Each of the 64 squares are all worth the same: 1 point.

Wrong.

There are different values for the 64 squares, largely determined by the placing of pawns and pieces on the board. Actually this is what positional evaluation is all about.

Each of the 64 squares are all worth the same: 1 point.

Wrong.

There are different values for the 64 squares, largely determined by the placing of pawns and pieces on the board. Actually this is what positional evaluation is all about.

I was not clear about that one: I meant what if you decided that all of the 64 squares are worth 1 point.

dekaleaas wrote:
I was not clear about that one: I meant what if you decided that all of the 64 squares are worth 1 point.

Then you would not play chess.

It's the same like asking the question "What would happen if you decided that you win when you lose all of your pieces?" or even more stupid "What would happen if the one who moves first wins?"

:) well since the board the board is a crucial part of Chess and the space is limited I think it is a logical question.

You haven't even explained how this idea of the board being worth points would function in the game; so there's no way to discuss what it would be like.

Also, it sounds like too big of a change to even be a proper* chess variant.

*which I would define as variants that keep the game such that it feels just like chess.

If you really want to complicate things let the pawns move backwards as well as forwards just like all the other pieces on the board.

yakushi12345 wrote:

You haven't even explained how this idea of the board being worth points would function in the game; so there's no way to discuss what it would be like.

Also, it sounds like too big of a change to even be a proper* chess variant.

*which I would define as variants that keep the game such that it feels just like chess.

True! The way I looked at the chessboard with limited space is that players can *own* a square. A player owns a square when he was the last player who stood on it.

Each square generates 1 coin income/turn and with the income the player can buy new pieces. New pieces are placed on the backrank (except pawns, they are placed on their original rank).

Since a player owns a square when he last stood on it each player own 16 squares at the start of the game. By making a first move, the player owns 17 square. The amount of coins the player gets depends on how many pieces he has: #squares - #pieces = income.

So for move 1. e4 the white player gets 1 coin income.

I think the game is pretty much the same as normal chess. The biggest difference is new pieces poppuing up the backrank when the player buys a new one.

Another difference will emerge right at the start: will you make a move that gives you an economical advantage or a positional advantage?

transpo wrote:
If you really want to complicate things let the pawns move backwards as well as forwards just like all the other pieces on the board.

Reminds me of a game we played in a smoky chesscafe. Pawns would move diagonal and hit vertical (both front and back). An old guy stood next to us and had a look. He shook his head an walked away :)

senor_ananas wrote:

It's the same like asking the question "What would happen if you decided that you win when you lose all of your pieces?"

You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichess

It's not stupid. It's just different. It is not, however, Chess. It's a Chess variant, a different game that has some of the same characteristics of Chess, but isn't Chess.

This economic variant of dekaleaas seems like a pretty cool variation, actually. Like regular Chess it is a perfect information game, but adds a long term planning element and a variation on objectives. I haven't seen any similar variants, and I have seen a lot of variants.

But it's not Chess.

dekaleaas wrote:

So in order to find out I got it programmed: http://www.chess.com/download/view/economy-chess

I would be very interested in a solid chess opinion on how it changes the game.

That's an interesting variant, dekaleeas

dekaleaas wrote:

transpo wrote:
If you really want to complicate things let the pawns move backwards as well as forwards just like all the other pieces on the board.

Reminds me of a game we played in a smoky chesscafe. Pawns would move diagonal and hit vertical (both front and back). An old guy stood next to us and had a look. He shook his head an walked away :)

lol! And two diagonal for the first move?

AdvLegitimate wrote:

Meadmaker wrote:

This economic variant of dekaleaas seems like a pretty cool variation, actually. Like regular Chess it is a perfect information game, but adds a long term planning element and a variation on objectives. I haven't seen any similar variants, and I have seen a lot of variants.

But it's not Chess.

you mean chess doesnt have long term planning and a variation on objectives?

Sure.

I just meant that this variant creates a sort of cumulative improvement that might not be reflected on the board immediately. In Chess, the advantages can be measured in time, space, or material. In this economic variant, there's this fourth variable, money, which might result in a future material improvement, but which, at the moment, does no good.

Yesterday I played a testgame against a player with rating 2003. I lost hopelessly, but it was very fun. My oppononent enjoyed it so much he started a group for Economy Chess!

Join the group here: http://www.chess.com/groups/home/economy-chess

Ask a player for a game using the chat!

The game was suprisingly normal, just like normal chess. Just at some point an extra piece comes into play. I bought a knight, pawns and bisshop and my opponent bought a queen (which he didnt even really needed..)

Good game to Boletus_CZ :)

**Settings:** (for both games)

Placement: on original spot

Promotion: steal cash

Production: may always produce

Movement: may produce or move

*piece - quantity - price*

P - 8 - 25

N - 4 - 75

B - 4 - 75

R - 4 - 113

Q - 2 - 219

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 Nxd4 5. Nxd4 xd4 6. Qxd4 c5 7. Qd3 d6 8. e4 Qa5 9. Be2 Ng4 10. Kg1 Be7 11. Nd5 Ne5 12. Qg3 g6 13. Nxe7 Kxe7 14. f4 Nxc4 15. Bxc4 Be6 16. Bxe6 xe6 17. Qg5+ Kd7 18. f5 $f7 19. $Ng8 $c7 20. xe6+ xe6 21. Bd2 h6 22. Rf7+ Ke8 23. Qxg6 Ne7 24. Rxe7+ Kxe7 25. Qg7+ Ke8 26. Bxa5 Rf8 27. $Qd1 $f2 28. Rf7 Qh5 29. $e7 $Ng8 30. Qxg8+ Kd7 31. Qxa8 b6 32. Qxf7 xa5 33. END Qe8+

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e3 g6 4. f3 Bg7 5. e4 xe4 6. xe4 Bg4 7. Nf3 Kg8 8. h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 Qxd4 10. Bd3 Nc6 11. Bf4 Nh5 12. Bxc7 Qc5 13. g4 Bxc3+ 14. Ke2 Nd4+ 15. Kf2 Nxf3+ 16. Kxf3 Qxc7 17. xc3 Qf4+ 18. Ke2 Ng3+ 19. Ke1 Qe3+ 20. Kd1 Nxh1 21. $Bf1 $Nb1 22. END Nf2+

------

somethings are slightly different in notation:

- castling is recorded as a King`s move, i.e. White`s 0-0 is written as Kg1
- the $ sign means a new piece was bought and placed, i.e. 27. $Qd1 $f2 means that White got two new pieces a queen on d1 and a pawn on f2. In 1 move, it is possible to buy and place as many pieces as a player can afford.
- when a pawn captures it is recorded as e.g. xd4 although the standard notation would be either exd4 or cxd4

I've been reading a bit about Chess and learned that the position of the pieces is very important. One could have less pieces than it's opponent, but if their position is better then his chances to win are better. Because of that players like to control the center, their pieces got more options there.

But what happens if the board comes into play? Each of the 64 squares are all worth the same: 1 point. Each point gives you a tiny better chance to win, so its beneficial to take control of as many spaces as possible. This also means that having control of the sides is beneficial. However, if you focus to much on 'control' of space, your position might get weaker, possibly to a point where you get a forced mate.

I was curious about how this would change the game, but unfortunatly this was very hard to play on a board. (I tried with small pieces of paper but it was to much effort each turn). So in order to find out I got it programmed: http://www.chess.com/download/view/economy-chess

I would be very interested in a solid chess opinion on how it changes the game.

One person said (and I think he's right) that the endgame will no longer exist. After all: once you control a big chunk of the board AND you are ahead in pieces/position then the opponent is pretty much defeaten. Also players can add new pieces, so endgames will never consist of a couple pieces vs a couple pieces.