The Future of Chess

The very best chess players in the world can apparently play for draw, and make it, if they want. The world championships are boring. Carlsen himself suggests to increase the number of matches... I highly doubt it will work. The depth of the game need to be increased, and the only two alternatives are:

1) Increase the number of startsetups (Fischer Random being one option) and/or

2) Increase the board (ex 10x10) and number of pieces

I guess most chess players would pick alt 1) if they had to make a choice.

Regarding 1) I read about different solutions... I will list some of them, and start with my own:

a) Use advanced AI, like Alphazero, to pick the most balanced startsetups from the Fischer Random's 960. These startsetups will then be made official and added to the original one.

b) Let Fischer Random become the new standard, however with some suggested guidelines:

- 10 startsetups will be announced ahead of a tournament (Kasparovs suggestion)

- A new startsetup(among the 960) will announced the 1st of November and played for 1 year

- A single startsetup will be announced infront of each tournament

With 960 different setups the development of chess will go 960 times slower, and bring back the creativity to chess. However some of the 960 are 'too' unbalanced and players must always play two games with the same setup to balance things.

Personally I vote for my own suggestion, since it's the most logical thing to do :-)

#reallytiredofwatchingdraws

960 isn't really random, it is more like shuffling and shuffling in the back rank.

I am not opposed to randomly selecting positions, but that should be all 64 squares and not just the back rank with 8 squares. That would be down the road a bit until we could certainly know a position was equal. We aren't there yet.

What I suggest we do instead is randomly pick from common openings being played today by the top GMs. You play once as white, once as black. This way Caruana doesn't throw out the Petrov ad nauseum and Carlsen doesn't play the Sicilian, producing another Rossolimo ad nauseum.

You play different openings, and not ones you specifically prepared for. I don't mind seeing a draw if the draw came about from a surprise/unexpected start.

Chess 960 is also called Fischer Random Chess, originally Fischerandom. It employs the same board and pieces as standard chess, but the starting position of the pieces on the players' home ranks is randomized. The random setup renders the prospect of obtaining an advantage through the memorization of opening lines impracticable, compelling players to rely instead on their talent and creativity.

Giving me a definition doesn't change my position. It's like a Christian nuthead reciting the bible to try to prove their spaghetti monster in the sky is more real than Allah, Buddha, Yahweh, or Vishnu.

Shifting pieces in the back rank is not playing random chess. Chess uses 64 squares. If you use a random process to shift the pieces, then only that is random. The pieces are not actually randomly placed on the board.

YOU ARE NOT MAKING IT RANDOM BY LIMITING THE PIECES TO ONLY THE BACK RANK.

See if you can comprehend that.

Random is literally the name. But we can also us the definition of shuffle. to rearrange (playing cards, dominoes, tiles, etc.) to produce a random order. So really you are just saying it's random with a different word lol 

That is different. In cards you don't have squares. To be analogous to chess, you would only be shuffling 25% of the cards.

Shuffle is a linear term, random doesn't have to be linear.

Shuffle is a linear term lol

Just decrease the timelimit and its fine.

Something like 25+15 world championship.

Look it up, it has originally been referred to walking. A German word, schuffeln.

We are not talking about walking lol. Shuffle also means to randomize, getting random results is not linear.

How is randomizing 8 squares out of 64 the same as shuffling cards?

Also, a card game is luck. If you are dealt a good hand you will win. Chess by our understanding is always a draw from the beginning.

The cause of the World Chess Championship's boring draws is a combination of the current tiebreak system and ratings. Carlsen's rating advantage over Caruana in classic, rapid, blitz is 3, 91, 172. Therefore, playing safe classic draws increases Carlsen's probability of winning the match. This probability edge becomes an even bigger factor when there are fewer classic games remain for Carlsen to recover from a loss that might result from playing a complex risky line. Yesterday Carlsen had 2 games left with a 3 point rating advantage for each. After game 12 is drawn, Carlsen has 4 games with a 91 point rating advantage.

Recall when Carlsen had white against Karjakin in game 12, it was drawn in only 35 minutes. At least Carlsen was not pushed by the rules to draw rapid games as well, because Karjakin is good at blitz and there are only 2 blitz games before a final tie break.

I propose a new tiebreak to preserve classic only chess. The players contractually agree to pre-match determined choices of computer, software, and configurable depth settings. Each player receives points from each game equal to the maximum evaluation they received during that game (rounded to the nearest 1/100th and limited to between 0 and 3). Thus if the software finds for Caruana a mate in 30, he would be awarded 3 points for that game, but Carlsen might also get some points from the same game if he held an advantage earlier.

The supercomputer may be prone to some issues, as any tiebreak system would. It should use the largest possible endgame tables. For example a wrong bishop plus rook pawn ending should come up as 0.00, etc. Perhaps companies like IBM could compete for the distinction of providing the hardware used for this purpose.

Indeed. In regards to the OtM vs PBK debate (on "randomness") I believe Fischerandom or 960 IS the equivalent to "shuffling" as it pertains to card games because in card games you don't use ALL 52 cards in a poker game, blackjack etc as you don't use ALL 64 squares in the opening. You only have 14 pieces, 16 pawns, 2 kings.

But in chess you do use all 64 squares. That is another big difference.

*Basically on one "hand" you have 5 cards at a time in poker (the "opening" hand per se)

Not in the Opening with all due respect.

You can't only look at only the opening to compare. Chess is meant for 64 square interaction and you see the pieces on the board. You don't see the cards your opponent has. So any comparison with cards not played is simply not the same with chess.

You don't need a poker face in the beginning of a game. I could seem like a GM at first, but based on my moves you would see I am not. With poker you could be bluffing because you are dealt a better hand.

In chess, the only way to have the advantage as we know now is for your opponent to "deal" a bad hand.

Another big difference, the cards aren't even shuffled as an analogy before the players make a move.

Indeed. All true on the face of it, but all games have an opening, middle and "endgame" facet. And I'm inclined to believe (after 30 years experience) there is a "bluffing" element in the opening between two players who know each others repertoire.

(as do poker players who play each other regularly in the circuit btw)