I think it's unnecessary to fiddle with the rules of chess in an attempt to make it less 'drawish'. Sure, at superGM level it's drawish - because those guys play fantastic and make very few errors. Regular players like you or me will make mistakes and so it's not drawish. Plus, if you fail to appreciate a drawn game simply because it's a draw then you know the square root of f**k all about chess.
Banishment Chess
Sort:
evert823 wrote:
Whoa, didn't know this existed! Thanks!
Also, Strangemover, I don't actually think Banishment Chess would significantly reduce draws, as it would just lead to more positions to circumvent, whereas 2-4 additional moves needed for artificial castling (compared to the traditional single-mover one) comprise a considerable difference in tempi; therefore, while the idea of tackling the draw problem is lucrative, it's far from game-changing in this variant. The main point is to have a greater yet equally logical level of creativity over your own army.
Honestly, I'm clueless as to whether this variant already exists under a different name or not, but it feels like an apt way for me to call it. Whether this modification to traditional chess is actually my brainchild or not, I'd like to try it out, as I'm hot on the trail of the inspiration provided by Kramnik in his only article on Chess.com so far (the one on no-castling chess).
So, what would Banishment Chess be?
It's simple: each turn, you may either a) move one of your pieces (as usual) or b) remove one of your pieces from the board altogether, once and for all (except if it's the King, of course). It's not a drastic difference compared to traditional chess, but it would help with certain blockades, and yet it's fair in the sense that you get to choose to lose material for the price of a standard move.
Now, whether one should be forced to remove a piece if one's stalemated while having anything other than just a King, that's another story... though I think it would help reduce draws if implemented. What do you think?