No it's different than chess960 because in chess960 the positions are -almost- 'symmetrical'
(but with kings and queens on the same line(s). But then in wild 1 indeed some pieces
positions can be changed so it looks a bit like chess960. What i suggested was to only swap
the black (or white) kings and queens position.
Unfortunately -after some analysis- this leads to either a relatively large advantage for White
or Black (although less than a pawn) and thus in itself isn't (yet?) a solution for the draw problem
in (engine assisted) correspondence chess; unless with other (rule) modifications.
Thus, staying most closely to original chess, and being consistent with engine tourns, the most simple
solution for ICCF correspondence chess now imo is to also adopt the TCEC openings (and rules, i.e.
two games with both Black and White for two opponents, instead of one like in Swiss tournaments).
Ofcourse just as additional option, just like chess960 in correspondence chess. Also the tourn software
should easily be able to handle such changes (but the tourn setups would be different ofcourse,
probably less participants, because of the b/w and w/b games against each other.
Problem solved
So maybe i'll add this suggestion to my paper (in two months) and then hopefully the ICCF (board),
open to changes as they were historically as Fide organisation may adopt this as an
additional option within ten years or so
As for Chessbase, well they may also add another engine room where these Tcec openings are
obliged, and being almost equally fast as the ICCF this might even happen in five years or so !
Meanwhile the Tcec set of (biased/cooked) openings positions may again have
been slightly changed ofcourse, no big deal
Chessqueen wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 1:03 pm
There are so many Engine vs engine draws with with the current rules of chess that I believe that these 2 rules should be changed. 1st. If any side runs out of moves the game should be delcared a lost as long as the other side still has some legal moves, this will reduce the amount of draws by this type of stalemate. 2nd In chess if your opponent offer you any piece to be trade the opponent should be forced to take that piece or if the opponent give you choises of taking more than one pieces with his last move then you should be obligated to take of of the pieces being offered like in Checkers, I believe that is the reason why there are not to many draws in checkers.
They should change the rules of chess because of draws between chess engines? lol..
Chessqueen wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 1:03 pm
There are so many Engine vs engine draws with with the current rules of chess that I believe that these 2 rules should be changed. 1st. If any side runs out of moves the game should be delcared a lost as long as the other side still has some legal moves, this will reduce the amount of draws by this type of stalemate. 2nd In chess if your opponent offer you any piece to be trade the opponent should be forced to take that piece or if the opponent give you choises of taking more than one pieces with his last move then you should be obligated to take of of the pieces being offered like in Checkers, I believe that is the reason why there are not to many draws in checkers.
They should change the rules of chess because of draws between chess engines? lol..
The main reason for proposing changes is that humans assisted by engines make too many draws. This is most obvious in correspondence chess, but it also applies to classical OTB games between top-20 human players, who are often just playing computer lines memorized before the game for many moves, sometimes even for the entire game. This somewhat ruins the interest in watching such events. In my view, 50% draws (between equal top players) is okay, but 75% is not tolerable, and the 99% or so seen at the top of Correspondence chess makes it a total joke under current rules.
Chessqueen wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 1:03 pm
There are so many Engine vs engine draws with with the current rules of chess that I believe that these 2 rules should be changed. 1st. If any side runs out of moves the game should be delcared a lost as long as the other side still has some legal moves, this will reduce the amount of draws by this type of stalemate. 2nd In chess if your opponent offer you any piece to be trade the opponent should be forced to take that piece or if the opponent give you choises of taking more than one pieces with his last move then you should be obligated to take of of the pieces being offered like in Checkers, I believe that is the reason why there are not to many draws in checkers.
They should change the rules of chess because of draws between chess engines? lol..
The main reason for proposing changes is that humans assisted by engines make too many draws. This is most obvious in correspondence chess, but it also applies to classical OTB games between top-20 human players, who are often just playing computer lines memorized before the game for many moves, sometimes even for the entire game. This somewhat ruins the interest in watching such events. In my view, 50% draws (between equal top players) is okay, but 75% is not tolerable, and the 99% or so seen at the top of Correspondence chess makes it a total joke under current rules.
Could forcing to play gambit lines to whoever is rated higher eliminate the drawing chances?
[pgn][Event "Computer chess game"]
[Date "2024.06.11"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish_24052319_x64_avx2"]
[Black "Caissa-1.18-x64-avx2"]
[Result "*"]
[BlackElo "3610"]
[ECO "C21"]
[Opening "Centre Game"]
[Time "19:10:04"]
[Variation "Halasz Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.f4"]
[WhiteElo "3655"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
[Termination "unterminated"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[WhiteType "program"]
[BlackType "program"]
Chessqueen wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 1:03 pm
There are so many Engine vs engine draws with with the current rules of chess that I believe that these 2 rules should be changed. 1st. If any side runs out of moves the game should be delcared a lost as long as the other side still has some legal moves, this will reduce the amount of draws by this type of stalemate. 2nd In chess if your opponent offer you any piece to be trade the opponent should be forced to take that piece or if the opponent give you choises of taking more than one pieces with his last move then you should be obligated to take of of the pieces being offered like in Checkers, I believe that is the reason why there are not to many draws in checkers.
They should change the rules of chess because of draws between chess engines? lol..
The main reason for proposing changes is that humans assisted by engines make too many draws. This is most obvious in correspondence chess, but it also applies to classical OTB games between top-20 human players, who are often just playing computer lines memorized before the game for many moves, sometimes even for the entire game. This somewhat ruins the interest in watching such events. In my view, 50% draws (between equal top players) is okay, but 75% is not tolerable, and the 99% or so seen at the top of Correspondence chess makes it a total joke under current rules.
Could forcing to play gambit lines to whoever is rated higher eliminate the drawing chances?
[pgn][Event "Computer chess game"]
[Date "2024.06.11"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish_24052319_x64_avx2"]
[Black "Berserk-13-avx2-pext"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "3610"]
[ECO "C21"]
[Opening "Centre Game"]
[Time "19:10:04"]
[Variation "Halasz Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.f4"]
[WhiteElo "3655"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
[Termination "unterminated"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[WhiteType "program"]
[BlackType "program"]
Could forcing to play gambit lines to whoever is rated higher eliminate the drawing chances?
Short answer, No (unless you want to -try to- run your own 'chess' club with such rules).
Longer answer, it's not so simple, of course. First of all it depends on what sort of chess (and
"gambit lines", or other lines) we are talking about, human otb, blitz, slow (at which level), engine
games (engine testing, playchess or TCEC), or correspondence chess, computer assisted (ICCF) or not.
For -high level- engine testing the UHO openings seem suitable, although i didn't observe many
gambits and a lot of very unconventional stuff as (vaguely from memory 1.d3 e6 2.d4 d6 3.Nf3
etc. If the engine ratings are far apart, eg. at lower level(s) this isn't necessary and that's
how the G.B(anks) tourns are being run, with a ctg book he made himself and apparently not
double games (note that with Cutechess you can run double games, not sure what GB does).
For TCEC they already figured it out, play double games (b/w reversed), forcing a certain
opening lines (gambit are possible but not required). Note that this (engine testing)
isn't Fide regulated so basically you can do whatever you want.
In (Fide/ICCF) correspondence chess for the top 1/3 which is about 1500 players, the draw rate
is 99 pct or higher (and it's a result of chess being fundamentally a draw (with unrestricted openings)).
This obviously needs to be addressed, and I already suggested a preliminary solution in another thread
(1. Thematic tournaments with certain openings a system which already exists, incl gambits or otherwise
with low draw rates) and 2. making such tournaments more attractive by making them rated,
ie. letting the player results contribute to their conventional rating (I intend to send a message
with this idea via the ICCF website to two officials, incl the tourn manager).
Not going to comment on (official) human chess (which so far is less problematic, at least for
the faster games) and also not on Playchess.com engine games (not my business), I thought already
about suitable openings for rated ICCF thematic tournaments, such openings should indeed have a
low expected draw rate, but imo also not too biased for one side (like the Halasz gambit you now
posted (for a second time). For suitable openings (and expected draw rate) we can look at: https://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4 ... score.html
From this list I already did quick and rough selection, as suggestion of
the sorts of openings (up till 6, 8 moves or so):
QGA Ericson var
Petrov French attack
Ponziani, Romanishi var
KGA Kieseritsky Berlin defense
KGD classical Marshall attack
Gedults opening (preferably unconventional line(s)
Sicilian Richter Rauzer, Rauzer attack Geller var
KGA Kieseritsky Neumann defense
Nimzo Indian Noa variation main line
English closed 5.Rb1 Taimanov
Two knights defense (Pauli variation
Evans gambit compromised defense
Bishops opening classical variation
Sicilian Dragon Yugoslav 9...Bd7
etc (the are much more possibilities)
(sofar) haven't checked above lines in detail so don't criticize me on the details regarding
above lines; it later on should be up to the ICCF of course (and to the players, finding
such a tourn interesting enough to join it) The Halasz gambit (with f4) isn't
included in this list (and isn't suitable imo because at higher levels it gives too
much advantage for White) but some Smith Morra gambits IMO might be included.
may adopt this as an 
