English Chess Forum

I just had a look at one of GM Danny King's videos, where Firouzja loses to Carlsen in a bullet match courtesy of a pre-move. Who came up with that idea and allowed it into the game. It's antithetical to the nature of chess itself. Okay its a nice little time saver but since when was it a good idea to decide on your next move before your opponent has played his. GM King called it a comedic loss, I'd say it's tragic. If chess is being dumbed-down to quickly guessing moves its regressing not progressing.

So who did come up with the idea of 'pre-move' and if it can cost you the game on the spot, aren't we better off without it?

MJMcCready wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:05 pm

I just had a look at one of GM Danny King's videos, where Firouzja loses to Carlsen in a bullet match courtesy of a pre-move. Who came up with that idea and allowed it into the game. It's antithetical to the nature of chess itself. Okay its a nice little time saver but since when was it a good idea to decide on your next move before your opponent has played his. GM King called it a comedic loss, I'd say it's tragic. If chess is being dumbed-down to quickly guessing moves its regressing not progressing.

So who did come up with the idea of 'pre-move' and if it can cost you the game on the spot, aren't we better off without it?

No-one forces a player to use it. Everyone knows the risk and has probably suffered the consequences from time to time.

It's not really any different from correspondence games that start 1.d4 g6 (conditional continuation - any move 2... Bg7) and black has to resign on move 3.

The idea of pre-move is if you know your opponent has only got 1 legal move, or if you have checkmate in a few moves, and you know what moves you want to play regardless of what your opponent does.

Personally I have never played with a time limit that requires pre-moves.

In postal chess, or daily turn chess, these would probably be called conditional moves.

MJMcCready wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:05 pm

So who did come up with the idea of 'pre-move' and if it can cost you the game on the spot, aren't we better off without it?

I rather think it's been a "feature" of online chess since the internet first rolled out to a mass audience more than twenty five years ago. The first commercial server was ICC ("Internet Chess Club"), so it may have been their programmers or designers.

The position in question.

8/7p/p4kp1/8/4rPP1/8/P3RK2/8 w - - 0 1

Firouzja (White) thought Carlsen here would play Rxf4+ so pre-moved Kg3.

Carlsen instead played Rxe2+ and Firouzja's pre-move, which was legal. kicked in and Kg3 was played.

Full game here'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGCjxC_jmbY

Good vid by Danny. Even though it was a bullet game (yuk!) Danny found all the cute ideas.
About the perfect length for any chess vid - 15 minutes.

('Yuk') I have played dozens of bullet games and won one! I am just too slow on the mouse,
My childhood was spent actually moving wooden pieces on a chessboard and not playing arcade
games where one builds up the eye to brain to hand co-ordination needed for this form of chess.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:33 pm

MJMcCready wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:05 pm

So who did come up with the idea of 'pre-move' and if it can cost you the game on the spot, aren't we better off without it?

I rather think it's been a "feature" of online chess since the internet first rolled out to a mass audience more than twenty five years ago. The first commercial server was ICC ("Internet Chess Club"), so it may have been their programmers or designers.

Hmmm, but the concept itself is antithetical to the very nature of chess. I can understand it if there is only one playable move your opponent can make but its open to misuse if you can use it when you feel like it. If someone 2700 can drop a rook by using it, something is wrong. Shouldn't we think over our opponent's last move before we make our next move? Bullet chess is absurd, I can understand it being used in that but I've seen it being used with longer time controls.

I think chess would, on the whole, be better off without it.

If I were going to premove in that position, it would be to play Ke2.

Another example

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2020 3:58 pm

If I were going to premove in that position, it would be to play Ke2.

But what would be the under-lying purpose of using it? To save a split second or two? Aren't you risking much more than you can possibly gain?

That's a rather disturbing video. Couldn't you have posted something more uplifting like The Exorcist or something?

MJMcCready wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2020 4:15 pm

But what would be the under-lying purpose of using it? To save a split second or two?

If you only have 60 of them, every second counts.

That's the problem, it's who is fastest wins. That's not chess to me. If we went back in time and showed Lasker and Capablanca how chess is played today, I think they would be horrified and call it utter lunacy. At the very least its demeaning. If I've got much faster reactions and can move much faster than anyone even with a moderate rating and some mastery of drawish openings I stand a real chance of beating anyone on the planet at bullet chess. Some elements of the modern game are regressive, that is one of them.

It’s 1 minute chess - I hardly think the quality loses much for the occasional bit of premove blundering!

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2020 4:04 pm

Another example

I’ve had this - 1 b3 Nf6, 2 Bb2 g6, 3 Bxf6 Bg7 - six times so far. In blitz, not bullet