| |
Main
Date: 08 Jun 2005 14:33:20
From: Major Cat
Subject: Why not Chess18 instead?
|
The idea to "undo" opening theory as it specifically applies to the FIDE
starting chess setup and accompanying rules of play (Orthodox Chess) by
choosing a different starting setup and/or accompanying rules of play
(Variant Chess) is at least one and a half century old. For the most part,
the proponents of the idea seem to dislike the fact that serious players
need to become familiar with an ever expanding body of theory that requires
quite a bit of memorization. Its detractors, on the other hand, generally
feel that such liberties will open up Pandora's box and organized chess
will lose its pre-eminence as a serious international game.
I would like to point out that the debate could be refocused on the merits
of carrying out opening theory research *per se* as a rather challenging
intellectual activity. From that perspective, "undoing" opening theory may
not be such a laudable goal after all, while researching opening theory for
one or more chess variants may very well be.
Baseline or Shuffle Chess represents a time-honored approach to generating
chess variants. To this effect, the key deviation from Orthodox Chess is
that the FIDE starting setup gets modified. More specifically, all pawns
remain on their original, orthodox squares, i.e., on the 2nd and 7th rows
of the board. However, the pieces on the 1st and 8th rows are generally
placed on squares on those rows that are different from those mandated by
the FIDE rules (nevertheless, the shuffled white pieces are still on the
1st row while the shuffled black pieces still occupy the 8th row). Over
time, it was realized that Baseline Chess variants could be "ridiculously
wild"... Thus, a symmetry constraint was introduced which requires that
white and black pieces face each other symmetrically in the starting
position behind their respective pawn formations. Furthermore, the ad-
ditional requirement that each side possess bishops of opposite color seems
to have been widely accepted.
Presently, Chess960 or Fischer Random Chess seems to represent the leading
edge of Baseline Chess in historical evolutionary terms. Chess960 imposes
an additional constraint on the starting setup, namely, that the King be
flanked by the Rooks. To this effect, the FIDE rules applicable to castling
are suitably extended. Chess960 allows for 960 different starting setups.
However, due to symmetry, only 480 of its starting setups would require
separate study and analysis. The FIDE starting position is one of them. :)
I am of the humble opinion that, what with its 480 substantively distinct
variants, Chess960 is still...overkill! Instead, Baseline Chess variant
enthusiasts may want to focus on...Chess18. Chess18 comprises a small
subset of Chess960 variants. This subset maintains the King and Rooks on
their orthodox squares. Thus, no extension to the FIDE rules applicable to
castling is necessary. To boot, all 18 variants are substantively distinct
and would require separate study and analysis. The FIDE starting position
is still one of them. :)
Chess18 would still make "booking up" quite a formidable challenge. Chess
playing computer programs could easily accommodate it. Moreover, dedicated
chess position databases could be easily modified to support Chess18 opening
theory research and training.
Could Chess18 opening theory research and play galvanize enough interest
over the long haul so as to create a hobbyist subculture of some permanency?
Major Cat
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Jun 2005 11:47:31
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Why not Chess18 instead?
|
fizzy wrote:
<snip >
> Chess18 is a good idea too, since with only 18 arrays you could break away
> from the deep opening book of orthodox chess and yet retain the practical
> study of openings.
Has anyone come across published opening theory (in hard copy or electronic
format) applicable to Chess960/Chess18 variants (other than the FIDE variant)?
So far, it appears that this might be virgin territory from the standpoint
of "publicly" available knowledge.
Major Cat
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2005 19:46:44
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Why not Chess18 instead?
|
fizzy wrote:
>
> The problem with pre-chess is that it tends to become stereotyped, with
> players placing rooks on the center files, bishops on the long
> diagonals, etc., and you don't get a lot more variety than you do in
> orthodox chess. Chess960 is better. Chess18 is a good idea too, since
> with only 18 arrays you could break away from the deep opening book of
> orthodox chess and yet retain the practical study of openings. I'm
> personally working on a game with 100 squares, dozens of piece types,
> and billions of different possible starting positions, but that's a
> horse of a very different color.
Under Chess18, the pre-chess phase could be a rather simple affair. Namely,
one player (not necessarily White) places the Bishops. The second player,
then, in turn, places the Queen. The subsequent placement of the Knights
is, then, automatic.
Respectfully
Major Cat
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2005 20:29:11
From: fizzy
Subject: Re: Why not Chess18 instead?
|
The problem with pre-chess is that it tends to become stereotyped, with
players placing rooks on the center files, bishops on the long
diagonals, etc., and you don't get a lot more variety than you do in
orthodox chess. Chess960 is better. Chess18 is a good idea too, since
with only 18 arrays you could break away from the deep opening book of
orthodox chess and yet retain the practical study of openings. I'm
personally working on a game with 100 squares, dozens of piece types,
and billions of different possible starting positions, but that's a
horse of a very different color.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2005 03:05:52
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Why not Chess18 instead?
|
I cant remember where I read this variant but...
each player sets up their pawns
white then places a piece... then black... alternating until all pieces
are set up
- bishops must be on opposite colors
this would negate whites advantage of having the first move and you
wouldnt need a computer as in 'fischer random' chess
When I read this variation, I thought 'wow' this is EXACTLY what chess
needs... this would turn chess back into a game, and not rote
memorization of the first 20+ moves... and Ray Gordon couldnt brag about
playin like a GM in the opening :)
J.Lohner
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jun 2005 13:42:41
From: John Rowland
Subject: Re: Why not Chess18 instead?
|
"Inconnux" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> you wouldnt need a computer as in 'fischer random' chess
You don't need a computer for Fischerrandom, you just roll a single die
multiple times, placing the bishops first.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2005 17:33:43
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Why not Chess18 instead?
|
Actually, I have always liked the idea of "pre-chess", I think it is
called, wherein each player places his eight pieces as he likes. You
could certainly constrain the player to keep her king between her
rooks, and to place the bishops on opposite colored squares.
In this way, the very process of setting up the board becomes subject
to study and strategic considerations...
Cheers,
zdrakec
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2005 14:05:39
From: R.P. Warren
Subject: Re: Why not Chess18 instead?
|
Major Cat wrote:
> Chess18 comprises a small
> subset of Chess960 variants. This subset maintains the King and Rooks on
> their orthodox squares.
To be be sure I understand the Chess18 rules, a few questions.
The white queen, bishops and knights go anywhere on b1, c1, d1, f1 and
g1, as long as the bishops are on opposite colors? Is that correct?
Is Black's setup always symmetrical with White's, or can it be
different?
Do the players choose the squares, or is the opening layout
computer-generated?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jun 2005 18:11:02
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Why not Chess18 instead?
|
R.P. Warren wrote:
>
> Major Cat wrote:
> > Chess18 comprises a small
> > subset of Chess960 variants. This subset maintains the King and Rooks on
> > their orthodox squares.
>
> To be be sure I understand the Chess18 rules, a few questions.
>
> The white queen, bishops and knights go anywhere on b1, c1, d1, f1 and
> g1, as long as the bishops are on opposite colors? Is that correct?
Yes, this is correct.
>
> Is Black's setup always symmetrical with White's, or can it be
> different?
Black's setup is always symmetrical with White's.
>
> Do the players choose the squares, or is the opening layout
> computer-generated?
This issue pertains to actual play as opposed to theoretical study/analysis.
Personally, I am undecided. Chess960 generates the opening layout randomly.
Respectfully,
Major Cat
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2005 20:44:58
From: Alan OBrien
Subject: Re: Why not Chess18 instead?
|
"Major Cat" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Chess18 comprises a small
> subset of Chess960 variants. This subset maintains the King and Rooks on
> their orthodox squares. Thus, no extension to the FIDE rules applicable to
> castling is necessary.
> Could Chess18 opening theory research and play galvanize enough interest
> over the long haul so as to create a hobbyist subculture of some
> permanency?
I am no fan at all of Chess960 - but Chess18 sounds hugely sensible. I still
would probably not play it - but it sounds 5 or 6 times better than
Fischerrandom.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2005 11:35:23
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Why not Chess18 instead?
|
Yes, it could.
|
|
