Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:34:18 07/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2003 at 07:46:58, Hristo wrote:
>On July 15, 2003 at 06:53:57, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote:
>
>>On July 15, 2003 at 02:48:48, Hristo wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/13/25151/2680
>>>
>>>What would happen if all of those rule changes were applied to real chess?
>>
>>Some of those rules need to be clarified, in particular:
>>
>>
>>Patch 1.11
>>
>>We have noticed that many games tend to slow down near the end, as Pawn
>>formations lock against each other. In order to prevent this and ensure a more
>>dynamic game, Pawns now promote on the 7th rank rather than the 8th. Also, when
>>a Pawn cannot move forward due to another piece obstructing it's motion, it may
>>move sideways one square.
>>
>>It should be specified if the promotion on the seventh rank is compulsory or
>>optional. Compare with Shogi rules.
>>
>
>ah ... good point!
>
>>
>>Patch 1.12
>>
>>Pawns have become too powerful, so we have altered the behavior of the Knight.
>>From now on a Knight may capture a Pawn belonging to the opponent by jumping
>>over it, as well as by landing upon it. This new ability may be used to allow a
>>Knight to capture 2 pieces per turn. Jump Captures may only be performed on
>>Pawns, and no other piece, and cannot be used to place the opponent's King in
>>Check.
>>
>>It is not clear which square is the knight jumping, at least two come to my
>>mind. This should be also clarified.
>>
>
>I guess it depends on your hand gestures. ;)
>
>>
>>Patch 1.12
>>
>>Pawns have become too powerful, so we have altered the behavior of the Knight.
>>From now on a Knight may capture a Pawn belonging to the opponent by jumping
>>over it, as well as by landing upon it. This new ability may be used to allow a
>>Knight to capture 2 pieces per turn. Jump Captures may only be performed on
>>Pawns, and no other piece, and cannot be used to place the opponent's King in
>>Check.
>>
>>Is the Queen allowed to jump or fall into an attacked square by castling?
>>
>>
>>What would happen, it would be a completely different game. There are several
>>chess variations, but as far as I know none of them is popular. I do not expect
>>this particular set of changes to get any significant support from players.
>>
>
>If you leave the game to programmers then everything is possible, regardless of
>popularity.
>
>>>Will the game be more fun?
>>>
>>
>>No. Most likely they would be more boring.
>>
>>>Are there any rules, in chess, that we are better off changing?
>>>
>>
>>The rules of chess are fine like they are now. I have read over the years
>>several proposals to reduce the number of draws, but they basically spoil the
>>game. There will be always strange people who propose new rules, but they will
>>never succeed, the time for significant changes is long gone.
>>José.
>>
>
>Not sure if the time is long gone or the time isn't right (ripe) for any changes
>to take hold.
>I suspect that some changes to chess, don't mean crazy-house, will occur sooner
>than one might think.
If changes in the actual rules of movements are made over the next 100 years it
will be considerably sooner than I think. Better change that to 500 years being
sooner than I thought.
Seriously though, there is NO WAY you're going to see the types of changes you
suggest and have them keep the lone accolade 'Chess'. Variations are all known
as Chess Variants, and there are plenty of those. If you change the rules, you
aren't playing the same game as Steinitz, Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, or Tal
for example. You're playing something else that just looks awful similar. You'll
never be able to compare your skill with them, nor look up to them as heroes of
your game.
There's lots of room for new games, and challenging one. It's a question of
popularity and durability, which happens only once in a very blue moon. Major
changes can help or kill a classic.
One example of a major change that helped a game quite recently (last 80 years
or so) is in backgammon. Sure it has existed perhaps longer than chess yet it
was quite poorly followed all things considered. Then in the late 1920s a
completely new element was introduced into the game, really making it more
interesting and reducing the luck factor: the doubling cube.
This brought in a number of new considerations into normal game-by-game play,
and innumerous strategical shades in matchplay. In a match, the best play with
one's checkers could change from best to blunder due to the score (due to the
introduction of the cube) and the right time to double as well.
So, if it can be done with backgammon why not chess? Well, backgammon suffered
justifiably from a rep of being too strongly swayed by luck. It still does, but
those in the know are aware that probabilities are in the favor of the skilled.
Even so, there are variations which reduce even this, such as Nackgammon, coined
after its creator, Nick "Nack" Ballard, one of the world's best. This variation
has 2 checkers removed from the initial stacks of 5 and places them next to the
small group of two at the end, making it two stacks of 2 side-by-side. Gameplay
is otherwise the same. Since the games are longer, and more challenging
strategically, skill weighs out even more.
Albert
>
>Regards.
>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Hristo
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.