Entropy chess

Predisclaimer (you may skip). Following idea(s) doesn't pretend to be extremely new or unique and/or to replace classical chess etc. It might be considered as development of Fisher's chess 960 idea. But i knew about it just recently, long after idea of Entropy chess arose. Actually it's borrowed from computer games, specifically from turn-based war strategies. Where is very common, when before starting virtual battle on tactical map, player should chose forces from some given set limited by some given amount of strength points.

Level 1. Well known that classical set of pieces is evaluated in 39 strength points (SP): 8 (pawns) + 4x3 (minor pieces) + 5x2 (rooks) + 9 (queen). But in more general case nothing restricts us from starting game with different amount of SP - lower or even higher (using 3rd/6th rank for extra pieces) - in reasonable scope (obviously there is no sense to start game with extremely low amount of SP). Therefore players should change their own set of pieces to fit in given restriction.

For example, if players are awarded with 35SP each, they should remove before starting the game any minor piece and a pawn or 4 pawns depending on own choice (or even rook - if one wishes)).

Setup examples for 36SP for each player.

At this level at least debuts (but hence all games) might become less predetermined, less predictable and more interesting.

Level 2. Nothing new in idea of "bisque". But in terms of SP it might be easily "legalized": certain extra SP allowance may be awarded depending on rating difference, previous tournament/match performance etc.

At this level games between players of different strength may become more interesting and worthwhile.

Level 3. On previous levels it was assumed that things are changed from classical pieces set and setup. But in even more general case that's also not mandatory. Even for "standard" amount of 39SP. If one wants to place pieces somewhere else in given area, in might be allowed. Or if, for example, one wants to play with extra rook and pawn instead of pair of knights. Or both. And so on.

Obviously at this level starting variability might increase even more.

Common rules.
0. Pieces setup may be done in two ways (at least)):
- white setup done first and the black follows (this somehow compensates white's first move advantage);
- setup is done blindly (board is divided by screen during process etc.).
1. Castling rule is applied if corresponding rook and king start game from "classical" positions.
2. Pawns may move for two squares at first only if they start from 2nd/7th rank.
3. Basically we don't care about pieces symmetry, bishops colours etc. If player wants to play, for example, with two bishops of same colour - it's his/her own trouble.

PS. Credits to whom it may concern, support is appreciated, offence - isn't.)

With no reaction at all so far I just wonder how many people have seen this topic.

To explain why I didn't react: To my taste too close to already existing things, like chess 960 and handicap chess. (For me chess variants can't be exotic enough.) But you had already announced that in your predisclaimer.

My interest in chess variants stems mainly from the curiosity of how exotic pieces (and sometimes additional rules) can be exploited. What you propose I would not even consider a chess variant, just normal Chess from a different starting position. That doesn't mean it would be a bad game, of course. Just that it adds too little to existing games (like Chess960) to attract my interest.

It's not bad. I have the same opinion as the ones before me, though...

As I got it, it's less about just "different starting position" but more about player's freedom to choose own pieces and starting position (under certain restrictions of course).

As for me it might be even more interesting than Chess 960, but I barely can imagine it's implementation. It seems so far, for example, Chess 960 didn't become very popular, just several tournaments were held.

Maybe the straightest way to test and implement those ideas is to create some sort of add-on for common computer chess, which would allow such options to utilize.
But you'll need to engage programmers for that.

As this is normal Chess starting from a different position, many normal Chess engines would already be able to play it. It is just selecting the start position that they cannot do.

I wonder if there is really much choice in selecting the army, however. For a 39-point army, wouldn't it always be best to select 39 Pawns? In variant Horde you get 34 Pawns, without King, against a FIDE army, and this seems to be about even. With 5 more Pawns and a King on top of that it seems you would be pretty much unbeatable.

If both players select King + 39 Pawns, it would be difficult to fit them on the board, though! If the players are limited to 32 pieces, King + 4 Knights + 27 Pawns would probably be the best choice, and every other choice rather suicidal.

Remember that strong pieces get worth less for every weaker piece the opponent has. This is why 3 Queens lose so badly from 7 Knights (with King + 8 Pawns each as only other pieces).

So if I would program a computer for playig this, I would always have it start with this optimal army, and only the opponent would have to select his own army: Most GUIs would allow you to set up a position, however, and if the computer's army is fixed, this doesn;t need any extra programming.

Thanks for your responses.

>> HGMuller

I've to agree: such a pawn crowd seems unbeatable.:) But we shouldn't forget about reasonable range - it's far beyond common sense.

Of course space for deployment might (should) also be restricted somehow.

There are no natural reason to allow even 3rd(6th) rank for deployment if army is 39SP or less.

And when board isn't overcrowded, things become less obvious - any army should have both advantages and flaws, which in general case should be more or less balanced assumingly.

>> mykhailo_sielskyi

"...freedom to choose..."

Yep, you're right.

Actually the main point is if we want to increase game popularity, we should to gain as much as possible extra variability and unpredictability with as less as possible complication of rules in other hand.

The idea of maximum (again: reasonable) player's freedom in setup should serve exactly this principle I suppose well enough.

The point is that within the 'reasonable freedom' the rules allow, as many light pieces as allowed would always be best, and choosing anything else might be equivalent to offering material odds. So the 'freedom to choose' would be largely illusory. It is like trying to increase variation by allowing both players to omit as many pieces as they want from the FIDE setup, (Albeit somewhat less extreme). I don't think there would be many takers...

t might be possible to repair this by adding some non-linear term to the accounting of the strength points. E.g. every next minor you choose is somewhat more expensive than the previous one, every second Pawn in a rank is more expensive, etc. That would restrict the freedom in a more 'capitalist' way, regulated through price rather than oppressive rules.

Well, perhaps it's legit. Some problems with balance may occur. But they can be solved either simply by re-evaluating pieces somehow or in a way you've proposed etc.

Anyway it's hard to predict and cure all possible problems in advance. Before idea can be fine tuned it must be tested on practice.

But it seems not many people are interested, at least here and so far.:/

Maybe with so much time invested in opening theory it's just too dear for chess community to consider throwing it away.

...And one more (45SP). Unfortunately at chess.com no opportunity for each player to make own setup, hence custom pre-setup was made with slight initial advantage for black.

I think rather than having white set all the pieces followed by all of black's, they should alternate. Otherwise the advantage seems too great for black.

Khalayx, yep, though it's a bit tedious, it may be yet another option. But on such a case extra time control for setup may be needed. Blind setup I suppose would be a bit faster.

HGMuller, it almost proven practically that minor pieces aren't necessarily better, it's not easy to coordinate them properly. Sometimes even Stockfish agrees. In following position extra pawn was needed for white to balance:

And here white had small initial advantage, but only with precise play (of course in this specific position it's all about tactics):

I think you would have to add a few restrictions on where the points can be spend. e.g. white cannot spend more that 3 points on rank 5, not more than 5 points on rank 4, not more than 7 points on rank 3 and so on. obviously vice versa for black. I think it woul still leave lots of room for creative setups but increase actual playability.