URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The Chess Variant Forum
  HTML https://chessvariantforum.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Variant/Project Announcement, Description and Purch...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 838--------------------------------------------------
       Better than Ortho 
       By: ubersketch Date: April 21, 2018, 11:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This thread is about what could be done to improve FIDE Chess.
       #Post#: 839--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Better than Ortho 
       By: John_Lewis Date: April 22, 2018, 8:11 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Remove a bunch of rules.
  HTML http://www.chessvariants.com/invention/simplified-chess
       #Post#: 843--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Better than Ortho 
       By: Martin0 Date: April 22, 2018, 3:24 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       If I were to design chess today, I would get rid of the rules
       that requires knowledge of previous moves in the game. More
       specifically:
       Get rid of the en passant rule. I get why it was introduced when
       pawns was made able to move 2 steps, but I see the rule as
       unnecessary.
       Allow castling when the king and rook are standing on their
       original squares, regardless if they have previously moved or
       not.
       Another thing I might consider is to make the king travel 3
       spaces to b1 when castling queenside (and rook to c1). This
       would create more symmetry to castling either side.
       Overall though, the rules for chess are really great and I would
       not dare to suggest that they should be changed.
       #Post#: 844--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Better than Ortho 
       By: Martin0 Date: April 22, 2018, 3:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I think a variant that disregards checks and just have king
       capture = victory are good for beginners.
       #Post#: 878--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Better than Ortho 
       By: ubersketch Date: April 29, 2018, 6:51 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Martin0 link=topic=129.msg844#msg844
       date=1524428880]
       I think a variant that disregards checks and just have king
       capture = victory are good for beginners.
       [/quote]
       I agree.
       #Post#: 883--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Better than Ortho 
       By: John_Lewis Date: May 1, 2018, 8:21 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Martin0 link=topic=129.msg843#msg843
       date=1524428651]
       If I were to design chess today, I would get rid of the rules
       that requires knowledge of previous moves in the game. More
       specifically:
       Get rid of the en passant rule. I get why it was introduced when
       pawns was made able to move 2 steps, but I see the rule as
       unnecessary.
       Allow castling when the king and rook are standing on their
       original squares, regardless if they have previously moved or
       not.
       Another thing I might consider is to make the king travel 3
       spaces to b1 when castling queenside (and rook to c1). This
       would create more symmetry to castling either side.
       Overall though, the rules for chess are really great and I would
       not dare to suggest that they should be changed.
       [/quote]
       Did you look at the variant I just posted?
       #Post#: 885--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Better than Ortho 
       By: Martin0 Date: May 2, 2018, 5:29 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I looked at the variant you posted, but I am not a fan. Removing
       a rank and make pawns always only able to move 1 step forward
       makes the game a lot different. The rapid development made
       possible in chess by moving pawns forward 2 steps and castling
       moving the king into safety fast and connecting the rooks are
       really fun.
       You also say there are no draws, but I see nothing about what
       you are going to do to prevent insufficient material, 3-fold
       repetitions and 50-move rule. Letting the game go on forever?
       I also don't see why you believe simpler=better? Making simpler
       rules can make the game easier to learn, but not an overall
       better game. I don't agree with "loses nothing in terms of depth
       of play.", that sounds more like wishful thinking to me.
       #Post#: 886--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Better than Ortho 
       By: Asher Hurowitz Date: May 2, 2018, 10:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Martin0 link=topic=129.msg885#msg885
       date=1525256973]
       I looked at the variant you posted, but I am not a fan. Removing
       a rank and make pawns always only able to move 1 step forward
       makes the game a lot different. The rapid development made
       possible in chess by moving pawns forward 2 steps and castling
       moving the king into safety fast and connecting the rooks are
       really fun.
       You also say there are no draws, but I see nothing about what
       you are going to do to prevent insufficient material, 3-fold
       repetitions and 50-move rule. Letting the game go on forever?
       I also don't see why you believe simpler=better? Making simpler
       rules can make the game easier to learn, but not an overall
       better game. I don't agree with "loses nothing in terms of depth
       of play.", that sounds more like wishful thinking to me.
       [/quote]
       I agree with Martin0 on this one.
       One move pawns just seem redundant as the two move rule was one
       of the main reasons for the reform of Shatranj, making the game
       more streamlined and fun so it seems like a regression to me,
       but great work!  ;D Thanks for the fascinating contribution!
       #Post#: 887--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Better than Ortho 
       By: joejoyce Date: May 2, 2018, 7:14 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=John_Lewis link=topic=129.msg883#msg883
       date=1525224119]
       ...Did you look at the variant I just posted?[/quote]
       Around 2009, I played Simplified chess face-to-face with Rich
       Hutnik at Spielbany. Forgot whether the pawns moved 1 or 2 on
       first move. I remember it as a very different game for
       experienced chess players, kinda dirty and gritty. I find it's
       an excellent teaching game, if you wish to understand a bit more
       about how things in chess work, and why. I also recommend
       pairing it with the 'opposite' variation, playing on an 8x9,
       with 5 empty rows between pawns, and all chess rules as
       standard, except of course for the square-color placement of the
       black pieces, which becomes the same as the white pieces.
       I'm one of the few who think varying the board can easily be as
       important as varying the pieces. And I'm also a big fan of
       shatranj pawns, with no double step. I've noticed few moderns
       make many pawn moves in modern shatranj variants. While I may
       make too many, most don't make enough, because they are too used
       to the diminished role of pawns in the modern game, and don't
       appreciate they are actual fighting pieces in shatranj. But I do
       see why the pawns get an initial double step in the modern game.
       The modern pieces are essentially overpowered, with 5 of 7
       non-royal pieces infinite sliders and the other two leapers.
       Without that double step, the pawns are reduced to speed bumps.
       Of course, reducing the number of empty ranks mitigates that
       effect.
       #Post#: 888--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Better than Ortho 
       By: joejoyce Date: May 2, 2018, 11:54 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       As far as improving chess, I don't think any one game will do
       it. The only real improvement I see is an ever-expanding list of
       high-quality chess variants and fusions of chess and other
       games. The major regional chess variants on Earth now are all
       rather polished games that show strong signs of a common origin
       followed by different development. Xiang Qi, FIDE, and shogi are
       all excellent and worthy and different games. And that is the
       way 'forward', multiple games. Like sports has individual sport
       championships but also triathlons, decathlons... chess needs an
       expansion of the games it plays to grow, in my opinion. I'd like
       to see chess championships in 10 games randomly picked from the
       1000 'best' chess variants and 5 random games from the top 100
       as well as the champion of the 'Top Three', Xiang Qi, FIDE, and
       shogi. So I'd say the best thing you could do would be to find,
       design, play, and publicize the best variants you can.
       *****************************************************