This is a modest variant that eliminates a lot of endgame draws. The king can jump orthogonally over a friendly piece to capture an enemy piece on the other side. Thus, K + P versus K is won.
http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/frogkingchess.htm (with Zillions program).
On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 8:12:52 AM UTC+2, M Winther wrote:
This is a modest variant that eliminates a lot of endgame draws. The king can jump orthogonally over a friendly piece to capture an enemy piece on the other side. Thus, K + P versus K is won.
http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/frogkingchess.htm (with Zillions program).Bs"d
Something like that existed already, it's called "checkers".
Too many draws is only something to worry about for the world top, us mere mortals don't have to worry about that.
https://tinyurl.com/tramp-checkers
On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:47:22 PM UTC+1, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 8:12:52 AM UTC+2, M Winther wrote:
This is a modest variant that eliminates a lot of endgame draws. The king can jump orthogonally over a friendly piece to capture an enemy piece on the other side. Thus, K + P versus K is won.
http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/frogkingchess.htm (with Zillions program).Bs"d
Something like that existed already, it's called "checkers".
Too many draws is only something to worry about for the world top, us mere mortals don't have to worry about that.
https://tinyurl.com/tramp-checkersRemember this? WCH 2018:
Game 1: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½
Game 2: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½
Game 3: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½
Game 4: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½
Game 5: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½
Game 6: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½
Game 7: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½
Game 8: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½
Game 9: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½
Game 10: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½
Game 11: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½
Game 12: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½
Too many draws is only something to worry about for the world top, us mere mortals don't have to worry about that.
On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 5:47:22 AM UTC-7, Eli Kesef wrote:
Too many draws is only something to worry about for the world top, us mere mortals don't have to worry about that.That's true enough in a direct sense.
However, the fact of "too many draws" at the stratospheric heights of Chess _affects_ people who, although not
grandmasters, do engage in serious rated play. Basically, evern since Steinitz came along, Chess stopped being
particularly exciting as a spectator sport.
This reduced the amount of support available for the game in free-market economies.
However, while I found this variant interesting, I don't think it's a good solution to the problem. Making that
particular endgame a win instead of a draw is, I think, going to be quite properly looked upon as damaging,
not beneficial, to Chess as a game. Players should still have a reason to take care to avoid a stalemate
when a checkmate is possible.
They should just institute that in case of all draws the world champ keeps his title, and problem solved. The challenger will fight harder or go home as a loser.
But the present solution with the rapid games, followed by the armageddon is also a good solution.
Point is, chess isn't, and never was, a spectator sport. That's just a fact of life. I play chess because I like to play chess, not to entertain the spectators.
And since during one world championship match not too long ago, don't remember right away who against who, there were 1.2 billion people who watched the games online, I don't think we have a spectator problem.
https://tinyurl.com/checkmate-ends
On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 5:47:22 AM UTC-7, Eli Kesef wrote:
Too many draws is only something to worry about for the world top, us mere mortals don't have to worry about that.That's true enough in a direct sense.
However, the fact of "too many draws" at the stratospheric heights of Chess _affects_ people who, although not
grandmasters, do engage in serious rated play. Basically, evern since Steinitz came along, Chess stopped being
particularly exciting as a spectator sport.
This reduced the amount of support available for the game in free-market economies.
However, while I found this variant interesting, I don't think it's a good solution to the problem. Making that
particular endgame a win instead of a draw is, I think, going to be quite properly looked upon as damaging,
not beneficial, to Chess as a game. Players should still have a reason to take care to avoid a stalemate
when a checkmate is possible.
On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 10:36:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
However, while I found this variant interesting, I don't think it's a good solution to the problem. Making that
particular endgame a win instead of a draw is, I think, going to be quite properly looked upon as damaging,
not beneficial, to Chess as a game. Players should still have a reason to take care to avoid a stalemate
when a checkmate is possible.
Agreed entirely.
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:44:26 PM UTC-7, William Hyde wrote:
On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 10:36:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
However, while I found this variant interesting, I don't think it's a good solution to the problem. Making that
particular endgame a win instead of a draw is, I think, going to be quite properly looked upon as damaging,
not beneficial, to Chess as a game. Players should still have a reason to take care to avoid a stalemate
when a checkmate is possible.
Agreed entirely.Upon reflection, though, I think my comments were too harsh.
On the one hand, the defending player should be rewarded for preventing a checkmate.
But on the other hand, the attacking player ought to get partial credit for being a pawn
up due to the preceding play.
This would make for a more boring game. Take the Marshall gambit in the Lopez. Sometimes this results in a pawn-down but drawn endgame for the person who sacrificed a pawn. If this resource were not available, the Marshall would be a significantlyworse opening, and probably never played.
Making pawn sacrifices more risky would make for a more boring game.
William Hyde
Secondly, the Marshall gambit is so good that it has effectively killed the Spanish opening. That's why they play d3-variants, today. It would be good
if the Marshall were weakened.
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 1:45:38 PM UTC-7, malw...@gmail.com wrote:
Secondly, the Marshall gambit is so good that it has effectively killed the Spanish opening. That's why they play d3-variants, today. It would be good if the Marshall were weakened.Whether or not there is any truth to that, it is highly unclear to me how one could modify Chess so as to alter the relative merits of different openings without changing it beyond recognition - with, therefore, unpredictable consequences instead of good ones.
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 1:45:38 PM UTC-7, malw... wrote:
Secondly, the Marshall gambit is so good that it has effectively killed the Spanish opening. That's why they play d3-variants, today. It would be good if the Marshall were weakened.Whether or not there is any truth to that, it is highly unclear to me how one could modify Chess so as to alter the relative merits of different openings without changing it beyond recognition - with, therefore, unpredictable consequences instead of good ones.
John Savard
How could it lead to "unpredictable consequences"? It only requires theoretical analysis with the aid of computers.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 49:06:48 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,291 |
| Posted today: | 1 |