Forums

New idea for chess960

Sort:
RonaldJosephCote
RonaldJosephCote
Jun 30, 2014
0
#21

                         If your playing 960 on site, the computer gives you the starting position. If your playing bouble random, what's with the secrecy ??

TheBlueKnight9
TheBlueKnight9
Jun 30, 2014
0
#22
StevieBlues wrote:

I was thinking, why not let us choose our own army setup?

For me at least, it's infinitely more interesting than getting a random position and playing that. People could master their own setups, theory would still be almost as useless. You would see traditional setups(R-N-B-Q-K-B-N-R) against hybrids, totally bonkers stuff too!

I did some analysis of the possible positions with Droidfish on my phone, and it also seems that just about everything is playable! And the classical setup is by no means better than others! A decent example is R-B-B-Q-K-N-N-R which seems to be very strong..

I would probably suggest that castling be kept in the traditional way-i.e. if a rook begins away from it's pawn, you forfeit castling on that side, but this stuff doesn't really matter yet :P

 

Any thoughts/suggestions?

WTF DID I JUST READ???????????????

RonaldJosephCote
RonaldJosephCote
Jun 30, 2014
0
#23

                      So Stevie, what's your new idea ???

coon74
coon74
Jun 30, 2014
0
#24

Batgirl, thanks for the link; however, Stratego looks too different from chess, which means that some chess players would be less likely to switch over if it were marketed actively.

I'd abolish castling altogether in the Double 'Random' (the variation where players choose army for themselves!) for simplicity, as it's possible to compose a safe position for the king with connected rooks from the very beginning. 

In the variant where players choose each other's armies, I'd allow castling as per the Chess960 rules but not require placing the king between the rooks (though it's still good to place it so anyway to make the opponent spend a tempo on connecting the rooks).

matthew_b_rook
matthew_b_rook
Show your flair!
Jun 30, 2014
0
#25

that's the same thing as this game called crazy chess crazy chess

RonaldJosephCote
RonaldJosephCote
Jun 30, 2014
0
#26

                   Batgirl; isn't Stratego a board game from Milton Bradly ??

coon74
coon74
Jun 30, 2014
0
#27
matthew_b_rook wrote:

that's the same thing as this game called crazy chess crazy chess

Did you mean CrazyRandom, a chess variant that's different from crazyhouse only in that the initial position and castling rules are like in Chess960?

StevieBlues
StevieBlues
Jun 30, 2014
0
#28

@coon74

Very good point. For this reason, the king is the one piece that must begin on it's traditional square. Moving the rooks would be allowed like any other piece, but forfeit's castling- which is logical anyway.

So basically, you can have your connected rooks- but your king is gonna be a hero until the endgame lol 

DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jun 30, 2014
0
#29
RonaldJosephCote wrote:

                   Batgirl; isn't Stratego a board game from Milton Bradly ??

Thus the "tm" after Stratego ;)...

RonaldJosephCote
RonaldJosephCote
Jun 30, 2014
0
#30

                      Oh, I see. You don't have a new idea, your just hoping somebody else has. I guess that's one way of starting a thread.                    

coon74
coon74
Jun 30, 2014
0
#31

There's a ton of new ideas possible. I think that, out of old ideas, non-traditional pieces (the chancellor, the archbishop or smth weirder) and piece drops (like in bughouse and crazyhouse) are the way to go because they both confuse engines and make them very weak: the former gives them a headache with piece evaluation, the latter increases the number of possible moves in a given position and cuts achievable game tree depths dramatically.

Put this all on a hexagonal board (again an old idea), and you'll have anti-engine chess for at least for a while Laughing