chess online

Chess Online

Vote and you will reveal!
Funny name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
kingofpawns 14 ( +1 | -1 )
If you could change... any rule for the movement of pieces, would you or
would you leave the game as is? If you decided to
change a rule, what would be your proposal?
calmrolfe 33 ( +1 | -1 )
Rule One Random placement of the pieces of the first rank, with the proviso that the Bishops had to go on opposite colours. All existing theory would then be thrown out of the window, computer databases would be worthless and we could return to playing Chess as a test of our personal skills and our fundamental understanding of the game.

Kind regards,

Cal
tulkos 5 ( +1 | -1 )
you mean, something like fischer random chess?
tulkos 14 ( +1 | -1 )
heres a site, www.chessvariants.com/diffsetup.dir/fischer.html
taoistlunatic 31 ( +1 | -1 )
random chess is awesome! I love this idea, and I hope it catches on, I hate the huge volumes of opening theory that has made chess more of a memory game than a thinking game in the opening.

Imagine playing a game of chess and actually having to think about your first few moves!!!
tulkos 9 ( +1 | -1 )
I have never memorized opening lines. I learned some theory and a few main openings,and then I learn from experience.8-)
taoistlunatic 34 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes, tulkos... but you at least know the main theory of the first three or four moves... In random chess, two masters would sit down to the board and the players would have to use some time on their clocks just to decide upon the first move, the second and third move would require even more time!!!
More: Chess
adrianallen 20 ( +1 | -1 )
You seen 3 player chess. Board is a wierd shape and is designed for 3 players, not only do you need to checkmate one of your opponents you have to stop the other player doing it to either you or your opponent.
__mda__ 77 ( +1 | -1 )
To make it intersting.. once both white and black have played a move, roll two different coloured dice ( say white and red ).

The dice numbers represent the following pieces:
1: pawn
2: knight
3: bishop
4: rook
5:queen
6: king

the number rolled on the white die represents the chosen piece type. The number on the red die represents the kind of piece that the chosen piece will (from now on ) move like.

So, if you roll a 3 and a 4, then from then on, bishops will move like rooks. If you roll a 6 and then a 1, kings will move like pawns. The dice rolls continue after both white and black have completed a move.

Actually, forget it, it's a retarded idea.. the game would get crazily confusing... what was I thinking =)
tulkos 2 ( +1 | -1 )
I am already confused.s)
markarian 96 ( +1 | -1 )
my version i like this as an idea, but i never tried that experiment:

you play a game against a gameknot user. after about 20 moves you take your real chess board and put the chess figures on it, same positions like in the gameknot game.

now you remove one figure, the bishop for example.
you give this game to a real person who can play chess and she/he has to find out, which was the last position of the bishop, before you took the bishop away.
all this surely without giving the first 20 moves to this person!
maybe one can find it out only by thinking, or: maybe let the person make some moves and then you pretend the bishop to be there as a "ghost": only the person does not see the bishop!but you can move the bishop in your mind.
how many moves does then the person need to find out the position of the bishop?it surely depends on the position!

is that too confusing? will that experiment work?

markarian
tulkos 0 ( +1 | -1 )
I don't see why not!
markarian 33 ( +1 | -1 )
maybe not every kind of this problem that i described above can be solved uniquely.
if the person made some moves to find out the position of the bishop,it could happen that, after a while, the game ends and there are still several possibilities where the bishop could have had his position?!
adrianallen 17 ( +1 | -1 )
How about Finding some of the old rules of chess and trying to play it that way. I have some rules somewhere for an early indian version - Ill have to see if I can find them.
anima 34 ( +1 | -1 )
free castling Another interesting concept is "free castling". The player would be able to chose where he puts his king and rook: Instead of 0-0 the king can go to g1 or h1 and the rook can go to f1 or e1. Instead of 0-0-0 the king can go to a1, b1 or c1 and the rook can go to d1 or e1. More information can be found at www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz31.txt
certainratio 79 ( +1 | -1 )
calmrolfe uou said:

"All existing theory would then be thrown out of the window, computer databases would be worthless"

This is not really true. There is much of
chess theory that does not depend on the initial
placement of the pieces. Only opening theory
would be worthless. Also, databases would
certainly not be worthless. Endgame databases
would still have the same usefullness. Computers
can now play every endgame with 5 pieces or less
perfectly (maybe it's 4, not 5) be consulting
databases.

But your point is well taken regarding
_opening_ theory and databases.

By the way, if anyone's interested, I just
calculated that there are 7200 ways of
arranging one's pieces on the back row
subject to the restriction that the bishops
are on squares of opposite color.

CertainRatio
calmrolfe 31 ( +1 | -1 )
mda Yeah.I really like that idea. I tried a game against a mate of mine and was real lucky with my dice throwing. I was able to instantly convert all eight of my pawns into Queens at the throw of a dice....boy, did I kick some *** in that game !!!

Checkmate in ONE ! 1.Queen a2 - f7 CHECKMATE !!

:)

Cal
zdrak 26 ( +1 | -1 )
If I could change any single rule, it would be the stalemate rule. I would want to try a kind of chess where Stalemate is a win for the side that inflicted it.

Of course that changes a lot of the existing endgame theory, for example K+P vs. K now becomes a forced win always.
brunetti 22 ( +1 | -1 )
In K+P vs. K the stronger side cannot always force a stalemate.
Consider positions where the pawn is lost, and positions with a rook pawn where the stronger King is confined, and will be stalemated.

Alex
zdrak 81 ( +1 | -1 )
Ok, but if we discard trivial positions where the pawn is quickly lost, and trivial positions where the stronger side's king is completely confined in front of the pawn, the stronger side ALWAYS can force either mate or stalemate.

Of course counting stalemate as a win will change the evaluation of the KP/K endgame, and together with it the evaluation of the KRP/KR endgames, and many other endgames.

In addition in a K+R vs K+B endgame (normally considered drawn), the side with the Rook is also able to force stalemate and thus win, no ? Ditto for KNN vs K.

In fact, the majority of endgame theory will need to be re-evaluated, in view of this rule change, don't you think ?

Hey, here is another idea: Combine my "win by stalemate rule" with "Fischer random placement" ! Both endgame theory and opening theory are thrown out of the window! ;-)
brunetti 15 ( +1 | -1 )
Why? :) Why you would like to discard centuries of studies, analisys, masterpieces? What's wrong with current opening and endgame theory? :)

Alex
zdrak 99 ( +1 | -1 )
Alex,

The very title of the current thread is "If you could change ... "

Note the words IF and CHANGE here. Now some people say that the game of chess is fine as it is. Obviosly they have a good case! Chess is a truly great game, with a well-laid set of rules. It takes mere hours to study, yet years to perfect.

However this particular thread is for people that want to play around with "what if we could ..." ideas.

I am not saying that all the rule-changes suggested here are good (including my own). Nothing is "wrong" with current opening and endgame theory. We just want to kick around some "what if ..." ideas. Ok ?

PS: Chess played under some of the rule-changes suggested above are perfectly capable of producing masterpieces as well. Just different types of masterpieces.

PPS: So, Alex, do you have an idea for some fantastic rules-change you want to share with us ? Come on, don't be shy!
maximus_pondus 50 ( +1 | -1 )
stratego chess I would combine chess with the game of stratego and have stratego chess. There would be a few new pieces which is really cool. The archbishop, which is a knight stacked on top of a bishop. It can move like a knight or bishop, very deadly piece. There is also the chancellor which is a knight stacked on top of a rook. Adding these pieces to the game would make the game crazy. But I guess too much power would be on one board to ever play this.
__mda__ 12 ( +1 | -1 )
calmrolfe..LOL hehehe

yes, it's all in the wrist =)

i've successfully changed a time-honoured artistic game of skill into, well, crap(s).
tengaaru 9 ( +1 | -1 )
zdrak I believe that stalemate used to count as a win or lose a long time ago and not a draw.
calmrolfe 79 ( +1 | -1 )
Fischer Random Chess On 16th August in Mainz, the first rapid chess open in Chess960 (Fischer Random Chess) will be played.

The premiere of Chess960 will attract at least 25 grandmasters – among them are top players such as Svidler, Alexei Dreev (Russia/2676) and Rafael Vaganjan from Armenia (2678). The total sum of up to 7,000 euros first prize is also the target for junior players such as Krishnan Sasikiran from India (2650) and 15 year old Andrei Volokitin, the Ukrainian newcomer from Ponomariov’s camp. The 20 best players have a rating average of more than 2600 Elo.

This should give us all a good chance to see just how the new system works in top level competitive chess matches.

Kind regards,

Cal