One thing about Crazyhouse that I've noticed, is that, if you'e going to play a blunder, you're going to play it, and more time doesn't help.
The variant lives to its name, if there's some crazy variation where your opponent sacrifices their queen then Drops a pawn in a weird place and somehow no matter what you do from there, they got some insane forced mate, if you can't see this on 3 0 time control, you wouldn't see it on 5 0, or on 10 0.
I think this is the main reason people don't bother with slower time controls, not even engines can see the intricacies of some positions, and will insist one side is completely winning when it's the other one.
Hmmm, isn't this like Go? A position is very hard to evaluate, so whatever evaluation is at the leaf node of your tree, the position from where your score comes from, could be completely wrong. There's no such thing as a quiet position, because what looks quiet could be a mate in something (not surprising if white has a forced mate from the opening position!). It seems this is a perfect game for a NN to destroy.
Personally, I quit Crazyhouse because I don't feel satisfaction about winning on time, and I don't like the stress of having to move very fast. I'd want 10 0 time control, at least, but then most of the time on the clock is wasted because games are decided very soon because a single pattern someone has that the other doesn't is enough to decide a game.
Looks like low time + some increment (say, 1 minute +7 seconds increment) would be ideal, but the people that tend to enjoy Crazyhouse also tend to enjoy the adrenaline rush of having to move fast at the end of the game (the time struggle is a core part of close games to them) so tournaments with increment fail to get any traction.
Chess960 has been getting a lot of attention lately, perhaps one day Crazyhouse will have its moment.
PK wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:29 am
Handicap go is still go. Handicap shogi is still shogi. Hearts of Iron on "civilian" settings with several buffs is still Hearts of Iron. I don't buy the idea that handicap chess is not chess. Game mechanics and rules remain the same, so it is the same game.
Otherwise you would have to argue that chess puzzles are not chess puzzles, since they change starting position. What's more, tactics books are not about chess. Endgame books are not about chess etc.
So, if I invite you to a chess tournament and you register, and then you shake the hands of your opponent and the game starts, wouldn't you be shocked if the TD came to your board and set up some random chess puzzle from where you have to play, and are informed that the next 19 rounds would also start from a random chess puzzle position?
Or they take a rook away from you and say all the rest of the tournament you'll have to play with that rook missing from the start?
Or your opponent drops a knight all of nowhere to checkmate you?
You have to draw the line somewhere, at the point you would complain to me that I should have informed you about the abnormal conditions of the tournament.
Then, wherever you draw the line, when you think you should be informed about the abnormality before registering, that's not chess anymore.