Chessplus (Decreasing draws result)

That is not how Chess works. Players with any reasonable skill will never blunder away the game in a single move, but give away score in small steps, and it will take many such steps to overcome the draw margin. And many advantages will not make it easier to make the advantage grow before the end-game.

It is only need one blunder to lead the game into a decisive result by two GM players,as long as the blunder moves never made again after the first blunder.This is how the simulation should be started.Because it was proven that the two GM capable to play the balancing moves until the last move to reach the draw.Thus it is no need end game stage to give it away the whole game,theoretically speaking.Two experienced grand master is the perfect human system to apply the probability in practical manner.The losing could form the deterioration on one of both player.  

This is demonstrably false. GMs give away advantage all the time; almost every move they make is sub-optimal. If you give a GM a huge advantage in the beginning of the game, like having a Rook where the opponent only has a Knight, to simulate the situation where his opponent blundered away the exchange, he will still lose more often than not against Stockfish or Komodo. Give him only a Pawn advantage (without compensation), and he stands no chance of even drawing. According to your model of Chess he should win every such game.

Fact is that GMs typically give away about 2 Pawns worth of advantage during the game due to sub-optimal moving, even when they already have a winning advantage.

Our blunder probability is meant to be applied on human player,not to be applied on computer chess.So the sub optimal moves according computer chess could be the maximum capability of human player in average.Starting from this general capability,the deterioration could be reasonable.

Bytheway,the giving away 2 pawns in your last statement is likely a special case and not the GM's average case.Try for you to do research on GM's playing.And found an average characteristic of them. 

The 'achievement' could even be something that would give a slight disadvantage in standard chess, for example having more doubled pawns.

Furthermore 50Mark should organize a large tournament for his variant and publish some stats :)

Looks great. I imagine that chess as we know it will be completely replaced by this variant over time.

Ok guys.I don't meant to be euphoria.If there are a lot of chess fan want to play this variant sooner,i invite anyone to featuring these variants in their site.My own site is seems to slowly developed.

We can call it opposite bishop chessplus and uniform bishop chessplus.

Post your site address on this thread.It will be nice to try these variant against chess fan around the world.

Maybe, Strangemover. However, I don't think many of us are seeing it.

Sorry, I disguised my irony too heavily.

You mean your sarcasm?

[Duplicated post edited out]

Correct.

It would be a good variant I think. Sounds fun too but people appreciate chess for what it is. Different variations are always fun and I love playing "fake chess" It makes the game more complex and it's good to play different sometimes

Draws are fine. Don't change the pieces or rules. Chess is perfect the way it is.

You have lots of "good variants" in this forum. Look around you. 

I don't think the issue's so much that people like chess "the way it is". Rather, it's simply that this variant isn't different enough to be one on its own, and, considering this, what variance it was meant to offer really does minimum to contribute to our enjoyment of what we know of FIDE chess: it doesn't reduce draw the way it's claimed to, and then a few other things seem to obstruct the already good order of chess. (Symmetry, as I have brought up, for example.)

I give kudos for attempt, but sadly, neither I nor many can say it's as "good" as you want to say it is. (Maybe it's because you feel bad the OP). There are simply way better variants in this forum than this, to be quite frank.

This version of chess would be a little different but like you said there isn't much change and taking out a bishop would be weird. Maybe a knight instead if anything...

Draws are good because it shows that chess players both playing the right moves. This is why the top GM games usually end up in draws if you look at the stats from tournaments. Once you reach a certain level, winning isn't as easy. Then again White always starts with the advantage. Also there are so many books and theroies about chess as it is there won't be a change. It's just too much and chess has become established with set rules already.

At first,it was meant to overcome the draws.Really.Because we see the current set is quite perfect,so we just need a little bit changes to reach our purpose.We have considered optimal total time and complexity we will get.

Just wishful thinking based on a flawed model for how Chess is played.

We will revive chessplus to give us more option in board games.

I need someone to play this variant in correspondence with me.Please don't be  hesitate.