It would be slower I think. Players would delay moves like e4,d4,c4 until more pieces were developed and the king had gotten out of the way.
Other than that, I think it would be the same. It would still be worthwhile to control the center, and it would still be worthwhile to get the king out of the center.
...
Yeah... no.
If you don't want draws, than make it so that if you draw, you get 0 points!
the only solution is 3 points for a victory 1 point for a draw.
a draw may no longer be enough in the final round with that system.
people will fight for 3 points.
the only solution is 3 points for a victory 1 point for a draw.
a draw may no longer be enough in the final round with that system.
people will fight for 3 points.
This might have the opposite effect, people would be terrified of taking any chances because a single game lost would give away more points as it does today.
Besides, top players already avoid any perpetuals and simplifications if they have any choice in the matter. It just often happens that the only way to avoid the draw would mean that the one avoiding it would be in a worse position or even losing. You cannot realistically force players to accept a worse position just because spectators want to see more wins.
How can abolsh draws?
Different time controls for white and black(shorter for black) and draws are a win for black
Haha, that was very funny
I don't get the joke, how was that funny??
It's not meant to be funny. In some tournaments tiebreakers are actually played like that: e.g., a match is best of 5 and it's 2½-2½. One more game is played; Black has less time than White, but wins the match if he can draw the game.
Yes, I know it's not meant to be funny. I was wondering what Paul is even saying when he says it's funny. What's his point, that's what I was wondering about. I'm a bit confused about it was hoping he could clarify, might learn something.
Yes, I know it's not meant to be funny. I was wondering what Paul is even saying when he says it's funny. What's his point, that's what I was wondering about. I'm a bit confused about it was hoping he could clarify, might learn something.
Sorry, I should have replied to his comment, not yours. I guess he just didn't know that that actually happens in games where there has to be a result.
Memorizing 24-ply opening wins is a great use of study time. NOT.
I think if we didn't castle anymore. I would even play d4.
I play e4 with white exclusively because I think it is important to have the king castled and attack but without castling I would go for d4 not opening to my king.
I rather like Castling, but it would be really interesting. I think it adds skill, knowing when to Castle, where to Castle, and if to Castle--removing this probably removes more flavor than it adds.
I really enjoy it in French/Caro openings in which the position is semi-closed and most material has already been exchanged, and my opponent Castles, tucking their King away in the corner where he is useless, and I develop my King to the centre, where he is active, yet safe.
It also throws off the balance of offense/defense. I think it gives more advantage to the first player, which is not a good thing, because he/she can use early initiative to force the player with Black pieces to simply play defensively, but this is just a theory, it may not be so bad in practice.
Black moving first doesn't change anything.....
The King and Queen have switched places.
3 for a win 1 for a draw is how they do it in the National Hockey League (regular season... Playoffs are different).
No castling for either side = mano-a-mano chess
Has anyone seriously considered this? I understand that there is some push in the community to have more decisive games. One way we are already doing this is using shorter time controls, leaving more room for mistakes. I believe that removing castling rules from chess would serve this purpose as well, among other things.
Openings would of course have to adapt to the new situation. Moving your e&d pawns to occupy the center is more dangrous when your king is stuck in the middle of the board. Yet contol of the center is something you are definitely going to need to be able to defend your uncastled king in the long run. This conflicting pressure would, I believe, encourage early attacks and tactical play leading to sharp positions. The alternative would naturally be to castle manually, but that is going to cost several moves that you may not be able to afford.
Removing castling would also simplify the rules of the chess, instead of complicating them more, like chess960, for example. Complexity of the rules is one obstacle preventing chess from attracting new players and a bigger audience.
Most of a players skill in traditional chess is easily transferable to the new game, I think. Any good player is already quite cabable of attacking an uncastled king and will surely be able to take advantage of the new situation.
Even software would be trivial to adapt. In fact, any decent chess engine should already able to analyse the opening postion, since the standard FEN notation used by UIs to specify the position for the engine saves the castling rights individually. The fen would then be:
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1Very interesting idea...I think that White's advantage would be even bigger
http://enjoychesslearning.wordpress.com/
4 player chess: each player starts in a corner and gets a king, rook, knight, bishop, and four pawns.
Why not try this instead? 
Google Chess4, or just look at the link from Walmart below(Yeah it's Walmart...but it's the first link I could find...)
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Chess-4/10669098
This idea is not a particularily good idea and in any event would be soundly rejected for many reasons.
I think it would be shorter and way more aggressive or maybe white would have a clear advantage.. who knows how it'd be at GM level