engine matches, which do not revolve around the opening book.
My proposal is to enhance orthochess by allowing the players optionally to
relocate the pieces (by swapping the king/queen with another piece in the
initial position), whilst keeping the option to play the standard position.
Castling rules are simple and derive from Chess960. See the following link
to an article with diagrams, and programs that implement these changes:
For instance, in "Fischer Placement Chess", 25 modest positions in the
Chess960 array can be manually generated:
> My proposal is to enhance orthochess
The problem is that you're just creating another chess variant, and even if you manage to create a variation that is superior to chess in all possible ways, people will not regard it as "chess".
For other chess variants see here.
inferior opening lines, in order to avoid theory. Recently, in the London
Chess Classic, the commentator said that GMs nowaday have turned to
Bishop's opening in order to avoid the Petroff. Good luck! Likewise,
they play d2-d3 in the Ruy Lopez. The art of defence in the Petroff
and Ruy Lopez (Marshall gambit, et al.) has reached such levels that
it's no use to grab the bull by the horns, anymore. As a result Black
is even better in the opening. Where are we heading when super-GMs are
forced to play daft opening systems? In the future, how can anybody
expect to win against a GM with Bishop's opening? The problem which is
already apparent in corr chess, is now surfacing in table chess.
I also question the way in which the outcome of computer engine matches
depends on the collating of opening books.
I bet there are several positions of Chess960 that make "a whole new universe of variations opens up" where "the positions are close to the standard position", yet they couldn't be implemented as some sort of, say, "Chess25" and still call it "Chess", because these positions are alien to people used to chess. In fact, one of the complaints I've read is that in most Chess960 positions the pieces are badly placed, and the opening is about placing them as close as possible to their normal chess positions, so on your variant, would people really want to swap the pieces at all if the opening position is the strongest possible configuration?
I think people would just notice that, they would find the strongest possible swap against someone that doesn't make a swap, and then start studying new openings for these new configurations, without solving anything. You're expecting people to make use of all possible swaps possible, while I don't think people would e.g. swap the queen with a rook, etc., but that's just my opinion.
> Aljechin is viewed as a very natural defence, possibly even the best against 1.e4.
Source? I think the most active (and popular) defense is c5, the most solid is e5, the most drawish is c6, and those would be better than the Aljechin, then comes the French or Modern/Pirc systems that are arguably better too, it's the first time that I hear that the Aljechin could possibly be the best response against e4, I would be greatly surprised if it were the top 3 (better than c6) move against e4.
> Your example of the excluded en-passant rule is not relevant. That would be a much greater change than my proposal.
No, see: if the exclude en-passant was implemented ALL chess games in where an en passant capture did not happen would remain the same, if your proposed rule was implemented NONE of the chess games would remain the same if a swap happened. So I think your change is much bigger.
I absolutely support your proposal as a chess variant, but not as a replacement of chess, but actually, all proposed replacements would not do if they suffer from the same problem that I mentioned, the closest it can get is changing the drawing rules to enforce players to avoid passive play, but even that may fail as well.
To simply swap a piece or two on the first rank will have no impact on general chess strategy. But to discontinue the en-passant would change chess greatly. Every pawn endgame would be affected.
> To simply swap a piece or two on the first rank will have no impact on general chess strategy.
It changes opening strategy, from that you're changing the whole game.
> It's not a replacement of chess since the players can choose the standard position.
But I can't make my opponent choose to not swap his pieces, if my opponent does it then my chess has been replaced.
>Can you comment on you opinion of 1.e4 e5 or 1.e4 c6 and how would 1...Nf6
>be better than both those ones and the Sicilian?
So you want me to present a survey of the Sicilian, the Caro-Kann, and the Aljechin, and their pros and cons? Thank you for entrusting me with this task, but I pass.
>It changes opening strategy, from that you're changing the whole game.
No, the principles of opening strategy are the same. Opening lines are different.
>But I can't make my opponent choose to not swap his pieces, if my opponent
>does it then my chess has been replaced.
Your chess has been "replaced" as soon as your opponent chooses an unexpected move.
> Your chess has been "replaced" as soon as your opponent chooses an unexpected move.
No, leaving book remains chess, the moves I played in the opening acknowledged that my opponent could play an unexpected move and that yet after doing so we'd reach positions that I am familiar with, most of the elements I like from chess would still be there, if their king automatically start at g square and their knight besides the queen, the position will be unfamiliar from the start, and will probably remain like that even if both castle.
Anyway, by now our stances on this issue are very clear, so let's agree to disagree, I replied to this topic because I am a fan of chess variants, and would be interested on the opinion of a [neutral] member on the proposal.
Chess is very unique in this way. Comparatively, Xiangqi (Chinese Chess) always revolves around tactics. Strategy and slow positional play does not exist. So players of Fide-chess are quite used to the variegated nature of chess. They won't experience my proposal as a wholly different game.
I am somewhat surprised at the lack of support for my idea. Aren't chess trainers interested in a variant where the young players cannot monotonously play their opening lines over and over again? Isn't it good training to think from the very beginning?
By example, in "Fischer Placement Chess", 25 modest positions in the
Chess960 array can be manually generated:
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill