This is a great idea, though, and would be very interesting to play.
Chess is boring! Let's change the rules
Sort:
Jan 5, 2024
0
#23
finnsteur wrote:
NotMagnusCarlesn wrote:
Chess needs to be a draw with best play. That way the only way for a decisive chess game is for it to be because of human error, which makes it a better game. It is unfair if black plays at 100% accuracy and white also plays at 100% accuracy, but white still wins. It much rather play see two grandmasters draw a ton then know that one of them is doomed to lose no matter how well they play.
Don't worry in shogi all games are decisive thanks to the rules in place and black win almost as much game as white!
In fact shogi AND this new version of chess are draw too. But not the same kind of draw. They're more like combative draw. With attack everywhere.
Chess is more interesting if it's more than just attacking.
NotMagnusCarlesn wrote:
finnsteur wrote:
NotMagnusCarlesn wrote:
Chess needs to be a draw with best play. That way the only way for a decisive chess game is for it to be because of human error, which makes it a better game. It is unfair if black plays at 100% accuracy and white also plays at 100% accuracy, but white still wins. It much rather play see two grandmasters draw a ton then know that one of them is doomed to lose no matter how well they play.
Don't worry in shogi all games are decisive thanks to the rules in place and black win almost as much game as white!
In fact shogi AND this new version of chess are draw too. But not the same kind of draw. They're more like combative draw. With attack everywhere.
Chess is more interesting if it's more than just attacking.
I see your point.
Chess would still be lots of things. Attacking would just always be an option (and a good one).
I think you can play positionally even in opposite side castling position. You can try to exchange queens, open a file and exchange all rooks on it etc...
There could be clash of style here too.
The problem with modern chess is not that it's boring, but everything is booked out and all the grandmasters train with computers. That's why Bobby Fischer invented FischerChess or RandomChess or whatever they call it now. Opening theory is thrown out the Plus, there are a lot of variant chess games here on Chess.com. Just go to "Play" then select "4 Player & Variants"
It’s be more fair if white was the one to have to castle O-O-O
What the flip is the op talking about??? 🤣🤣🤣
This is where chess 960 comes to the rescue. You have all the chess rules including castling without the memorizing of openings. If the upcoming classical Fischer-Random super-tournament in February results in a high percentage of wins without a majority of draws then it will prove that memorizing the openings are what makes chess boring at the elite levels of chess. In the lower levels there has never been a problem with constant draws.
the-blonde-cat написал:
he misses when we were all beginners and blunders made the game exciting.
the better you get the more boring the game gets so we need new rules that make it so that the better you get, the more blunders you make.
what, how does that even make sense???
soo magnus carlsen will make 694200 blunders a game while a 100 rated player will make 2?
long_quach wrote:
TheBlueBoy wrote:
. . . That's why Bobby Fischer invented RandomChess . . .
1. Re-invented. Putting pieces anywhere behind infantry was already in Burmese chess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sittuyin
2. It is not a good idea to introduce randomness in chess. It already exists in cards and backgammon. Chess is unique in that starting position is the same. Chess is conducive to game recording, i.e. literacy. You cannot record a game of backgammon because the roll of the dice is different at every turn.
Hiya Long_quatch, I'm really interested in your reply. Please don't take this the wrong way. This is not criticisim. You wrote that Chess is conducive to game recording, i.e. literarcy. You also mention backgammon with the roll of the dice is different at every turn. But RandomChess (or Fischer Chess or whatever) even if it has different opening (i.e. random) positions, those random openings would still be recorded and the games would be conducive to literarcy? It just seems to me that so many people study opening theory just to gain an advantage early on to wipe out their opponents. And then, when it comes to the endgame, they splutter out. Look at the recent Woman's World Championship match where the "grandmaster" couldn't complete a king-bishop-knight mate. Thank you for considering my reply, and again, I'm not trying to challenge you or irritate you, just trying to continue the conversation. Thank you.
Jan 7, 2024
0
#31
Change the rules of chess! Change the rules chess! Change the rules of chess!!!
Jan 7, 2024
0
#33
I like this idea but
You can play this in normal chess too but just a little risky
long_quach wrote:
TheBlueBoy wrote:
. . . That's why Bobby Fischer invented RandomChess . . .
1. Re-invented. Putting pieces anywhere behind infantry was already in Burmese chess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sittuyin
2. It is not a good idea to introduce randomness in chess. It already exists in cards and backgammon. Chess is unique in that starting position is the same. Chess is conducive to game recording, i.e. literacy. You cannot record a game of backgammon because the roll of the dice is different at every turn.
The idea in Fischer-Random is being able to play traditional chess without having to memorize hundreds of opening lines in an attempt to garner a miniscule advantage that mostly results in a draw at the elite level. It isn't a problem at the lower levels though. Backgammon moves are recorded just like chess.
Lol
The Idea is mostly to have opposite side castling every game.
Even beginner should know that opposite castle position are the riskier in chess!
Magnus Carlsen avoid those position all the time for a reason.
Jan 13, 2024
0
#37
finnsteur wrote:
Competitive chess has been boring for the last 120 years!
In the 1800's high level games were much more spectacular. That's what we used to call "romantic chess".
Anderssen would go back to his grave if he were to see what we've done to his beloved game!
But it wasn't our fault... Our game is inherently flawed. Past a certain level you have to forget gambit and attacks and sacrifice. You have to play boring chess. This is what the rules lead to: "The rules of chess don't care about our romanticism".
But what if one small change of rule could make Romantic chess the RIGHT choice?
Let me introduce you to chess 2.0 : Romantic chess
Black king start in front of the white queen. The position is asymetrical.
White can only castle on the right. Black can only castle on the left.
Every game become an opposite side castle.
I've done extensive testing with stockfish this way of playing is both balanced and crazy.
So let's change the rules: You cannot play boring if the right move is the exciting one.
I like this! Cool!
long_quach wrote:
premio53 wrote:
Backgammon moves are recorded just like chess.
Show me a book of recorded backgammon games, like chess.
Who played who?
When and where?
Just like chess.
You said, "You cannot record a game of backgammon because the roll of the dice is different at every turn." I was simply pointing out that was wrong. Kent Goulding published books of recorded matches between top players though that isn't a common thing as in chess.
https://www.amazon.com/Backgammon-Champions-Vol-II-No/dp/B00JSM0CNG/ref=sr_1_4?crid=2932GO5R8SX5H&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.-HkfdpkVbiLW5SwNIz5mCPpvAiaJZa7kVYCEf0IiL3b1eaylh0z-xtcFv78GhgXzc7NQRxAq6efUhacJke8fSeKGroQNzRV7-vrx_banA-xZHNJpO77kmQ5G0tiWoNl7zf9EApCg2buUGUwuJvDQqQ.mOul6Cg-_y1niqQZcdzgozp7wde-Ag1pFaZfk6DWUPI&dib_tag=se&keywords=Backgammon+with+the+Champions&qid=1705175366&sprefix=backgammon+with+the+champions%2Caps%2C120&sr=8-4
Of course backgammon is a completely different game than chess. There have been master chess players who left chess and became backgammon champions such as Bill Robertie and Paul Magriel.
long_quach wrote:
premio53 wrote:
You said, "You cannot record a game of backgammon because the roll of the dice is different at every turn." I was simply pointing out that was wrong.
First, thanks for pointing to a book, a real book.
Think a little. Of course you can record it. It is pointless to record it
because the roll of the dice is different at every turn.
It's not like chess. Oh you made a wrong move here, take back the moves from a computer and try a different path.
No. Sometimes the desperate mathematically "wrong" move will win you the game, if "Luck be a Lady, tonight.".
It is like chess and there are thousands of backgammon books just like chess with computer analysis of wrong moves and a different path to take. The top engines in backgammon have surpassed the top human players just like in chess although it is still possible for the top human players to still win a match against them. Backgammon is a great alternative to those chess players who are looking for something exciting that also requires much skill. There are also grandmasters in backgammon.
https://usbgf.org/how-points-are-calculated/how-usbgf-master-points-are-calculated/
long_quach wrote:
premio53 wrote:
You said, "You cannot record a game of backgammon because the roll of the dice is different at every turn." I was simply pointing out that was wrong.
Of course you can record it.
Here is an electronic machine that can record the roulette spin. Only to give the illusion that "red" is due to show up.
It is pointless to record it.
Roulette is a game of luck and there is no point of recording moves to study. Backgammon requires much skill and can be studied just like chess.
the OP has a point.
white first is a bit supremist but who am i to complain haha.
Not the "chess is racist" claim again. It's not a sign of supremacy, it's how the game was made. In most games a certain color goes first every time.