In checkers/draughts competitive play means random picking a three move sequence and then the players swap over after the finish and play again...
Is it possible in future chess might see more thematic input to keep chess alive ?eg you must play at least one 1e4 game in a Swiss tournament and AVOID the Sicilian in all games as black ....lots of variants
White can play 1.Nf3, making the pawn move restriction useless.
White can play 1.Nf3, making the pawn move restriction useless.
If white would play 1.d4 or 1.e4 normally, and would instead opt to play 1. Nf3 under the restriction rule, then it is having an effect on the game wouldn't you say?
In checkers/draughts competitive play means random picking a three move sequence and then the players swap over after the finish and play again...
Is it possible in future chess might see more thematic input to keep chess alive ?eg you must play at least one 1e4 game in a Swiss tournament and AVOID the Sicilian in all games as black ....lots of variants
Yes, a $ hitstorm of petroffs and berlin defenses will make me wish the sicilian was never discovered 
White can play 1.Nf3, making the pawn move restriction useless.
I intended pawn move restriction + no piece move. Besides, with Kf3 White claims
e5 on turn1
White can play 1.Nf3, making the pawn move restriction useless.
If white would play 1.d4 or 1.e4 normally, and would instead opt to play 1. Nf3 under the restriction rule, then it is having an effect on the game wouldn't you say?
Nf3 will just transpose to a myriad of d4 openings. People play Nf3 already, with the same white advantage.
The "bias" that favors white has already been addressed by trying to see to it that as many players as possible get an equal number of whites and blacks, there's no need to change the game at all.
Any serious tennis players here ? How big an advantage is it to have the serve in tennis ? I suspect its a bigger advantage than having white in chess ?
The "bias" that favors white has already been addressed by trying to see to it that as many players as possible get an equal number of whites and blacks, there's no need to change the game at all.
Since the guideline always is that the weakest players get to re-design the game, I found a little girl who just learned the moves. She says just let each player start with both color pieces.
Any serious tennis players here ? How big an advantage is it to have the serve in tennis ? I suspect its a bigger advantage than having white in chess ?
Yes, a much bigger advantage.
Another option for evening out the playing field is having one player make a move for white and then having the other player decide which side they want to play.
Excellent idea, Loomis.
@panderson2: If you can "understand" a Black defence sufficiently, I believe that reversing the opening is a really interesting way to play chess
Reb, can you imagine any solution that would eliminate the serve advantage? Perhaps a jump ball? Each player serves simultaneously so that two balls are in play? I don't think so. Thus, tennis players have to deal with it as best they can.
I think if a solution to black's disadvantage in chess could be found without causing more damage than it fixed, its worth a look, no?
How about players getting a game each as white and black?
Simultaneous games against a given opponent...one as white...one as black? Interesting. I've only had one cup of coffee so far this morning but it would seem to be a logical evolution.
It doesn't require any change to the game. As opposed to consecutive games alternating white/black, it would impact time management. I'm not sure if it would help spectator interest. Simultaneous games have been exhibitions for a long time.
I suppose taken to it's logical conclusion, you wouldn't have to limit the number of simultaneous games against a given opponent to just two (black/white).
Any serious tennis players here ? How big an advantage is it to have the serve in tennis ? I suspect its a bigger advantage than having white in chess ?
Yes, having the serve is a much greater advantage... but that's why in tennis, you need to win by 2 games to win the set, and the serve alternates every game. If you always just win when you serve, the set will never end. Whereas in a Swiss, it's pretty likely that one player will play white more often than another player. It's almost guaranteed if there's an odd number of rounds.
The only reason I don't like the simultanious 2 games is that it's possible to obtain a "draw" by mirroring your opponent. If the games aren't at the same time it's easier to deviate.
But going along those lines, it might be fun to have a tournament where each round, one player has to take on all the opponents in their section. If each player gets a turn at that, it would result in equal colors. Of course, you need the number of players to equal the number of rounds for that to work properly.
Well, I like the imbalance.
I also like cricket, where winning the toss (with the decision to bat or bowl 1st) has a definite effect on results.
In a three match test series, if your team lose the toss every game, you will have a hard time getting a good result in the series. But, that's part of the game....
The problem with this proposal is that it would be a rule which would apply to one player but not to the other which is fundamentally unfair in any game. Whether or not it evens things out is (and will remain) debatable just as opening systems which claim to have advantages over others are also debatable and will remain so.
The problem with this proposal is that it would be a rule which would apply to one player but not to the other which is fundamentally unfair in any game. Whether or not it evens things out is (and will remain) debatable just as opening systems which claim to have advantages over others are also debatable and will remain so.
The "white moves first" rule is already unfair and asymmetrical AFAIK
If by any chance an equalizer system is found, then you would need half of the games you play now to test players skills
^ A strong developing move that prepares for a king-side attack.
Interesting -- "I cut, you choose."
Mightn't it be better yet to have the first player make a move for white, and then have the second player decide whether he wants to choose a side, or play a response for black and throw the choice back to the first player?
Would greatly reduce the number of Sicilian players, methinks.