Interesting, yet very strange comments from Long_quach here....... For a start, making a point or an analogy by comparing any board game, from chess to monopoly to; boxing, the period table, body building exercises, the five primary colours, standardised house building, car manufacture and how things taste, does not seem in any way applicable to considering how Capablanca Chess compares with traditional Chess. Also, in comparing chess to all of these other things, which in themselves also seem to have little actually in common with each other, is again an odd way of making any rational point. I concede that whilst boxing does employ some combative tactics, the others do not all.
More applicable and constructive is perhaps saying “In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack--the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers.” And, “The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle--you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?”
Hmmmmm, lets consider these points which seem to be far more relevant. Firstly, saying that there are only two methods of attack, direct and indirect, which cannot be effectively combined makes no sense. I see no reason why they can’t be combined to great effect, and if you were to look at something like the Napoleonic Wars, yes these methods of attack were combined, and yes this did lead to a lot of manoeuvring, but was it endless, well no. Battles and campaigns throughout history are very complex and difficult with numerous logistical elements that have to be considered. I would argue that if chess is to be compared to anything, then military campaigns in history are a far better analogy. If anything, Capablanca chess would be more reflective of the complexities of such war strategies, so in that sense it would be better.
Secondly, saying that a game of Capablanca chess would be like moving in a circle and never come to end, makes no sense. Like any game of Chess, with ever increasing moves, the board changes, pieces would be lost and control of the board would also change, that it is inevitable. As for exhausting the possibilities and combinations of Chess, why would you want to, that’s not the object of the game even! That is precisely what appeals about the game of Chess! Even in traditional chess, the possible combination of moves is practically infinite already, so the addition of each side having two extra pieces and two pawns, would make no material difference (for human players anyway) whatsoever in that respect.
If Capablanca chess does have any problems, and maybe this is what Long_quach was trying to get at, it could potentially lead to much longer games of chess (personally I like that idea, but of course not everyone will). But again, some players play games over numerous hours and sometimes even days, so it would be suitable for those players. What does trouble me about Capablanca Chess, is how established openings, like King’s Queen’s openings would have to be modified. I am sure they could be, but this would take time and experimentation to get the sequences of moves for optimum effect. I think it would also take some time to get used to the strengths and weaknesses of the new pieces and how they would interact with the other pieces. Personally, I feel intrigued by these challenges, not put off or intimidated.
In conclusion, would Capablanca Chess be more complicated and lead to longer games, yes probably. Would it be worth playing and be enjoyable, even more probable, yes.
Yes I agree with PsychologicalChess, surely it would inject the game of chess with a bit more dimension and depth, as it can get quite too familiar, whereas a game with two extra pieces and two extra pawns over a bigger board is going to create a lot more potential for inovation and novel positions. Just my thoughts anyway. I'd certainly play it on this site, put it that way.