What if we woke up one day to discover we are actually laboratory experiments, and the scientists are giant hamsters? The question bears about the same value as the OP's question does... [read: irrelevant]
What if chess was different?
Sort:
NomadicKnight wrote:
What if we woke up one day to discover we are actually laboratory experiments, and the scientists are giant hamsters? The question bears about the same value as the OP's question does... [read: irrelevant]
What if one day somebody of you actually commented something relevant? By the way, I will anwer your question with another question and an answer:
If we add 16 melons to 37 strawberries and divide the substracted 9 potatoes, how many omelettes fit on a terrace? The answer is blue, because aliens don't wear hats during Easter.
Yeah, that has crossed my mind. If even a small rule of chess was different, then this might have caused a huge change to the game and the results of the matches, the championships e.t.c.
computo200 wrote:
Yeah, that has crossed my mind. If even a small rule of chess was different, then this might have caused a huge change to the game and the results of the matches, the championships e.t.c.
Isn't it very boring every single GM game ending up being a draw?
Unleash_the_Queens wrote:
computo200 wrote:
Yeah, that has crossed my mind. If even a small rule of chess was different, then this might have caused a huge change to the game and the results of the matches, the championships e.t.c.
Isn't it very boring every single GM game ending up being a draw?
The game could of still been exciting, full of traps and deep tactics.
Apr 24, 2014
0
#47
About the 6th change:
i have heard that some members of FIDE wanted to make a change like that. They supported that it would make chess more interesting and popular and they also did that because many players (if board is like it is now) know the first 15 moves of the game and they dont think a lotbefore making a move.
Of course i talk for the players who study about openings and tactics and they are ready to defense or attack with almost any way.
But you have to know i dont have any problem with that. If i could i would study more about tactics and openings too.
Then it would not be chess
Heartfiglia wrote:
chesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Wellll....
salatoy wrote:
About the 6th change:
i have heard that some members of FIDE wanted to make a change like that. They supported that it would make chess more interesting and popular and they also did that because many players (if board is like it is now) know the first 15 moves of the game and they dont think a lotbefore making a move.
Of course i talk for the players who study about openings and tactics and they are ready to defense or attack with almost any way.
But you have to know i dont have any problem with that. If i could i would study more about tactics and openings too.
Really?
Two months ago, fellow member pargatperrer introduced to us the chess variant called Option Chess ( invented by Paul Bonham ). In this variant, from the 9th move to the 48th move, players have the choice of making 12 double moves. In other words, in 40 moves, you have 12 chances of making double moves. After reading the rules, I find that the double moves really liven up the game a great deal. Even though Option Chess may not be the mainstream thing soon, it could be an alternative format during the tie-breaking stage of some matches. One more thing, the number of double moves can easily be adjusted , say 6, 8 or 10 in 40 moves, according to the demands of a situation. So, tie-breaking matches may no longer be dependent on time-limit related formats.
ebillgo wrote:
Two months ago, fellow member pargatperrer introduced to us the chess variant called Option Chess ( invented by Paul Bonham ). In this variant, from the 9th move to the 48th move, players have the choice of making 12 double moves. In other words, in 40 moves, you have 12 chances of making double moves. After reading the rules, I find that the double moves really liven up the game a great deal. Even though Option Chess may not be the mainstream thing soon, it could be an alternative format during the tie-breaking stage of some matches. One more thing, the number of double moves can easily be adjusted , say 6, 8 or 10 in 40 moves, according to the demands of a situation. So, tie-breaking matches may no longer be dependent on time-limit related formats.
It does sound fun. But 12 sounds a bit too much. Also, mates will be a ton harder to achieve, not to mention that your standard little queen who is just sitting there, minding her own business, might just get owned by a simple pawn.
Harder? I actually think checkmates would be easier to achieve because it's more difficult for your opponent to spot pending threats when you play a double move. It would also take much, MUCH more analysis to play good moves than regular chess but it would shake up the game for sure
Unleash_the_Queens wrote:
It does sound fun. But 12 sounds a bit too much. Also, mates will be a ton harder to achieve, not to mention that your standard little queen who is just sitting there, minding her own business, might just get owned by a simple pawn.
I think the number of double moves can be adjusted . The variant is still in its infancy and if there are more people experimenting with it, a more complete and logical form will emerge .
ebillgo wrote:
I think the number of double moves can be adjusted . The variant is still in its infancy and if there are more people experimenting with it, a more complete and logical form will emerge .
Maybe players could agree on a number before the game?
Apr 24, 2014
0
#56
Unleash_the_Queens wrote:
salatoy wrote:
About the 6th change:
i have heard that some members of FIDE wanted to make a change like that. They supported that it would make chess more interesting and popular and they also did that because many players (if board is like it is now) know the first 15 moves of the game and they dont think a lotbefore making a move.
Of course i talk for the players who study about openings and tactics and they are ready to defense or attack with almost any way.
But you have to know i dont have any problem with that. If i could i would study more about tactics and openings too.
Really?
yes
Apr 24, 2014
0
#57
slide_checkmate wrote:
ebillgo wrote:
I think the number of double moves can be adjusted . The variant is still in its infancy and if there are more people experimenting with it, a more complete and logical form will emerge .
Maybe players could agree on a number before the game?
i dont know but i think mates would be easier
slide_checkmate wrote:
Harder? I actually think checkmates would be easier to achieve because it's more difficult for your opponent to spot pending threats when you play a double move. It would also take much, MUCH more analysis to play good moves than regular chess but it would shake up the game for sure
Ιt would be harder, because if the king moved twice, he would make his escape easier.
I think I must remind you of some rules in Option Chess. In a double move, if you move two different pieces, only the second move can involve a capture or a check. If you move a single piece twice, none of these moves can be a capture and only the second one can be a check. With these restrictions, captures are not greatly increased. A lot of double moves would therefore be preparatory rather than predatory.
I remember a guy once recommending that the rules of chess be changed so that each player made moves which took place at the same time as each other, rather than taking turns...
Of course that concept couldn't possibly work because of a few major flaws. e.g. What if you get put in check? A piece gets taken? Both players move to the same square, etc.
But it would definitely be different though haha
You are probably talking about Capablanca, who suggested (I think) the Knights/Bishops swap, so that there would be more attacking chances and it would be less easy to draw all the time and be boring.
No, Capablanca chess is something entirely different... Capablanca suggested that the board be expanded to 10 files rather than 8 and he invented two pieces which basically combined a Knight with a Rook, and a Knight with a Bishop. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capablanca_chess
What I was talking about is if both players moved simultaneously rather than one after the other. But it isn't important because I don't think it could actually work
Moving simultaneousely? That would be more like Rock, Paper, Scissors! But what if chess needed a dice? Like, if you took 1 you could only move one of your pieces 1 square, and 2 would mean moving them 2 squares or something. I don't know.