
Status: Declined
Reason: Pending Reply declined per the creator's request.
Seems pretty fun, but a problem with this is that a player may be able to play very defensively without much punishment.
Additionally, the time control doesn't quite fit.
Seems pretty fun, but a problem with this is that a player may be able to play very defensively without much punishment.
Additionally, the time control doesn't quite fit.
If a player is able to play very defensively without much punishment, they either know the correct defense or their opponent is moving rather randomly.
Additionally, I presume you mean the time control may not be slow enough.
The pieces such as the generals have very high defensive capabilities and can create a very strong defense, not allowing even the archbishops and elephants to pass through. Also, the 10|15 timecontrol is very high when you think about it; do we really need such a slow time control for an NCV?
The pieces such as the generals have very high defensive capabilities and can create a very strong defense, not allowing even the archbishops and elephants to pass through. Also, the 10|15 timecontrol is very high when you think about it; do we really need such a slow time control for an NCV?
I use generals rather than an Amazon because their short range offsets their very high defensive capabilities, they have difficulties stopping the archbishops and elephants from passing around even if they may not allow them to pass through. Also, the 10|15 timecontrol is only so high because the vast majority of the available options are lower in spite of the arithmetic, which tricks people into thinking it is an unnecessarily slow time control for an NCV. On the other hand, even the top available 30|30 time control is not slow enough for FIDE to take it seriously.
This may make me look bad, but I suggest not to list the position at all. There is an error in it where Black immediately has to defend against 1.h4 2.Bh3 or else be at a decisive disadvantage on move 2. Although this never happened in the testing games I have played, it is a gift to players who want to cheat the rating system without properly violating Fair Play.
This may make me look bad, but I suggest not to list the position at all. There is an error in it where Black immediately has to defend against 1.h4 2.Bh3 or else be at a decisive disadvantage on move 2. Although this never happened in the testing games I have played, it is a gift to players who want to cheat the rating system without properly violating Fair Play.
I'm not quite sure what you mean? If you mean chancellor's opening 2 squares, that's quite an aggressive yet a good move that gives black a good amount of counterplay. If you're about kingside fianchetto, I honestly fail to see how it gives white any advantage. Just to remind you that engines are not that good at Strategic variants, and that black's hawk on 9th rank and not 10th, slightly violating the symmetry, allows to defend very easily and get a slight advantage against white in case of that opening. We tested this thoroughly, the gameplay is pretty varied and I'm sure no immediate attacks are available unless one player exposes the king diagonals. We analyzed the game in-depth both with and without engines and didn't find any moves that force black to reply in a certain way.
However, if you're still sure that this variant needs to be declined, you may ask us to decline this variant if you wish.
Timecontrol
10 | 15Promotion
Bishop, Chancellor, Archbishop, General, Knight, Queen, Rook on the 10th rankNote