c5. Let's say that
I hate facing the Sicilian, so I retract both moves and play d4. Let's say my
opponent answers with Nc6, and I prefer to face the Sicilian as opposed to the
Chigorian, so I retract both moves and play e4. Thank about the mind games that
could occur this way!!! With my addition to the rule, a player would not be
able to make the move e4 again. This would make someone this twice before retracting
a move, knowing that he could not make that move again.
T.P.: In chess you are punished for your mistakes, not rewarded!
F.R.: The new Fischer proposal is inadmissible. With this rule poor
chess players can draw or maybe win against superior players. We know this because
we can win against computers using this rule. This rule means the humans fear
of computers, accept this rule is cowardice. Please, we need preserves the chess
traditions. All Fischer rules are really inadequate. Normally, old champions
propose this type of rules after lose the title.
T.C.: Can you just explain to me what the actual move does? can you
give me a position then explain what to do if I did a move, and how you could
use the retractor?
J.C.B.: This is the most absurd idea yet. First they speed-up the game
with shorter time controls. Now, they want to move things in the direction of
correspondence chess by allowing "take-backs." When I practice against
the computer I get my butt kicked every time when I miss a tactical shot. That
is part of chess!! This helps me when I analyze the game and figure out why
I overlooked the tactic in that particular position. Isn't chess SUPPOSED to
be 99% tactics!?! Fischer has now completely lost his mind. Let's hope this
doesn't go through!
S.D.: Ok I bet a lot of Fritz owners like myself already know the retractor
chess game. In fact this is the only way we can hope for a draw against Fritz,
and I am still hopeing! Fischer once said: "I could give any woman in the
world a piece and a move; to Gaprindashvili even, a knight
" Maybe
retractor chess could be another way of playing chess games against a very strong
opponent but only if the weaker player women or men is allowed to execute
the new "Fischer move"!
B.T.: Fischer is just upset because he is an old man and he cannot take
the pressure anymore. Perhaps he could learn a lesson from Victor Korchnoi.
A.Z.: I believe that what arouse interest in a game or sport is the
presence of [to a certain degree] by a win-by-chance. We [the beginners of the
game] look up to grandmasters as having achieved some level of mastery in their
play but not someone who are imposible to beat. They are just better than us
because they can limit the chance-factor of the game to minimum. This unpredictable
lucky-punch factor is one motivation for beginners and an attraction for fans
to stick into the game. If there will be no beginners to play this game then
it will die. Coupled with game psychology, preparation, practice, nerve control
and pressure management this game is as interesting as boxing, soccer, basketball,
etc. I think this is because every game is a place, a moment or an opportunity
to show our strength in the game, but it should not be done by taking out the
suspense to make a better or worse move at every turn. It is possible that a
game will not go past the opening! considering that there maybe some joker,
too. Looking at other sports, why they are popular (?) they keep the suspense
and drama into the game. Then they attract fans because the games look more
like a real warfare, for in real-life we want to avoid mistakes and when we
make a mistake there`s painful consequences. Then again we cannot just retract,
rather we commit to improve our mistakes and make a suspense-filled revenge.
Emotional and psychological dynamics injected into a scientifically intricate
game like chess or boxing awake the competitive nature of potential fans. Fans
will become beginners then sponsors will soon discover a bussiness potential.
So the sponsors to cover greater market will try to boast the popularity of
the game by bringing it closer and easier to many people. Eventually, fans will
increase, then players will increase, then sponsors will increase and so on,
in a cyclic development. It is impossible to develop the game in straigth line
here where on one end the top 50 grandmasters; and on another the sponsors.
Keyword: fans. So, I think FIDE should make the game more appealling to fans
and beginners not to sponsors and top 50 GMs. Fans wants excitement not a boring
multiple retraction of moves, unfair addition of 10 sec/move or constant changing
of rules. This fischer-move is apparently designed to beat chess-computers,
but why? Computers should not be allowed to play in tournaments with human.
A separate tournament for computers may be better, for in the near future, computers
will dominate the tournaments. Man vs machine match play is good enough for
promotion of chess software. But don`t ever ask who`s better -man or machine?
Fans are not stupid, they know the answer [note: I tried to ask this to fellow
starters]. Better ask more appealing questions. What I don`t understand here
is that fischer being too concerned about 'cheap' tactical moves by beginners
while if you`ll look in any of his games as a beginner, you`ll see those same
tactical motifs. I think the FIDE move to shorten the time control is more than
enough to somewhat adjust the barrier or difficulty of the game concurrent to
the demand of the times. If you`re really searching for a game that will replace
chess, try shogi (japanese chess), it is more like a real-life warfare and will
be more exciting than fischer-move chess, besides you may be able to corner
big sponsors and donors from japan. To sum up: (1)Fans are the real movers of
every succesful sports; before FIDE gets serious about fischer-moves, please
hear more from fans. (2) Blunders and mistakes are part of every game and every
sport, if there is no tension it`s boring! Afterall, being a better player requires
better personality.
C.B.: I like the idea of Fischer Random chess. I believe that it is
the future of the game, but retractor moves?! This sounds like it will remove
tactics from the game. Eventually leading to nothing but end games. I have nothing
against end game play, and enjoy the challenge as much as finding a good tactic,
but why remove tactics?
X.X.: As a GM I would like to express my first impressions concerning
the Fischer move. First, I would like to say that it is a very noble initiative,
with a logical foundation. This new rule would positively improve the scientific
issue of the game. Nevertheless, it would completely destroy the competitive
side. There would be no sense to take part in tournaments. Chess would no longer
be a sport in the sense it is today, nor in any sense at all. Besides, people
could laugh of chess tournaments. Concerning computer chess, this new rule could
certainly be adopted, but as a matter of a handicap. There would be no shame
in accepting this. "Nobody Special": As a struggling class player,
I can see how this new rule could greatly improve my results in tournaments.
Alot of my losses were mostly based on overlooking a one move tactical stroke,
or analyzing a position so deepely, that I overlooked a basic move that simply
forces me to resign. I do think the quality of most games would improve, and
the true stronger person is bound to win with this simple move retraction, however,
I think it can also be abused. If I start with 1. e4, and my opponent responded
with 1. c5, I can take back my move, since I don't know much of the sicilian?
I can constantly take back even the first move until I find a move that my opponent
plays that I'm comfortable with? Or, what if, by move 40, neither of us likes
how the game turned out, so one after another, we slowly take back one movers
until we are back at move 20, or 15, or whatever? Or, what if, after spending
most of my time working out a key move, my opponent decides he doesn't like
my responce, and simply takes back the move? I wasted all that time trying to
figure out the variations, and all that may never happen in the game, if he
plays a completely different move? Or, what if, I see a tempting variation,
but my opponent plays the best move on the first move, and the variation doesn't
work? Can I take back that move 10 times until I find a move I like that he
responds with? I like the idea of the Fischer move, if there were restrictions
(say once per game per side? a 10 minute penalty per use? both players split
the time on clock for the 2 half moves (if there were fancier clocks that could
record that)). Just my thoughts on this wonderful idea
S.H.: How can anyone think that this is a chess innovation. This is
affirmative action at the chess board at its best, and is an attempt to eliminate
one of the greatest aspects of the game which is the tactic. How juvenile an
idea this is; my goodness.
P.S.: What an embarrassing dumbing-down of chess!
F.F.: This is the most ludicrous idea Fischer has come up with so far.What
is the point when playing a serious game of Chess of allowing moves to be taken
back.Could this happen in any other sport? I do not think so. Personally I am
against the Fischer clock as I can see nothing wrong with the old method where
both players get exactly the same time. If a player gets into time trouble so
what.Its down to him. Random Chess belongs to the Circus and how can anyone
take it seriously. We have the finest game invented. Why on earth do we want
to keep tinkering with the rules? The new FIDE time controls are bad enough.Lets
stop these LUNATIC ideas right now! Leave OUR game alone!
P.T.: I think the idea of Fisher moves is not worth too much consideration,
really. What would chess be without Karpov's Rcd8?? and the likes? ...Rcd8??
Qxd7! oopsee, Rdd8? I think that the pressure that you always have to beware
of traps is what keeps the game interesting, and allows also to turn the tables
with one move. Also, where would one draw the line? Why only one Fisher move?
If I sac a piece, only to find out it doesn't work 3 moves later why shouldn't
I be able to retract it? Also, it takes a lot of creativity out of chess! If
I sac a knight, my opponent can take time to evaluate it and put the pieces
back if he wants, or take it. If he does, my sac was probably incorrect and
I take it back. This takes chess tactics to another dimension that I think most
players don't want to go really.
L.K.A.: Retractor moves against computers I can understand, but not
against humans. You either calculate it right or you don't. Making blunders
and loosing on time are part of chess. winning after an opponent blunder is
of course not as sweet as winning by mere tactical skills, but it still counts.
Fischer retractor moves must never be an option in a real life over the board
chess game between two humans on any level. There is suddenly no risk in making
an move any more.
A.M.: I think that using retractor moves is fair and necessary in one's
home analysis and study of the game, but it would be extremely unfair in actual
play especially as part of sport. You make a mistake you take
responsibility for it! The essence of the game of chess is not playing perfectly;
in that case (because chess, after all, can be finitely calculated!) playing
chess would be boring... It is the mistakes, noticing them and exposing them
by way of exploiting them that makes the core of chess as we know it.
Besides, moves cannot be retracted infinitely; maybe your opponent could have
made a better move too after having seen your retracted and corrected
move... Retractor moves as legal moves would change the essence of the game
and its seriousness (the seriousness of being playful and having fun)
not for the better, I believe... Who wants to be perfect, anyway?! (Chess as
it is does not allow the invasion of chaos; too much order spoils the play.)
Keep up the good work!
Once again we apologise to any readers who were upset by the April Fool
report.
