Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Chess / Proposal: manual swapping of pieces.
- - By Matswin (*) [se] Date 2010-01-20 17:37
How to achieve creative fighting chess. How to achieve fair computer
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:
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/chess/relocationvariants.htm

For instance, in "Fischer Placement Chess", 25 modest positions in the
Chess960 array can be manually generated:
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/chess/fischerplacement.htm

/Mats
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2010-01-21 02:09

> 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.
Parent - - By Matswin (*) [se] Date 2010-01-21 06:45
It's regular chess, really. It's just much more fun. When I play on the ICC, the players are obsessed with avoiding theory. So they play the French Exchange, etc. The other day a strong opponent played 2.Nc3 against my Aljechin defence. The game went: 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Qf3 e6 5. Nxd5 Qxd5 6. d3 Qxf3 7. Nxf3... That's why it's not very good training to play on the ICC. The games seldom have any theoretical value, but are quite dull. However, when I play Chess960 on the ICC, it's a quite different thing. Games are engaging and interesting. But many Chess960 positions are strategically inferior. Comparatively, in my variants, all positions are close to the standard position, and this vouches for strategical diversity.
/Mats
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2010-01-21 06:55
Heh, I also have more fun playing Crazyhouse than regular chess ;), but I guess I'll side step this discussion, mainly, I'm the one seeking going into well studied theory lines, and gaining an advantage when my opponents deviate, so I like that part of chess, that's why I seldom play C960.
Parent - - By Matswin (*) [se] Date 2010-01-21 09:21 Edited 2010-01-21 09:27
There are other aspects to this, too. Also GMs have begun to play
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.
/Mats
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2010-01-21 09:37
I wonder what would those GMs think about your proposal, would they still consider it chess?
Parent - - By Matswin (*) [se] Date 2010-01-21 10:27
What's so different about it? The positions are close to the standard position. When castling the king sometimes jumps a different distance, that's all. The principle of castling remains the same. But a whole new universe of variations opens up.
/Mats
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2010-01-21 11:58
Any new rule, as small as it is, makes the game not feel like chess, as an extreme example, I have a cousin that I used to play chess with, only, he didn't know/understand the en passant rule, so we disallowed it, it turns out that I kept coming with plans that relied on it, and some of the time he made moves and I yelled: "oh rats, it'd be really good if en passant would be possible in these positions". It was not chess.

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.
Parent - - By Matswin (*) [se] Date 2010-01-21 12:25
It is too simplistic to say that pieces are badly placed in other configurations than the standard array. When Aljechin invented the Aljechin defence people were appalled. How can Black allow White to push four pawns in the centre without doing much to counter it? Today, Aljechin is viewed as a very natural defence, possibly even the best against 1.e4. So my proposal is not much different from inventing a new strangely looking opening system. Chess players will soon feel at home in these positions. Your example of the excluded en-passant rule is not relevant. That would be a much greater change than my proposal.
/Mats
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2010-01-21 20:39

> 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.
Parent - - By Matswin (*) [se] Date 2010-01-21 21:50
It's not a replacement of chess since the players can choose the standard position. Aljechin is a remarkably strong defense. Carlsen plays it. The reason why the main variation isn't popular among GMs is, I suppose, that there are drawish lines that white can choose. I believe the Aljechin is the most solid defence against e4 if you play the Bg4 variations. The Sicilian is, of course, better for counter-attacking purposes, and that's why it's so popular.

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.
/Mats
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2010-01-21 22:27
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?

> 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.
Parent - - By Matswin (*) [se] Date 2010-01-22 07:05

>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.
/Mats
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2010-01-22 12:09

> 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.
Parent - By Matswin (*) [se] Date 2010-01-22 13:09
The positions arising after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 (The King's gambit) are, as a rule very different from the positions arising after 1.e4 Nf6 (The Aljechin). In fact, it is a wholly different game. Furthermore, inside the Aljechin defense White can choose lines that are very slow and strategic, or he can choose an extremely tactical line. It is like different universes within the same opening. In fact, it is like wholly different chess variants.

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?
/Mats
Parent - - By Matswin (*) [se] Date 2014-07-31 07:25
I bump this thread because the links have changed. The new links are below. Please evaluate my idea. Relocation variants are meant to serve as a complement to Fide-chess.

http://www.two-paths.com/bg/relocationvariants.htm

By example, in "Fischer Placement Chess", 25 modest positions in the
Chess960 array can be manually generated:
http://www.two-paths.com/bg/fischerplacement.htm

/Mats
Parent - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2014-08-01 01:18
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Chess / Proposal: manual swapping of pieces.

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill