FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
I respect the current chess game that involving draws end game.It is very sportmanlike i see.However,i propose chess variant to decreasing draws result.It is by adding one minor piece with the move rule precisely as the king's move rule.One square into any direction.Here it is my site and two possible chess pieces setup on the board.Adding one pieces on the board will reduce the draws probability because of more complex game.
It's an interesing idea. But it would not be chess. There are thousands - possibly hundreds of thousands or more - of ideas like this. What is the justifcation of this one over the others (many of which would also increase complexity)?
The OTB game shouldn't take too much time for it to be playable.Thus adding just one pieces will give the optimum advantage of total time and the complexity.Adding more than one minor pieces will increase total time excessively.And the move rule of this pieces will reduce memorization significantly because of it's simplicity.
I don't like the configuration nor the re-configuration to the board. The former disrupts the activity of the two Bishops; since each army can only use them on one colored squares, it would cause both to possibly obstruct/interfere/duplicate the movement of each other. The latter causes an unattractive and unecessary insymmetry on the board. If the King is at the center of the rank and his loyal advisors are the Queen and the Bishop, why is there another Bishop further out, since its configuration is only there to compensate for the extra square caused by adding this new minor piece? The only way to fix this ('less someone discovers something else) is to make the Bishops symmetrical to each other again, and that, as you seem to acknowledge, was already a problem to begin with.
Also, I don't see much a meaning of adding an extra capturable "King" piece, when a King piece already exists on the board. How exactly does this variant aid in descreasing draw? Simply by the fact that a new piece is added? Surely, then, isn't this already achieved by many to most variants, since the very nature of chess variants primarily includes having new innovative pieces?
Concluding, I see this less as intriguing and more as a distraction to the existing joy of regular FIDE chess, since FIDE is fine the way it is; considering that draws aren't even so much an issue. I'm sure that point can be debated, but there you go.
edit - Perhaps a better idea is to replace the minor King-powered piece with another Queen. Players always wish they had more Queens to work with, and so having this extra one may give players an optimum advantage. Just my .02.
There is no reason at all to assume adding a medium-strength piece will have any effect on draw rate. In general such games will keep a ~32% draw rate,just like orthodox Chess. Games that reduce draw rate typically add a number of super-pieces, which enhance the probability that the game ends in the middle-game by a devastating mate attack (Capablanca/Gothic Chess, which has 16% draw rate). Or variants where white and black have a completely different set of pieces, so that symmetric end-games (which tend to be the most drawish ones) are impossible. Spartan Chess has only a 26% draw rate.
And then there are of course the games with drops, like Crazyhouse or Shogi, where draws are virtually non-existent.
Adding super-pieces will severely punish a slightly blunder.Thus the game will be over sooner and dismiss the enjoyment.The slightly blunder should be given a chance to recover.Therefore adding the king moves like pieces will be considered as a minor changes on the current set.
We can imagine the ending game between two experienced player after exchange sacrifice moves with this new set.It will be similar to king and pawn structure endgame on both player.The player with the most strategic king position toward pawn structure will win the game.Thus this new pieces will act as a trump card.
This decreasing draws seemed like a relevant conversation 20-30 years ago. But check out the latest computer world chess championship where players much better than any human players played games which were mostly decisive. There is no need to change the game to get fewer draws. There is only a need to incentivize players to get fewer draws.
Well,i think it is about coverage mastery of human mind on structure set.Precisely it is about coverage mastery in every stage of the game.It is about human limitation in every moves they made.We try to bluring the endgame with avoid to involving the excessively memorization in the earlier stage.Surely this is a balanced game theoretically.
Your claim that this would reduce draw rate seems based on nothing but wishful thinking.
I really don't know how bad an issue draws even are, since the alleged irritation of draws seem to dismiss that games more typically end in resignation. (With every 1 game of draw/stalemate, I have observed more than 5 times those that end in victory caused by resignation or time ran-out.)
And then, I'm not even so sure I'm understanding the logicality of how an extra capturable King would acheive such goal of reducing draw. People draw because of exhausted positionality, and that can happen with any number of kinds of piece on the board.
While I could be wrong, I almost feel like this variant was created for personal delight, and then a reason was needed in order to justify it; that reducing draw was merely a convenient answer to legitimize it.
Mostly player haven't noticed their pawn structure and king position when it comes to endgame stage.Sometimes the endgame entrance was unavoidable.This new pieces will give a decisive factor for both players.It could be the advantage for the defender,and the exchange inisiator will try to find another way.At last it will avoid the earlier draw and goes to another lines.
Sadly, 50Mark, I'm going to have to agree with HGMuller, considering that he has done a lot of analytical work in variants, including my own: it seems nothing more than mere wishful that your configuration aids in reducing draws.
For the purpose of reducing draws, one could start from standard chess and declare some achievement winning only if both players are unable to mate. That achievement could be:
- being the first that gave check
- being the first that promoted a pawn
For example if White was the first to give check to the black King, Black might win by mating or White might win by repetition of moves.
Well,time and practice will make a proof.
50Mark, the burden of proof falls on your shoulders, not mine or ours.
Post some games and explain in diagrams some unique situations of this variant that draws were reduced/avoided, and perhaps we would change our minds.
That aside, I also stick by my minor point on the Bishop arrangment: the insymmetricality (if that's a form of the word) not only doesn't look aesthetically appealing, it really doesn't seem to work well, since they don't have even access to the center and other equal opportunities.
Don't we agree that adding a new pieces will increasing the game's complexity ? .It means the probability to make blunder being higher and finally the draw result will be lower.It should be clear from this simple reason.
We could make it more complex by adding the second pieces of the same type.And we will have the symmetrical set.But i doubt it will increasing total time needed in OTB game.I think symmetrical is not the main issue.
The point is that the chances to make a blunder hardly affect the draw rate. Because the opponent has more chance to blunder too, and when they both blunder it will be a draw anyway. Games like Chess have a draw margin, and the initial position lies deep within the draw zone. So you need a pretty large amount of sub-optimal play to ever leave the draw zone, and the presence of a medium-valued piece just doesn't change the 'diffusion rate' of the score very much.
In computer chess in which they did perfect moves,this always be a draw game.Once the blunder have happened by human player,it will be followed by a serial weakening by the opponent.Eventhough the probability of blunder was applied to both player,but the blunder itself was triggered by one of them.