Firscher was right about FischerRandom

[lkaufman]

Is chess18 or chess324 with randomized castling rights something to think about, it might be something

-
k
q
kq
K
Kk
Kq
Kkq
Q
Qk
Qq
Qkq
KQ
KQk
KQq
KQkq

That's a reasonable suggestion. Chess 18 with the 16 castling options makes 288 positions, enough for human use in my opinion. For engines, only a few castling options will produce positions close to the win/draw line, probably the five that give White more rights than Black. The extreme case, KQ, will often be winning for White (I checked some of these out before you suggested this) so we might want to toss that one. That would leave 72 positions so enough for 144 game matches, maybe enough for tournaments and rating lists. Chess324 probably doesn't go quite as well with this idea because many positions with limited castling will be clearly won for one side (mostly White) and because we don't need thousands of positions for tournaments or rating lists.

[syzygy]

We in the chess engine community just have to find the best way to participate in 960.

With crowd computing the chess engine community can build opening books for each of the 959 non-standard opening positions that rival current opening theory in depth

[CornfedForever]

I think that one of the reasons for not many draws in FRC between humans is that humans did not invest most of their time in FRC but in normal chess.

If top players decide to invest most of their time in FRC then I guess that FRC at classical time limits will have more draws.

I agree with this. Once FRC becomes a serious business with money, top players will get back to their preparation routine, and game the system so to speak. The problem of opening preparation in human chess must be solved once and for all. FRC will only solve it temporarily.

99%+ of all tournament chess players don't have the 'problem' this seeks to resolve. Therefore one should question any real 'need' for it.

That said, if the $$$ rolls in, top chess players will play...it's how they pay the rent and history shows they will do anything to that end as moving pieces around is their only real money making skill. But again, the overwhelming majority of chessplayers find hope and comfort in patterns and existing theory (which really only needs to oo so far for them...and even Magnus shows he can win at the very top level by avoiding mainline theory....) so expect this fad to increase until the $$$ wanes and then fall. And you have to go to match format exclusively (each player taking on the same set-up) as white gets too much of an edge out of the opening. It's all...too much and unnecessary.

The only 'problem' with the existing game is that the time controls are too long. Lower them and you automatically increase decisive games as well as the ability of the players to vary their openings and take more chances. Watch Magnus and Nakamura as good examples for what I am getting at. For the 99% of we in the unwashed masses camp...there is no need to change anything....certainly not the starting positions.

[Uri Blass]

To be more precise, the problem is not that it is drawn with perfect play, but that the drawing margin is too wide. GO with the proper integer Komi (6 or 7 maybe depending on rules) is also theoretically drawn, but the margin is so slim that it is fully playable even with today's super engines. Chess could also be like this with some changes, either to rules or to initial position (and Armageddon rule).

Very well put!

There are many differences between chess and go - but regarding the draw margin, the key difference is that the branching factor is much higher in go than it is in chess: the lower the branching factor, the easier it's going to be to find the optimal solution, especially for computers - but also for humans as well.

In the end, if you want computer chess to have fewer draws, you'll need bigger boards. This would solve the problem, but would make the games too long for most people to be willing to play the game - or even watch it. Cricket has an event called "5 day test match", but the game has mostly been moving to shorter formats in recent decades. Maybe leisure time will start increasing, and events will start lengthening again - but there's no sign of that right now.

I can think also about different ideas except bigger board.
1)What if you change the rules to allow 2 moves in a row for every player in their turn when in case of choosing to play 2 moves the first move cannot be a capture or a checking move?

Definition of checkmate remain the same because when the king is in check the first move must get the move out of check.

Assuming computers cannot prove a forced win for white this game has a clearly bigger branching factor than chess.

2)what if a move can be also a sequence of 2 moves when the first one of them is a legal chess move and the second one is replacing the squares of 2 pieces that you have so first move can be 1.e4 and replace between bishop f1 and knight b1?

[towforce]

1)What if you change the rules to allow 2 moves in a row for every player in their turn when in case of choosing to play 2 moves the first move cannot be a capture or a checking move? Definition of checkmate remain the same because when the king is in check the first move must get the move out of check. Assuming computers cannot prove a forced win for white this game has a clearly bigger branching factor than chess.

Very interesting. I'm actually struggling to imagine what this game would be like to play: somebody should give it a try!

2)what if a move can be also a sequence of 2 moves when the first one of them is a legal chess move and the second one is replacing the squares of 2 pieces that you have so first move can be 1.e4 and replace between bishop f1 and knight b1?

I think it would be between the bishop on f1 and the knight on g1?

This game would have a very low branching factor, and I would expect it to get solved relatively soon.

[Stephen Ham]

Dear Gents,

If my memory is correct, back in the 70s, Benko published an article in Chess Life magazine that discussed a variant that he and Bisguier played. The game begins with only pawns on the board on their normal squares. White moves first and places a piece anywhere on the first rank. Black responds by placing a piece of his choice on any 8th rank location. Thus, the positions can be totally asymmetrical - I never understood why FRC/Chess 960 needs to be symmetrical. Once the back ranks were completed, then the first game move was made.

My buddies and I modified the system that Benko described. We allowed a piece or pawn to move only after their King was first placed on the board - the back rank need not be fully populated first. Also, we allowed the possibility of same-color bishops.

The result was highly dynamic play due to asymmetry. Many more opening positions are possible with these rules than with FRC/Chess 960. There's also far more room for creativity and stylistic thought. For example, should I delay showing where my King is located, or shall I move a piece/pawn early by placing my King on the board sooner?

I think this is a much better game to play.

All the best,
-Steve-

[Modern Times]

1)What if you change the rules to allow 2 moves in a row for every player in their turn when in case of choosing to play 2 moves the first move cannot be a capture or a checking move? Definition of checkmate remain the same because when the king is in check the first move must get the move out of check. Assuming computers cannot prove a forced win for white this game has a clearly bigger branching factor than chess.

Very interesting. I'm actually struggling to imagine what this game would be like to play: somebody should give it a try!

That does indeed sound very interesting. Was the idea 2 moves by the same piece, or could be different pieces ?

[Uri Blass]

1)What if you change the rules to allow 2 moves in a row for every player in their turn when in case of choosing to play 2 moves the first move cannot be a capture or a checking move? Definition of checkmate remain the same because when the king is in check the first move must get the move out of check. Assuming computers cannot prove a forced win for white this game has a clearly bigger branching factor than chess.

Very interesting. I'm actually struggling to imagine what this game would be like to play: somebody should give it a try!

2)what if a move can be also a sequence of 2 moves when the first one of them is a legal chess move and the second one is replacing the squares of 2 pieces that you have so first move can be 1.e4 and replace between bishop f1 and knight b1?

I think it would be between the bishop on f1 and the knight on g1?

This game would have a very low branching factor, and I would expect it to get solved relatively soon.

I see no reason that the second game is going to have a very low branching factor.

bishop f1 and knight b1 was only one example. you can replace also queen d1 and rook a1 (you can also replace a piece with a pawn even if it is not a good idea in the opening position it may be a good idea later if a piece of you get to the 8 rank so you can promote next move the pawn by replacement.

We should define rules if a pawn is replaced but I think we can decide that it can go only one move forward in that case and not 2 pawn forward because the pawn already made the first move so if you play e4 and replace between a2 and b2 that is not a good idea then it means that you are not allowed to play a4 or b4 later.

Even if we do not allow replacement for pawns but only replacement for pieces that are not a pawn then the number of options for white for the first move is more than 500.

we have 20 legal moves and after it we can replace 2 pieces that is 8*7/2=28 options and we get 20*28=560 when only few are equivalent(replacing bishops or replacing knights that practically does nothing but not replacing rooks that is a bad idea because you will not be able to castle).

[Uri Blass]

1)What if you change the rules to allow 2 moves in a row for every player in their turn when in case of choosing to play 2 moves the first move cannot be a capture or a checking move? Definition of checkmate remain the same because when the king is in check the first move must get the move out of check. Assuming computers cannot prove a forced win for white this game has a clearly bigger branching factor than chess.

Very interesting. I'm actually struggling to imagine what this game would be like to play: somebody should give it a try!

That does indeed sound very interesting. Was the idea 2 moves by the same piece, or could be different pieces ?

The idea was that it could be also different pieces but even if you allow only one piece it is going to increase the branching factor significantly.

[towforce]

I never understood why FRC/Chess 960 needs to be symmetrical.

A man who knew Bobby Fischer well (sorry - forgotten his name) expressed the view that FRC is designed to Bobby's strengths. His argument was:

* he was good at opening theory

* he didn't like memorising a large number of particular lines

His adaptation was a game that kills the value of memorising particular lines, but results in a game which, after a few moves, gets you back into standard chess opening theory.

My judgement: this man was very credible, and he's probably got it about right.