Pal Benko's Pre-Chess

For those interested primarily in what my objectives are, as opposed to what Pre-Chess is, skip to the end (in bold) of this post.

From Wikipedia: Pre-Chess: proposed in 1978 by Pal Benko. The games starts with white and black pawns at the usual place, but initial position of other pieces selected by players in the following way. First, White places one of the pieces on the first row, and then Black does the same. Then White and Black continue in this way until all pieces are placed. The only restriction is that bishops should be placed on squares of the different colors. After that the game proceeds in the usual way. The castling only allowed if the king and a rook are located on their usual positions.

For a demonstration, check out the Pre-Chess page from the chessvariants website. As the site itself notes, the primary purpose is "illustrations rather than strong opponents". Still, very useful. Also, the comments give a bit more insight into this variant.

Alas, I could not yet find a copy of "Pre-Chess: Time for a Change" from Chess Life. If anyone has any ideas about where to find it, please post them here or PM me.

In lieu of that, I did uncover a follow-up article by Burt Hochberg (Chess Life editor and Pre-Chess proponent). You can view or download the PDF via this link: www.chesscafe.com/text/burt02.pdf

Some useful snippets include the following, from Benko and Hochberg, respectively...

“The placing of the pieces has a strategy all its own,” Benko wrote. “It is clear that neither player, if he is alert, can get a serious disadvantage in this phase... 

Although White still has the first move, this gives Black the potentially important first clue as to how to place his own forces. It seems to me that for this reason the chances of the two sides are more nearly equal in pre-chess than in the standard game and that this will have the effect of producing not more draws but more exciting chess.”

"Far be it from me to take issue with Bobby Fischer, but I see no reason why players should not be thinking strategically even during the placement phase instead of obeying the whim of random chance. It is quite possible – even likely – that some of the randomly generated positions in Fischer Random Chess are strongly disadvantageous for the first or second player. In Pre-Chess, the fate of the players is in their own hands. Of course, players are free to place their pieces in their traditional positions."

Whilst my initial goal in posting this–and forgive me for running on a tad–was mainly to pose an inquiry regarding the name of this variant, (like Hans-Walter Schmitt, who wanted a more respectable name for FRC), I couldn't help but make this all an encompassing thread.

Ideally, I'd like to to achieve three things here:

1.     Take the temperature of players to gauge interest in this game

2.     Find other enthusiasts/supports, as well as accompanying information (like that elusive Chess Life article).

3.     Elect a new name for this variant, since the current one is a tad...ambiguous.

So, without further ado, let the discussion begin!

Your article is well-received by me - and it could not be more timely; I totally agree with you in all respects of this [new] 'proposal'.

Although I've never heard of this chess 'variation' before, it somewhat befuddles me as I've dreamt up a very similar [chess] variant idea not too long ago, in fact, for a 'proposal' which was not too different from what you've described here.  I originally copped the 'idea' from the unorthodox chess variant, 'kriegspiel' (supposedly meaning 'night assault') - a three-player game where both players' forces (initial piece set-up is the same as in orthodox chess) are kept hidden from one another as play progresses; the third party acting as 'umpire' - but although I've never actually played it OTB, my idea for this variant was for each player to also have their initial start-up forces set up randomly, concealed from their opponent's set-up as well, with the proviso of Bishops on opposite colours, castling limited to original [orthodox] King/Rook initial array squares, and allowing en passant captures.

Currently, I'm working on another 'psychologically-induced' [orthodox] chess variant 'proposal' - [hopefully] to prevent the game's future [or premature] death.  Personally, I think it's rather interesting, and will post it sometime soon [within this year], somewhere within this 'Forum'. 

With all the current chess theory proliferating out there, I do believe our present 'royal game' is well past its prime, or is at least approaching such a 'stalemate' in itself.  Now would be about the right time for at least a few major changes for keeping the game alive, lest we wait another 500 more years till we crack the game's secret 'code'.

And that's the way I see it! ...

Kriegspiel is German for "war game" (krieg = war, spiel = game).

I think I remember once reading that there is an ancient form of chess that was played this way (perhaps in India).  I remember the writer (possibly Edward Lasker) stating that the players seemed to have their favorite setup and didn't appear to pay much attention to how the other side was setting up their pieces.

Thanks for the correction - however, I already knew 'that'; I was only referring to another's source.

Well, so that other readers are not misguided then. Better not propagate misunderstandings...

I like Dark Chess better than Kriegspiel, btw.

Well other than your perceived notions for what 'kriegspiel' means to you, what we're only 'promulgating' is our understanding that the 'royal game's intent was to in fact merely lead to a mutual draw between two players of roughly equal strength.  'That' fact hasn't actually happened yet, but is approaching, possibly leading to the game's 'demise' or it being 'cracked' - just like the game of draughts [checkers] has recently.

Besides that - not to mention that the current 'modern' game is due for a major overhaul - I don't think 'chess 960' [or 'Fischer random chess'] would be a good substitute [as a future standard replacement] for our current game, as what some might think.  True, there would be little [if any] opening theory to fall back on in this variant, but the chances for one player to be at an initial disadvantage is likely to be greater than the standard game. 

However, by modifying the current game towards a 'psychologically dynamic spectrum' - i.e. combining the random initial set-up element of Pal Benko's 'pre-chess' with the concealment initial set-up element of 'kriegspiel' - I believe that not only would a revised and decent chess game ensue, but would ultimately keep the game alive much longer.

And 'by[e]' the way, I'd prefer a game of Pal Benko's 'pre-chess' any day over any one of your 'proposals'.

Not sure what you mean (if it means anything at all).

Well if that's the case, then - end of conversation! ... Better you'd stick elsewhere with your 'spartan chess', huh? ...

So[?] - 'now[!]' do you understand?! ...

Yes, I think I am starting to get the picture. I am afraid you paint a picture that everyone reading this thread will recognize:

You don't like being corrected, even when you make a mistake, and when you are, you start sulking like a 3-year old, making pathetic attempts to insult those that corrected you, in the hope to drive them away. Is that close?

I don't understand why you want to bring the subject to Spartan Chess, which is rather far from the original topic of this thread. It is true that Chess variants come in many flavors, some more imaginative than others, and that some people have a taste for the innovative, and others for the conservative. So what?

'Corrected[?]!' ... [?!?] ... You started this mess! ...

Well how 'bout we settle 'this' over a sporting game of 'tiddlywinks chess', then - huh? ...

Don't know that variant... Perhaps if you explain the rules. :-)

To get back on topic, after the diversion to Kriegspiel and Spartan Chess: I am not really convinced of the merits of variants like Pre-Chess. Compared to Chess960 they have the disadvantage that they start from a position that is known it advance, so that it is subject to over-analysis of the opening 'moves' (in this case piece drops) in the same way as FIDE Chess. One could argue that the drops are so passive that there hardly is any strategic advantage to earn by how you drop, and as a consequence there is a wider choice.

So it offers nothing new (not even a generalization of the castling rule), and it is not clear if it solves any problem. (Other than temporarily invlidating all opening theory. But you could also acheive that by, say, swapping Knights and Bishops, and declare that the new opening position.)

Well, as I have yet to play a game of 'chess 960', I'd say I'm at least familiar with its rules, although I can't say I totally concur with the somewhat limited 'mirrored' array [piece placement].  In 'pre-chess', however, both Black and White's piece placement do not have to 'mirror' each other, but its castling rules could be greatly improved upon. 

I can't say that I agree with you regarding your stated 'disadvantages' of the other variants, as your point makes little sense towards 'knowledge' of starting positions'.  However, 'pre-chess' could very well be improved upon, nonetheless (i.e. if both players were allowed to place their starting pieces without each other's knowledge; in its present form, it is now Black that appears to gain some [if rather, slight] initial array advantage for White always has to place their initial piece placement first, as Black's following [piece placement] replies are deduced more from White's initial placement clues - whether this was intentionally brought about towards play-balance [for Black], it leaves room for wonder[?] ... ), as I see it as a marked improvement over 'chess 960'. 

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'piece drops' (initial piece placement[?]/the increased likelihood for hanging pieces[?]), but at least in 'pre-chess', a player has more leeway towards their preferred piece placement - in 'chess 960' however, you don't know what kind of a set-up you're going to receive once the game begins.

Other than that, it would be great if chess.com offered 'pre-chess' here - and I'd be one to advocate its play.

I like Benko's idea, but would prefer a fixed placement order, perhaps K Q R R Bwsqr Bbsqr N N.

The name will have to go, how about '∞Chess'  (or infini-chess?)

I had been trying to get pre-chess going for some time. I'd love to see this on chess.com like they do Chess960 and 4-player chess.

If you consider that FischerRandom, Displacement Chess, and Chess960 are all "random," I would suggest an antonym of random for a potential name:

Like Methodical Chess, Planned Chess, Definite Chess, Specific Chess, or Particular Chess.

Or, it could be called "Benko Chess" after Benko since he pushed this many years ago.

Or "Terran Chess."  (Terran of course is a reference to Earth.)

Or, perhaps "Justice Chess" just because I'm awesome. 

My gut instinct is call it "Terran Chess" or "Premier Chess." Online time control is 4 minutes with 4 seconds added per move. With in-person games, five minutes for set up (eight moves), then 15 minutes with 15 seconds added a move.

I hope Chess.com runs with this. They'd be shocked how popular it'd be. 

This is by far my favourite chess variant from all the ones I have read about. Would love to see it in chess.com for sure.

I also think it would be more popular than the other variants available. I disagree about having separate times for placing and playing, I think that placing and playing should happen inside the same time so if you take more time placing you have less time playing. 

I like the name Prechess as a short for Benko's Prechess.

For a rather interesting twist on this, see Daslov's recent post on Fischer-Benko Chess (or Half-Random Chess): https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-variants/fischer-benko-chess

MalcolmHorne, the absence of randomness AND predetermined positions is just what I like the most about Prechess. I mean, if I place my rook in a "strong" position, my oponent has the oportunity to make it weaker using his placement. Making a placement that will give you advantage is actually your main objective during placement and if you actually get this advantage it is all by your own merit.