| |
Main
Date: 23 Apr 2008 12:23:28
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Which side would have an advantage: Pieces following Near Chess or
|
Near Chess was discovered in an attempt to adapt Christian Freeling's
Grand Chess to an 8x8 board. This produced a formation where both
sets of pieces shift up one row. This was streamlined even more by
dropping castling, how pawn promotion works and having king captured
instead of checkmate. Near Chess is positioned as a chess variant
friendly for those who don't normally play chess.
Anyhow, out of development of Near Chess came the question about how
pieces following Near Chess rules would do against those following
normal chess rules. To answer this question, Near vs Normal Chess
was created to pit pieces following Near Chess rules against those
following normal chess rules. Initially I thought the Near Chess
side would have no chance. However, it ended up initially being
closer than I expected, running it on the computer and personally
playing it against human opponents.
After running the game a bunch of times over Zillions, I would likely
give a slight edge to the Normal side, but I am not sure. I would like
people here to perhaps speculate on which side has an advantage. Let's
say we follow all of normal chess rules, except the Near side changes
things this way:
1. Near moves its pieces up one row.
2. Near doesn't castle.
3. Near can En Passant Normal's pawns, but due to the limited movement
of Near's Pawns can't be En Passanted.
Game is won on checkmate, and like in normal chess, you can have more
pieces than usual counter mix. So, the question is, which side has an
advantage in your assessment?
Near's advatages are:
1. Its pawns can be defended easier early, and aren't subject to en
passant. In Near vs Normal, en passant is treated as a weakness with
Normal chess pawns, not as a move that normal chess pawns do
distinctly. The pressure Near's pawns put on the center also restricts
how Normal would develop its pieces.
2. It can't be subject to a back rank mate or fool's mate.
3. Its pawns all start one row closer, meaning more pressure across
the entire board on the center.
4. Its rooks can get mobilized earlier.
5. Its Knight, Bishop and Queen can mobilize behind its and protect
themselves. Normal must bring its pieces out in front of its pawns
normally to mobilize them.
Near's disadvantages:
1. No castling. King stays in middle of the board.
2. Near's non-pawn pieces are a bit limited in how they mobilize. If
you bring a knight out, for example, Normal can manage to push a pawn
2 spaces, threatening to capture the Knight.
So, I will ask, which side do you believe has an advantage? My take is
the sides are likely close enough to be able to have skill offset any
advantage, but Normal probably has a slight edge. However, this
represents play in Zillions mostly, so it is only one computer AI.
I ask this question, because if the sides are close enough, then Near
vs Normal could be a variant people could play normally to mix things
up, as a side game. If one side clearly has an edge over the other,
then the stronger player could take the weaker side. Of course, there
is white vs black, and perhaps that would also impact things in that
maybe White Normal vs Black Near is an advantage for Near, while White
Near vs Black Normal is an advantage for Normal. I don't know, which
is why I ask here.
I guess also it would answer the question of whether or not castling
plus intial pawn double move is stronger than all pieces shifted up
one, and an empty back rank, without castling.
Comments are welcomed here. I am curious to see what people might
have as thoughts regarding this.
- Rich
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 14:18:33
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Which side would have an advantage: Pieces following Near Chess
|
On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Harald Korneliussen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This should be very easy to check. All chess programs worth a penny
> > let you set up arbitrary positions, from your description, that
> > would be sufficient (when setting up a king on the second row, it
> > naturally won't be able to castle, and a pawn on the third row won't
> > be able to move to the fifth). Take a seriously strong program, make
> > it play without an opening book, and see which side wins more often.
>
> Actually, you don't need to disable the opening book -- no opening
> book will contain any of the positions that arise in the first twenty
> or so moves of this game so having the opening book switched on will
> make no difference. This is just the same as your observation that
> castling and double pawn moves don't need to be explicitly disabled.
>
> Dave.
Ok, so it looks like Near and Near vs Normal are two variants that can
be played with just about any chess program by reconfiguring the
starting positions. Well, Near Chess is ALMOST near chess, due to the
pawn promotion rules. Call it SM Near Chess then (SM standards for
Slightly Modified, and Scheming Mind, which is likely one of the first
sites to have it up with the normal chess pawn promotion rules).
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 21:34:54
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Which side would have an advantage: Pieces following Near Chess
|
On Apr 23, 9:40 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 6:43 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:00 pm, Harald Korneliussen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > This should be very easy to check. All chess programs worth a penny
> > > let you set up arbitrary positions, from your description, that would
> > > be sufficient (when setting up a king on the second row, it naturally
> > > won't be able to castle, and a pawn on the third row won't be able to
> > > move to the fifth). Take a seriously strong program, make it play
> > > without an opening book, and see which side wins more often.
>
> > Anyone know how to get Fritz X to be able to accept such a
> > configuration? I am having issues trying to customize positions. I
> > know it is pretty balanced when Zillions runs it.
>
> > - Rich
>
> Ok, I got it it work. I pasted a FEN(?) notation into Fritz, and then
> had it run in Shootout mode. The results so far for Near Chess are
> interesting. 3 AIs, 3 different approaches to openings. Zillions
> like to move the rooks to the back row to start. ChessV brings the
> knights behind the king and queen, and Fritz drops the king behind the
> king's bishop as its first move. Will need to try Near vs Normal in
> Fritz to see what the results are.
>
> - Rich
Ok, I ran it a few times in Fritz X with Near as White and Black.
Played competititvely both sides actually. I probably need to run it
longer than 5 minutes blitz to see what happens.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 18:40:03
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Which side would have an advantage: Pieces following Near Chess
|
On Apr 23, 6:43 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 6:00 pm, Harald Korneliussen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This should be very easy to check. All chess programs worth a penny
> > let you set up arbitrary positions, from your description, that would
> > be sufficient (when setting up a king on the second row, it naturally
> > won't be able to castle, and a pawn on the third row won't be able to
> > move to the fifth). Take a seriously strong program, make it play
> > without an opening book, and see which side wins more often.
>
> Anyone know how to get Fritz X to be able to accept such a
> configuration? I am having issues trying to customize positions. I
> know it is pretty balanced when Zillions runs it.
>
> - Rich
Ok, I got it it work. I pasted a FEN(?) notation into Fritz, and then
had it run in Shootout mode. The results so far for Near Chess are
interesting. 3 AIs, 3 different approaches to openings. Zillions
like to move the rooks to the back row to start. ChessV brings the
knights behind the king and queen, and Fritz drops the king behind the
king's bishop as its first move. Will need to try Near vs Normal in
Fritz to see what the results are.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 15:43:34
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Which side would have an advantage: Pieces following Near Chess
|
On Apr 23, 6:00 pm, Harald Korneliussen <[email protected] > wrote:
> This should be very easy to check. All chess programs worth a penny
> let you set up arbitrary positions, from your description, that would
> be sufficient (when setting up a king on the second row, it naturally
> won't be able to castle, and a pawn on the third row won't be able to
> move to the fifth). Take a seriously strong program, make it play
> without an opening book, and see which side wins more often.
Anyone know how to get Fritz X to be able to accept such a
configuration? I am having issues trying to customize positions. I
know it is pretty balanced when Zillions runs it.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 15:02:16
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Which side would have an advantage: Pieces following Near Chess
|
On Apr 23, 5:52 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Why? Nearchess is won by king capture instead of checkmate
> (which implies that a king can move into check, and indeed
> may have to do so in what would otherwise be a stalemate).
> Why apply the normal chess rule to both sides?
In Near vs Normal, the idea is to have it as balanced as possible.
Near has unfair advantage if it captures the enemy king, and Normal
Chess has to checkmate. Stalemate results in a win for the Near side.
> BTW, Rule three of Near Chess contains an error.
>
> "3. Game is won by capturing the opponent's king, rather
> than checkmating it. This eliminates stalemate."
>
> The above should be "This eliminates most stalemates."
> It is possible to create a position where a player has
> no legal move even if the king is allowed to move into
> check. It isn't likely to come about in normal play,
> but it is possible.
Ok, I will go ahead and make the needed update.
> (Best viewed with non-proportional
> Monospace font such as Courier)
>
> NEAR CHESS STALEMATE #1
> - - - - - k B K
> - - - - - P R P
> - - - - - - P -
> (White to move)
I will change the wording. The idea of Near Chess isn't to eliminate
stalemate (ok, it reduces the numbers of stalemates), but to be a
gateway game into chess for people who don't know chess (drop castling
and en passant, and simplify the rook). What Near vs Normal is meant
to be is a potential alternate piece set up, with its own rules, that
people could use for a change of pace, or a potential handicapping set
up, if Near or Normal has a clear advantage.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 15:00:20
From: Harald Korneliussen
Subject: Re: Which side would have an advantage: Pieces following Near Chess
|
This should be very easy to check. All chess programs worth a penny
let you set up arbitrary positions, from your description, that would
be sufficient (when setting up a king on the second row, it naturally
won't be able to castle, and a pawn on the third row won't be able to
move to the fifth). Take a seriously strong program, make it play
without an opening book, and see which side wins more often.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 18:01:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Which side would have an advantage: Pieces following Near Chess
|
Harald Korneliussen <[email protected] > wrote:
> This should be very easy to check. All chess programs worth a penny
> let you set up arbitrary positions, from your description, that
> would be sufficient (when setting up a king on the second row, it
> naturally won't be able to castle, and a pawn on the third row won't
> be able to move to the fifth). Take a seriously strong program, make
> it play without an opening book, and see which side wins more often.
Actually, you don't need to disable the opening book -- no opening
book will contain any of the positions that arise in the first twenty
or so moves of this game so having the opening book switched on will
make no difference. This is just the same as your observation that
castling and double pawn moves don't need to be explicitly disabled.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Mexi-Atlas (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a map of the world that comes
from Mexico but it's perfect for
your grandparents!
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 21:52:09
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Which side would have an advantage: Pieces following Near Chess or normal chess rules?
|
Rich Hutnik wrote:
>Anyhow, out of development of Near Chess came the question about how
>pieces following Near Chess rules would do against those following
>normal chess rules. To answer this question, Near vs Normal Chess
>was created to pit pieces following Near Chess rules against those
>following normal chess rules.
>Game is won on checkmate,
Why? Nearchess is won by king capture instead of checkmate
(which implies that a king can move into check, and indeed
may have to do so in what would otherwise be a stalemate).
Why apply the normal chess rule to both sides?
BTW, Rule three of Near Chess contains an error.
"3. Game is won by capturing the opponent's king, rather
than checkmating it. This eliminates stalemate."
The above should be "This eliminates most stalemates."
It is possible to create a position where a player has
no legal move even if the king is allowed to move into
check. It isn't likely to come about in normal play,
but it is possible.
(Best viewed with non-proportional
Monospace font such as Courier)
NEAR CHESS STALEMATE #1
- - - - - k B K
- - - - - P R P
- - - - - - P -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
(White to move)
NEAR CHESS STALEMATE #2
- - - - k B R K
- - - - P - P P
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
(White to move)
NEAR CHESS STALEMATE #3
- - - - k B Q K
- - - - P P P P
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
(White to move)
NEAR CHESS STALEMATE #4
- - - - n - N K
- - - - P k P R
- - - - - P - P
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
(White to move)
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
|
