Author Topic: Better than Ortho  (Read 121 times)

ubersketch

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • hello.
    • View Profile
    • ubersketch
Better than Ortho
« on: April 21, 2018, 12:28:35 pm »
This thread is about what could be done to improve FIDE Chess.

"Okay now I can't stop staring at that alien crotch." ubersketch 2k17

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


John_Lewis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Better than Ortho
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2018, 09:11:00 am »

Martin0

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Better than Ortho
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2018, 04:24:11 pm »
If I were to design chess today, I would get rid of the rules that requires knowledge of previous moves in the game. More specifically:

Get rid of the en passant rule. I get why it was introduced when pawns was made able to move 2 steps, but I see the rule as unnecessary.

Allow castling when the king and rook are standing on their original squares, regardless if they have previously moved or not.

Another thing I might consider is to make the king travel 3 spaces to b1 when castling queenside (and rook to c1). This would create more symmetry to castling either side.

Overall though, the rules for chess are really great and I would not dare to suggest that they should be changed.

Martin0

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Better than Ortho
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2018, 04:28:00 pm »
I think a variant that disregards checks and just have king capture = victory are good for beginners.

ubersketch

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • hello.
    • View Profile
    • ubersketch
Re: Better than Ortho
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2018, 07:51:02 pm »
I think a variant that disregards checks and just have king capture = victory are good for beginners.
I agree.

"Okay now I can't stop staring at that alien crotch." ubersketch 2k17

John_Lewis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Better than Ortho
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2018, 09:21:59 pm »
If I were to design chess today, I would get rid of the rules that requires knowledge of previous moves in the game. More specifically:

Get rid of the en passant rule. I get why it was introduced when pawns was made able to move 2 steps, but I see the rule as unnecessary.

Allow castling when the king and rook are standing on their original squares, regardless if they have previously moved or not.

Another thing I might consider is to make the king travel 3 spaces to b1 when castling queenside (and rook to c1). This would create more symmetry to castling either side.

Overall though, the rules for chess are really great and I would not dare to suggest that they should be changed.

Did you look at the variant I just posted?

Martin0

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Better than Ortho
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2018, 06:29:33 am »
I looked at the variant you posted, but I am not a fan. Removing a rank and make pawns always only able to move 1 step forward makes the game a lot different. The rapid development made possible in chess by moving pawns forward 2 steps and castling moving the king into safety fast and connecting the rooks are really fun.

You also say there are no draws, but I see nothing about what you are going to do to prevent insufficient material, 3-fold repetitions and 50-move rule. Letting the game go on forever?

I also don't see why you believe simpler=better? Making simpler rules can make the game easier to learn, but not an overall better game. I don't agree with "loses nothing in terms of depth of play.", that sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

Asher Hurowitz

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 135
  • The Founder and Administrator of the Forum
    • View Profile
Re: Better than Ortho
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2018, 11:51:33 am »
I looked at the variant you posted, but I am not a fan. Removing a rank and make pawns always only able to move 1 step forward makes the game a lot different. The rapid development made possible in chess by moving pawns forward 2 steps and castling moving the king into safety fast and connecting the rooks are really fun.

You also say there are no draws, but I see nothing about what you are going to do to prevent insufficient material, 3-fold repetitions and 50-move rule. Letting the game go on forever?

I also don't see why you believe simpler=better? Making simpler rules can make the game easier to learn, but not an overall better game. I don't agree with "loses nothing in terms of depth of play.", that sounds more like wishful thinking to me.
I agree with Martin0 on this one.
One move pawns just seem redundant as the two move rule was one of the main reasons for the reform of Shatranj, making the game more streamlined and fun so it seems like a regression to me, but great work!  ;D Thanks for the fascinating contribution!
« Last Edit: June 15, 2019, 05:21:57 pm by Asher Hurowitz »
Indeed it is certain that Chess Variants make me happy.

My Youtube Channel on Chess Variants
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb-lm6a8XZo0eqAhfR4QWOg

My Lecture at Yale University, aged 13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smDO2Dpx5tg

My Youtube Channel on Rubik's Cube
Search"Polyhedral Paradise"

joejoyce

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Location: New York
    • View Profile
Re: Better than Ortho
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2018, 08:14:56 pm »
...Did you look at the variant I just posted?
Around 2009, I played Simplified chess face-to-face with Rich Hutnik at Spielbany. Forgot whether the pawns moved 1 or 2 on first move. I remember it as a very different game for experienced chess players, kinda dirty and gritty. I find it's an excellent teaching game, if you wish to understand a bit more about how things in chess work, and why. I also recommend pairing it with the 'opposite' variation, playing on an 8x9, with 5 empty rows between pawns, and all chess rules as standard, except of course for the square-color placement of the black pieces, which becomes the same as the white pieces.

I'm one of the few who think varying the board can easily be as important as varying the pieces. And I'm also a big fan of shatranj pawns, with no double step. I've noticed few moderns make many pawn moves in modern shatranj variants. While I may make too many, most don't make enough, because they are too used to the diminished role of pawns in the modern game, and don't appreciate they are actual fighting pieces in shatranj. But I do see why the pawns get an initial double step in the modern game. The modern pieces are essentially overpowered, with 5 of 7 non-royal pieces infinite sliders and the other two leapers. Without that double step, the pawns are reduced to speed bumps. Of course, reducing the number of empty ranks mitigates that effect.

joejoyce

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Location: New York
    • View Profile
Re: Better than Ortho
« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2018, 12:54:51 am »
As far as improving chess, I don't think any one game will do it. The only real improvement I see is an ever-expanding list of high-quality chess variants and fusions of chess and other games. The major regional chess variants on Earth now are all rather polished games that show strong signs of a common origin followed by different development. Xiang Qi, FIDE, and shogi are all excellent and worthy and different games. And that is the way 'forward', multiple games. Like sports has individual sport championships but also triathlons, decathlons... chess needs an expansion of the games it plays to grow, in my opinion. I'd like to see chess championships in 10 games randomly picked from the 1000 'best' chess variants and 5 random games from the top 100 as well as the champion of the 'Top Three', Xiang Qi, FIDE, and shogi. So I'd say the best thing you could do would be to find, design, play, and publicize the best variants you can.
Like Like x 1 View List