The game would be decided mostly before the game even begins. Sounds like a complex variant of rock paper scissors: the only strategy is psychological; it'll be based mostly on luck, not skill.
Chess: An interesting concept ruined by too many design flaws
Sort:
Over time, though, people will learn from experience which setups are generally most effective, or what things make a setup effective (e.g. not putting your king or queen on the front 2 ranks). There definitely is a luck element, but this would be one of those games where having skill allows you to increase your luck, so to speak.
You sank my king's rook!
Lagomorph wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Funny, and this thread emphasises the humour bypass of a lot of chess.com'ers.
...and I put my hand up as not getting the joke at first. In my defence however, I only had read the excerpt provided by the OP, not the full article.
I only skimmed the OP's excerpt. It could have been a post by a beginner who wanted to sound intelligent, and there are a lot of those out there.
What if chess was played without pieces, the board was uniform white and spherical, and teams of eleven players tried to push it towards some enclosed location according to arbitrary rules in front of large audiences?
That could be an interesting variant.
Oct 14, 2014
0
#27
My favorite part:
The components are pretty bad by contemporary standards. The lightweight cardboard box contains hollow plastic pieces and a flimsy cardboard map. The map is a collection of provinces represented by black and white squares. The publisher should have considered adding some color to the board, and maybe even some little drawings of castles, a la Carcassonne. This would have the medieval theme very well. Even a couple of lakes would have helped immensely, like the ones on the map in Stratego. A poor map is one of several design flaws that plague this game.
Oct 14, 2014
0
#28
Tiltowait wrote:
It's written from the perspective of someone who has played many board games but never really played chess. What kind of game requires the players to keep score in their heads? It does seem pretty weird when you think about it.
One 15-20 second look at the board can give you the "score" if you are just counting pieces and pawns. The hard part is analyzing the position aside from the material aspect....
This article was written by a member of a generation with zero patience. Everything has to be right now, fast paced and as dumbed down as possible. If it isn't easy and over quickly then it's boring.
I weep for the future....
Spiritbro77 wrote:
This article was written by a member of a generation with zero patience. Everything has to be right now, fast paced and as dumbed down as possible. If it isn't easy and over quickly then it's boring.
I weep for the future....
Yes. Some people's antennae for satire and humour are genetically atrophying much, much faster than Darwin's finches were diversifying.
"I found myself getting bored while waiting for my opponent to move. There just isn't that much to think about during a game of Chess. Ironically, some players seem to be extremely prone to analysis paralysis, and hardly ever move all, which can really slow down the game."
Yes, that is satire.
In fact, why not let players choose the starting position of their pieces?
It actually might be interesting to design a variant of chess, where the players are allowed to arrange their pieces in any position on the 4 ranks of the board on their side, without being able to see how the opponent is arranging theirs. Then, once the game begins, the positions of all the pieces are revealed, and from that starting position the players proceed to play a regular chess game.
I think that game is called Stratego.
Yes, exactly like the general idea behind Stratego, but on a chess board with chess pieces.