I dont know. It would be fun if you think regular chess has become "tedious". I still find chess fun and exciting and will continue to play with creativity and intuition.
Relocation variants
Sort:
Kasparov thinks along similar lines. The following excerpt is from ChessBase News
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6113
What do you think about the future of Fischer Random, Seirawan Chess or any other types of chess variant?
I have always liked the idea of choosing a few decent positions. And, I don’t think you need more than 15 to 20, out of the 960 possible random chess positions, many of which violate our sense for normal chess geometry. Any change of the position is a challenge, but 10 to 15 to 20 positions can be chosen, and I believe that in the future, every year, we should start with a new position. Again, it should just be one position. I feel an insult if players should start with something that is totally ridiculous, and you have three minutes to prepare… No, I mean, come on, chess is also about some research. You don’t want to have the same extensive thing, fine. But, you have one year of playing one position, which means that players can actually get adjusted and they could do a little bit of research. So at least you have five, six opening moves that are theory now and then you go on to another position. But, if you just want to eliminate everything and call it purity – no, it is not purity, it’s nonsense. So, again, there is some sense in it, but you have to be reasonable.
We will inform you more thoroughly on Kasparov's ideas on Fischer Random in a later article.
Are there no problems, really? Recently, in the London Chess Classic, the commentator said that GMs nowaday have turned to Bishop's opening in order to avoid the Petroff. Good luck! Likewise, they play d2-d3 in the Ruy Lopez. The art of defence in the Petroff and Ruy Lopez (Marshall gambit, et al.) has reached such levels that it's no use to grab the bull by the horns, anymore. As a result Black is even better in the opening. Where are we heading when super-GMs are forced to play daft opening systems? In the future, how can anybody expect to win against a GM with Bishop's opening? The problem which is already apparent in correspondence chess, is now surfacing in table chess.
Let's have a look at the results of corr/email players who today are equipped with the latest Rybka and multi-core computers. Below is the statistics for all the ICCF games in 2008- 2009 (when the multi-core boom began) for players above 2400.
--------------------------------------------------------------------Opening...Games....W....L....D....Draws..Score...% of all
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All...2211......+310 -130 =1771 80.1% 54.1%...100.0%
1.e4 1385......+222 -69 =1094 79.0% 55.5%....62.6%
1.d4 595.......+ 57 -43 = 495...83.2% 51.2%....26.9%
As you can see, the draw percentage is 80.1% This figure will continue to increase and soon reach 90%. Then it won't make any sense anymore to play at this level. 1.d4 doesn't look very promising, scoring only 51.2%. I suspect that this has to do with the fact that 1.d4 contains much less variance than 1.e4, whose opening tree is much wider.
/Mats
Fischer Placement Chess - generating a modest subset of Chess960. This variant could, at least, be good for training games :
http://www.two-paths.com/bg/fischerplacement.htm
You can try out a related, but randomized, variant online here, by pressing the 'move' button :
http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DChess20%26settings%3Dchess20
Mats
Laquear wrote:
Kasparov thinks along similar lines. The following excerpt is from ChessBase News
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6113
What do you think about the future of Fischer Random, Seirawan Chess or any other types of chess variant?
I have always liked the idea of choosing a few decent positions. And, I don’t think you need more than 15 to 20, out of the 960 possible random chess positions, many of which violate our sense for normal chess geometry. Any change of the position is a challenge, but 10 to 15 to 20 positions can be chosen, and I believe that in the future, every year, we should start with a new position. Again, it should just be one position. I feel an insult if players should start with something that is totally ridiculous, and you have three minutes to prepare… No, I mean, come on, chess is also about some research. You don’t want to have the same extensive thing, fine. But, you have one year of playing one position, which means that players can actually get adjusted and they could do a little bit of research. So at least you have five, six opening moves that are theory now and then you go on to another position. But, if you just want to eliminate everything and call it purity – no, it is not purity, it’s nonsense. So, again, there is some sense in it, but you have to be reasonable.
We will inform you more thoroughly on Kasparov's ideas on Fischer Random in a later article.
I like Kasparov's idea, with the idea of "old chess" & "the starting position of the year" being played side by side (tournaments for both).
Fischer Random is a bit chaotic, I agree.
My proposal is to enhance orthochess by a relocation procedure, whilst retaining the castling right, and keeping the option to play the standard position. See the following link to an article with diagrams, and programs that implement these changes:
http://www.two-paths.com/bg/relocationvariants.htm
Mats