Great analogy. There's a real strong similarity between the proportion of people needing to be able to see in the dark vs chess players wanting to mess with the most basic object of the game.
NEW CHESS RULE!!!
Sort:
funny pictures it says a lot enjoy the game.....
Professor5000 wrote:
Arkafan, I have considered your idea. You do have an imagimation, but your idea does not appeal to me. Keep thinking. Do not let the bad mouths get to you. Rememberf Thomas Edison?
After struggling to develop a viable electric light-bulb for months and months, Thomas Edison was interviewed by a young reporter who boldly asked Mr. Edison if he felt like a failure and if he thought he should just give up by now. Perplexed, Edison replied, "Young man, why would I feel like a failure? And why would I ever give up? I now know definitively over 9,000 ways that an electric light bulb will not work. Success is almost in my grasp." And shortly after that, and over 10,000 attempts, Edison invented the light bulb.
Edison didn't invent the light bulb, he improved it.
If you would take a look at this diagram it demonstrates my idea much more clearly.
Dec 30, 2011
0
#67
But why is that an improvement over regular Chess rules?
Don't get me wrong. I like Chess variants. I like different challenges. I've even tried to get Chess players to play games that are not Chess. (It's a challenge. A lot of Chess players are not really all that flexible.) Given an opportunity I would gladly play Chess960, or Xiangqi, or Tamerlane's Chess, or Star Trek 3-D Chess, or Othello, or Hey, That's My Fish! I could make a case for every one of those games about why they are "better" than Chess.
I put "better" in quotes because of course there is no objective measure of what makes one game better than another. On the other hand, there are some common ideas about why some games are more favored than others, and this particular variation doesn't seem to have much going for it. It seems like it compensates people who "almost" won the game, but overlooked a move that doomed them. In your example, it looks like black was focused on mating the white king, and overlooked the threat to his own king. For this, he should get a draw? How is that an improvement?
Meadmaker, I like your post. And it is not my intention to argue that Chess B (if we can call it that) is better than Chess A (so to speak). But there is soemthing to be said for freedom of choice, and Chess B may appeal to some. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. And if nothing else, at least it does adjust for the advantage white gets in Chess A. So it may be useful to break a tie, as an example. Maybe a variation on the theme of "you cut, I choose"? As in, yeah, you get to go first, but if it is on that basis that you check mate me first, then I get the chance to equalize. No golden goal. Not such a bad idea, really.
The way I see it, the human brain is evolving at an exponential rate, as computers have sprang out from electricity in 100 years. As the brain becomes more complex, so should the challenges it must face.
Yes, it will be harder to actually mate the player and get a score of 1 pt, but I do think that as decades go by smarter chess players will step up to harder challenges.
Arkafan wrote:
The way I see it, the human brain is evolving at an exponential rate, as computers have sprang out from electricity in 100 years. As the brain becomes more complex, so should the challenges it must face.
Yes, it will be harder to actually mate the player and get a score of 1 pt, but I do think that as decades go by smarter chess players will step up to harder challenges.
wut?
OK, you raise a fair point, except you may have overlooked something. Remember in "Jurassic Park" when the chaos theory guy said that dinosaurs were selected for extinction? Well, can the same be said for Chess B? For that to be the case, it would have had to have been tried by many, and rejected. I for one had never heard of it until this forum posting, so if I am not playing it, then that is not because I reject it, but rather because I never had the opportunity. I suspect that the same is true for many others, as well. As for adjusting to equalize the two sides, well, that does seem preferable, more fair, than what we do now, which is to randomize so that each side has the same chance for the advantage. There is still an advantage, your anecdote notwithstanding. An exception does not disprove the rule. I am not saying that any time white wins it is because he or she played white; clearly it can also be that the better player is playing white and would have won anyway. But if we are running a race, instead of playing chess, then would you prefer to toss a coin to see who gets the head start, or just not have a head start and let both runners compete on an even playing field? I know which one I would prefer.
Yep, Jeff Goldblum.
Dec 31, 2011
0
#74
Arkafan wrote:
If you would take a look at this diagram it demonstrates my idea much more clearly.
Try to avoid the mistake of assuming your detractors are such because they don't understand the idea. IOW, just because people recognize it as a dumb idea doesn't mean they don't understand it.
Dec 31, 2011
0
#75
RetGuvvie98 wrote:
Vance917 wrote:
Meadmaker, I like your post. And it is not my intention to argue that Chess B (if we can call it that) is better than Chess A (so to speak). But there is soemthing to be said for freedom of choice, and Chess B may appeal to some. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. And if nothing else, at least it does adjust for the advantage white gets in Chess A. So it may be useful to break a tie, as an example. Maybe a variation on the theme of "you cut, I choose"? As in, yeah, you get to go first, but if it is on that basis that you check mate me first, then I get the chance to equalize. No golden goal. Not such a bad idea, really.
A couple points:
1. if your theory is right, "and Chess B may appeal to some. ", then it would have developed years ago. that it has not, and has only marginal appeal to some fringe players who find themselves unable to compete in normal chess (chess A as you refer to it), would tend to support my statement.
2. you said: "And if nothing else, at least it does adjust for the advantage white gets in Chess A."
why does that need to be adjusted for ? everyone gets equal chances to play white or black. just because one gets to move first, does not necessarily convey an advantage to them.
Years ago, I met an expert and studied with him - over the two years ended when we played in a quad, he had won over 60 games or drawn - winning with black nearly 90% of the time - and drawing about half his games when he had white - but not losing any in that time.... his mistake in our game? he had loaned me 'the art of attack by vukovics' and I studied through it in one month just before our game. although he was rated 2120, and I was rated only 1354 at the time, it was an interesting game and you can see it on my profile.
and c. you said: "Not such a bad idea, really." if it really was a good idea, why does no one play it now - already - and have played it for years and years .... ?
the proof is in general acceptance - it isn't a good idea, it isn't growing in popularity, and will not be accepted by many chess players who are content to wander through the abundant ideas present in the game as it exists today (in general practice), or in chess 960 = with its own variety pack. If it were generally accepted, then it would have come into being years ago and there would be 'tournaments' run on that basis by now.
there are none. zero. nada. the only voice on the subject occurs in fringe forums like this, discussions that fade out as few want to dabble into it further.
my opinions only.
1. This makes it sound like all ideas have already been thought of. Of course the OP's idea is so simple and it probably has been thought of already, so for the most part I agree with you.
2. Of course white has an advantage. Weak players may not be able to notice, but master game statistics obviously favor white.
3. Basically the same thing I said about 1, except that by your logic 960 should have been discarded immediately when Fischer came up with it.
Jan 1, 2012
0
#76
RetGuvvie98 wrote::
1. if your theory is right, "and Chess B may appeal to some. ", then it would have developed years ago. that it has not, and has only marginal appeal to some fringe players who find themselves unable to compete in normal chess (chess A as you refer to it), would tend to support my statement.
I don't like the proposed variant, but this particular argument against it doesn't hold water. By this logic, Chess as we know it would never have come into existence. We ought to still be playing Shatranj. Every new variation could have been dismissed on the grounds that it wasn't invented earlier.
What's more, Chess is actually the world's second most popular Chess variant, by some measures. (Xiangqi is number one, but it depends on who you count as a "player".) Can we assume that Chess is only popular with people who can't win at Xiangqi?
My objection to this variant is that it doesn't really add anything. I've read about the development of our modern game of Chess, and I have played many of its precursors. Each new variant introduced into the game (castling, pawn promotion, queens that covered the board, bishops that had unlimited movement, two square pawn moves and en passant were all "new" variants at one time) changed the game. While I hesitate to say that they made the game "better", they all had the effect of making the game more dynamic and intense. Shatranj feels much slower, and sometimes a move in Shatranj just doesn't seem quite so important, while in Chess, every move counts.
I don't think the Chess B does anything in particular for the game. It has been said it might even out white advantage, but I don't think it's true. This last chance to checkmate rule is available to white or to black, I assume.
That sounds fun Arkafan! It should be a game option that both people agree on before the match!
Arkafan, I have considered your idea. You do have an imagimation, but your idea does not appeal to me. Keep thinking. Do not let the bad mouths get to you. Rememberf Thomas Edison?