Though I don't really mind their bad posts, most of those people make me weep for the future of humanity.
Whilst I didn't mind reading the original post, I weep for the future of chess.
NEW CHESS RULE!!!
Sort:
That's strange. There's two quote things on the post right above.
Honestly, I don't mind the people posting bad things. At least now I won't go around pursuing an idea that won't work. So in a way it is a good thing.
Dec 28, 2011
0
#45
PrawnEatsPrawn wrote:
Though I don't really mind their bad posts, most of those people make me weep for the future of humanity.
Whilst I didn't mind reading the original post, I weep for the future of chess.
Prawn, your post has two quote buttons. Are you a malicious hacker?
Can't wait for the double quote war trial to begin.
Whilst I didn't mind reading the original post, I weep for the future of chess.
Not to worry:
Speaking of having a handicap tournament - I think that a lower rated player of more than 50 rating pts should have the white pieces (white is said to have a rating pt advantage of around 34 I believe). If he is 100 to 200 rating points lower he gets 2 moves at the start. 200 - 300 rating points, he gets 3 moves, etc. None of the moves can go past the middle boundary.
I have tried this and it makes for a pretty even and interesting game. The higher rated player will be out of his opening book and needs to think from the very start.
Tournaments could be one section since everyone would have equal opportunity due to the handicap. Over time we would be able to calculate how much of a move handicap would be given vs rating difference.
chesstogo wrote:
Speaking of having a handicap tournament - I think that a lower rated player of more than 50 rating pts should have the white pieces (white is said to have a rating pt advantage of around 34 I believe). If he is 100 to 200 rating points lower he gets 2 moves at the start. 200 - 300 rating points, he gets 3 moves, etc. None of the moves can go past the middle boundary.
I have tried this and it makes for a pretty even and interesting game. The higher rated player will be out of his opening book and needs to think from the very start.
Tournaments could be one section since everyone would have equal opportunity due to the handicap. Over time we would be able to calculate how much of a move handicap would be given vs rating difference.
I see what you are saying, but it has been proven for me that I win more games when I am black because generally I am a bad offensive player.
Dec 28, 2011
0
#52
As I thought about it more, I still don't like the idea from the OP. However, I do think a variant inspired by my question might actually be interesting. I asked why would you limit it to one move.
What about a variant where the army continues to fight on after the death of the king? If both kings die, the game is a draw.
It would create some interesting options for a player who is down in material, or who is up in material, but has left his king exposed. Try to salvage a win by sacrificing material to protect the king? Or settle for a draw by pressing the attack on the enemy, dooming your king to certain death?
I don't think it would in any way be "better than Chess", but that isn't the point of variants. Variants are played for any number of reasons. Sometimes it is to illustrate an important principle of Chess itself. Sometimes it's just for a new challenge with familiar pieces.
"Before you can expect to be taken seriously over any proposal to radically revise the game, you need to demonstrate that your understanding of it in its existing form is second to none."
Or you can just offer a new idea. I don't know if "the people" in the forum are all jerks, but those who mocked you are... say... kind of authoritarians? Or would we say authorities? Na... with ratings ranging from 1000 to 2100 (not to mention the unrated one), they lack the "second to none" tag to define who is able to show their ideas about the game or not. Maybe they forgot they are still learning, too.
Anyway, they are in their right to post whatever they want, though it might add even less then they claim the OP's post has added itself.
Regarding your idea, I think it is just another set of rules and is still playable. And I wouldn't assert it is more drawish. How many positions are there which allow for such "stalemate"? If we take a K+Q vs K+R ending, for example: though K+R can easily mate, in the suggested situation the rook's owner will be probably defending all the time, no counter-checkmates allowed...
Bad idea, bad idea. Then theres no art. U can see brilliant game made by past players when the mated the opponent just before they get mated. Thats ART!
Arkafan wrote:
chesstogo wrote:
Speaking of having a handicap tournament - I think that a lower rated player of more than 50 rating pts should have the white pieces (white is said to have a rating pt advantage of around 34 I believe). If he is 100 to 200 rating points lower he gets 2 moves at the start. 200 - 300 rating points, he gets 3 moves, etc. None of the moves can go past the middle boundary.
I have tried this and it makes for a pretty even and interesting game. The higher rated player will be out of his opening book and needs to think from the very start.
Tournaments could be one section since everyone would have equal opportunity due to the handicap. Over time we would be able to calculate how much of a move handicap would be given vs rating difference.
I see what you are saying, but it has been proven for me that I win more games when I am black because generally I am a bad offensive player.
I'm sure you would have better chances having white with 3 extra moves at the start against someone 250 pts higher than you than playing them on even ground even ground. We could also state that the lower rated player (50 to 100 pts) can choose which color he would like to have. (In your case you would probably pick black, but most players would pick white)
Hey if the white player is outranked by >300 points, give them 4 moves to start.
Oh wait, when did those higher players get so easy to defeat?
Conquistador wrote:
Hey if the white player is outranked by >300 points, give them 4 moves to start.
Oh wait, when did those higher players get so easy to defeat?
4 moves, then an instant 4 move checkmate will occur.
[COMMENT DELETED by moderator. vulgarity is not consistent with the terms of service for this family site.]
Why are so many of you giving this guy a hard time? Whether you agree or not, at least he raises an interesting point. And since chess has evolved, there is in fact a precedent for rules to change, and who can truly say that the rules will never change again? There are many variations on chess as we speak, some of them quite popular, and this may become one of those, and some elements of those variations may someday make it into what we call "chess" the game. So I applaud the idea.
People on this forum are jerks. I try not to be but I probably am sometimes. I don't like the OP's idea, but I'm not going to mock him for it.
Sorry to disappoint you, but it sounds like you are not a jerk at all. And you are right about others being jerks here in the forums, presumably to justify their pathetic existences. I suppose if that's what it takes to get them through their days, to each his own, right?
Though I don't really mind their bad posts, most of those people make me weep for the future of humanity.