Interesting Chess Variant: Reversed Chess

sadkid2008

Absolutely brilliant, I commend you on this extravagant idea. I have in my mind an even more daring chess variant, in which the positions of the king and queen are switched for both sides. A simple change, yet drastic as well- it introduces imbalances for both sides that cancel each other out so well that the computer actually evaluates it as the same as the normal starting position! I think I have discovered something groundbreaking.

sadkid2008

To demonstrate how a game would look:

 

HorusTheThird

Of course the computer evaluates it the same! Does nobody here have the spatial reasoning to tell that this is EXACTLY the same as chess? Possibility 1: Classic "Reverse Chess" Ruy Lopez:

Your "Royal Switch Reverse Chess":

If you look a bit closer, "Reverse Chess" is just a mirror image of chess. And your "Royal Switch" is really just the board spun. ----, I could just say black goes first and put the black pieces in the place of the white ones and you get... Reverse Chess!

EndgameStudier

Not really a Variant

sadkid2008
HorusTheThird wrote:

Of course the computer evaluates it the same! Does nobody here have the spatial reasoning to tell that this is EXACTLY the same as chess? Possibility 1: Classic "Reverse Chess" Ruy Lopez:

Your "Royal Switch Reverse Chess":

If you look a bit closer, "Reverse Chess" is just a mirror image of chess. And your "Royal Switch" is really just the board spun. ----, I could just say black goes first and put the black pieces in the place of the white ones and you get... Reverse Chess!

Horus, I do not mean to offend you, but you are blindingly uneducated when it comes to chess. First of all, let us assume that your (completely incorrect) theory that the positions are completely the same to computers. Still, one of the most important aspects of chess is the psychological aspect– since a player is used to playing the regular chess, in my variant, they may accidentally move the king's pawn to the d4 square, thinking it is the queen's pawn they are moving. This will lead to a game that they had not been expecting, which will make them remember to stay on their toes and also increase their appreciation of the game by exposing them to a variety of different styles of play. Similarly, in Herceg's variant, a player used to playing aggressively as white might make a complicated move, forgetting that he is a tempo down, and realize that it is indeed possible to play aggressive even if you move second, which will further his knowledge of chess. Of course, the notion that my opening is the same as the starting position is completely wrong, because they are not! Look at the board. The pieces are in different squares! I do not know how this can be more clear.  Try it yourself - rotate the board horizontally however you wish, and you will be unable to recreate the starting position of normal chess!

HorusTheThird
sadkid2008 wrote:
HorusTheThird wrote:

Of course the computer evaluates it the same! Does nobody here have the spatial reasoning to tell that this is EXACTLY the same as chess? Possibility 1: Classic "Reverse Chess" Ruy Lopez:

Your "Royal Switch Reverse Chess":

If you look a bit closer, "Reverse Chess" is just a mirror image of chess. And your "Royal Switch" is really just the board spun. ----, I could just say black goes first and put the black pieces in the place of the white ones and you get... Reverse Chess!

Horus, I do not mean to offend you, but you are blindingly uneducated when it comes to chess. First of all, let us assume that your (completely incorrect) theory that the positions are completely the same to computers.

Here I refer you to your previous post:

Absolutely brilliant, I commend you on this extravagant idea. I have in my mind an even more daring chess variant, in which the positions of the king and queen are switched for both sides. A simple change, yet drastic as well- it introduces imbalances for both sides that cancel each other out so well that the computer actually evaluates it as the same as the normal starting position! I think I have discovered something groundbreaking.

Still, one of the most important aspects of chess is the psychological aspect– since a player is used to playing the regular chess, in my variant, they may accidentally move the king's pawn to the d4 square, thinking it is the queen's pawn they are moving. This will lead to a game that they had not been expecting, which will make them remember to stay on their toes and also increase their appreciation of the game by exposing them to a variety of different styles of play.

Certainly, but after 2 - 3 games, any intelligent player would simply play out his favored openings until he can play them in both regular and reverse chess! You can easily see this is possible in my examples. Additionally, the VAST majority of chess psychology does not pertain to colors, or numbers and letters at the edge of the board. It pertains to the player's beliefs in the position and his opponent.

Similarly, in Herceg's variant, a player used to playing aggressively as white might make a complicated move, forgetting that he is a tempo down, and realize that it is indeed possible to play aggressive even if you move second, which will further his knowledge of chess. Of course, the notion that my opening is the same as the starting position is completely wrong, because they are not! Look at the board. The pieces are in different squares! I do not know how this can be more clear.  Try it yourself - rotate the board horizontally however you wish, and you will be unable to recreate the starting position of normal chess!

There is one large problem with this, that each pieces movements are symmetrical in eight ways. Therefore, I can flip the board to it's mirror image and being able to do this, and ignoring the rank and file numbers, which do not affect actual play, I can easily replicate the positions in reverse chess and your variant of it easily.

The only difference between reverse chess and normal chess I can find, using simple logic, are the colors, the square coordinates, and several changes to the most minor, ineffectual psychological factors I can see, with a dedicated player. The difference will be noticeable only with the newest players of this variant.

Fly-Eagles-Fly

Thanks for posting this, VladimirHerceg91. It was a truly enjoyable read.

HorribleTomato
sadkid2008 wrote:
HorusTheThird wrote:

Of course the computer evaluates it the same! Does nobody here have the spatial reasoning to tell that this is EXACTLY the same as chess? Possibility 1: Classic "Reverse Chess" Ruy Lopez:

Your "Royal Switch Reverse Chess":

If you look a bit closer, "Reverse Chess" is just a mirror image of chess. And your "Royal Switch" is really just the board spun. ----, I could just say black goes first and put the black pieces in the place of the white ones and you get... Reverse Chess!

Horus, I do not mean to offend you, but you are blindingly uneducated when it comes to chess. First of all, let us assume that your (completely incorrect) theory that the positions are completely the same to computers. Still, one of the most important aspects of chess is the psychological aspect– since a player is used to playing the regular chess, in my variant, they may accidentally move the king's pawn to the d4 square, thinking it is the queen's pawn they are moving. This will lead to a game that they had not been expecting, which will make them remember to stay on their toes and also increase their appreciation of the game by exposing them to a variety of different styles of play. Similarly, in Herceg's variant, a player used to playing aggressively as white might make a complicated move, forgetting that he is a tempo down, and realize that it is indeed possible to play aggressive even if you move second, which will further his knowledge of chess. Of course, the notion that my opening is the same as the starting position is completely wrong, because they are not! Look at the board. The pieces are in different squares! I do not know how this can be more clear.  Try it yourself - rotate the board horizontally however you wish, and you will be unable to recreate the starting position of normal chess!

Can you castle?

 

Y: It's the same.

N: Now that may be something.

HorusTheThird
[COMMENT DELETED]
HorusTheThird
HorribleTomato wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
HorusTheThird wrote:

Of course the computer evaluates it the same! Does nobody here have the spatial reasoning to tell that this is EXACTLY the same as chess? Possibility 1: Classic "Reverse Chess" Ruy Lopez:

Your "Royal Switch Reverse Chess":

If you look a bit closer, "Reverse Chess" is just a mirror image of chess. And your "Royal Switch" is really just the board spun. ----, I could just say black goes first and put the black pieces in the place of the white ones and you get... Reverse Chess!

Horus, I do not mean to offend you, but you are blindingly uneducated when it comes to chess. First of all, let us assume that your (completely incorrect) theory that the positions are completely the same to computers. Still, one of the most important aspects of chess is the psychological aspect– since a player is used to playing the regular chess, in my variant, they may accidentally move the king's pawn to the d4 square, thinking it is the queen's pawn they are moving. This will lead to a game that they had not been expecting, which will make them remember to stay on their toes and also increase their appreciation of the game by exposing them to a variety of different styles of play. Similarly, in Herceg's variant, a player used to playing aggressively as white might make a complicated move, forgetting that he is a tempo down, and realize that it is indeed possible to play aggressive even if you move second, which will further his knowledge of chess. Of course, the notion that my opening is the same as the starting position is completely wrong, because they are not! Look at the board. The pieces are in different squares! I do not know how this can be more clear.  Try it yourself - rotate the board horizontally however you wish, and you will be unable to recreate the starting position of normal chess!

Can you castle?

 

Y: It's the same.

N: Now that may be something.

Definitely

HorribleTomato

Did you know, REAL reversed chess puts the white pieces where the black pieces are supposed to be and vice versa? It's winning for white (mate in 3) though...

sadkid2008
HorribleTomato wrote:

Did you know, REAL reversed chess puts the white pieces where the black pieces are supposed to be and vice versa? It's winning for white (mate in 3) though...

Then this so called "REAL" reversed chess is really not balanced at all. No wonder few have heard of it, it is much less brilliant than what I have created.