Chess is a game whose rules were determined centuries ago and are thought to be unchangeable. Chess aficionados would be offended at the idea that it is not exciting and that some changes might benefit it. Without getting into that particular argument, there is no question that because it is so rigidly structured, players nowadays, aided by computers, have studied and memorized most of the openings and defenses and their variations so that there is little surprise, at least in the early stages. As I mentioned in an earlier post, one reason I gave up chess was the realization that to really improve, I would have to drop all my other activities and devote myself to studying and memorizing a huge number of openings and defenses. This was just not worth it to me.
One unfortunate result of this is the increasing number of draws at the highest levels of the game. The 2018 World Championship between Magnus Carlsen and Fabiano Caruana ended with all twelve regular games ending in draws. Carlsen won the tie-breaker games in which the time allowed for play is steadily reduced, one of the innovations introduced to reduce the number of draws.
But it appears that there is another innovation that looks pretty interesting and it is called Fischer Random Chess or Chess960. In this variation, white’s eight pieces on the back row are randomly arranged at the start, subject to certain constraints such as the two bishops having to be on opposite colors. But like in regular chess, black’s pieces mirror white’s arrangement. There are 960 possible legal starting arrangements of the pieces, which makes it impossible for players to prepare openings and defenses in advance. They have to wing it, using general strategies and tactics.
This was introduced by Bobby Fischer in 1996 and other forms of it date back even earlier to the 18th century. Apparently Fischer disliked the memorizing element of the game and he himself played just a very few openings and defenses, preferring to use his energies in creative middle and end game play. The international chess federation recognized this variation in 2008 and there was even a world championship in 2019.
What surprised me is that I had never heard of this variation until this week. It looks like it not only could be a lot of fun to play, it may allow for an entirely different kind of player to rise to the top.
From the headline, I thought this would be about Chess boxing.
It can be pretty wild in the opening. But things may settle down a bit after a while, if they eventually find their way into more normal positions.
The STL chess club hosted a three-day 960 tournament last fall (as they have before) with Carlsen, Caruana, Kasparov, and a bunch of other big names.
But that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Although of course he was often creative and so forth, playing the same openings all the time meant he could rely more on memorization, not less. Trying lots of openings would mean there are too many potential variations in too many different lines, making that level of preparation impossible.
Duh. In case of a draw, go to penalty kicks.
cr:
I think Fischer knew more about both chess and his own methods than you do.
No surprise then that it made sense to him but not to you.
(Basically, he preferred to memorise fewer lines to greater depth)
John, I never claimed to know more about chess than Fischer. And of course I’m not disputing that he could memorize fewer lines to greater depth — that was exactly the point. What that doesn’t imply is that he didn’t memorize/prepare (or didn’t do it very much), since for him it was just about being creative or somehow moving swiftly into the endgame.
I believe there are regular chess960 tournaments now. You can see the results of the last one (last afaik, September 2020) and play through the games here:
https://en.chessbase.com/post/champions-showdown-chess-9lx-carlsen-and-nakamura-share-first-place
Opening knowledge is a stumbling block with chess unless you devote your life to it, and there are (shock) much better things to devote your life to. Chess for me is like an addiction though -- I know I’m good at it and sometimes I can’t resist the urge to show off. However it’s only a game, rating is only a number, and like most everyone, I find my level and stick there. I beat players beneath me, and have even (rarely) beaten the odd IM, but then someone comes along who can absolutely wipe the floor with me every time -- not just beat me, but utterly humiliate me. With the exception of those at the very highest level, that happens to everyone, and we all like to win; nobody likes to lose.
Although I’ve known about chess960 for a long time, I’ve never played it.
Fairy chess and other variants have existed for a long time. I’ve seen variations like “racing pawns”: pawns only, normal capture and en passant rules apply. The first to place a pawn on the opponent’s back row wins.
Other variants could be tried, like fewer pieces or smaller boards (e.g. king and pawns only, no knights on a 6x8 or 6x6 board, etc.) or scoring (each piece has a point value, the most remaining after 20 moves wins).
AlphaZero tested a bunch of minor variants not too long ago. The intention was to ascertain which ones might reduce the draw incidence in chess (a plague at the highest level):
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.04374
I mostly play blitz (5 minute) -- less stress and fewer draws that way. Just played this one (I was black -- you didn’t think I’d post one of me losing did you?!). The numbers following each move are the times taken in seconds:
5m + 0s 1.e4 1.1 Nf6 1.6 2.Nc3 0.6 d5 1.8 3.e5 1.4 Nfd7 1.2 4.d4 6.2 e6 3 5.a3 2.4 c5 2.4 6.f4 2 Nc6 2 7.Nf3 1.8 a6 3 8.Bd3 4.5 g6 1.9 9.h4 2.6 h5 8.6 10.Ne2 4.4 c4 12 11.Bxg6 5.5 fxg6 1.8 12.Ng5 0.5 Qe7 20 13.c3 9.7 Bg7 4.4 14.Qc2 1.9 Nf8 1.2 15.b3 5.7 cxb3 1.7 16.Qxb3 1.7 Nd8 9.3 17.c4 7.2 dxc4 1.9 18.Qxc4 1.3 b5 19 19.Qd3 5.9 Bb7 2.9 20.0-0 0.7 Nf7 4.1 21.a4 4.1 b4 2.9 22.a5 2.1 Nh6 13 23.Bd2 4.4 Rb8 8.2 24.Rab1 3.8 Bc8 1.9 25.Qb3 8 Nf5 22 26.Bxb4 3.1 Qa7 2.4 27.Qc3 31 Nxh4 11 28.Bc5 1.4 Qa8 3.1 29.Rf2 13 Rxb1+ 5.5 Guest526669 resigns
0–1
Also Stealth Chess from Discworld fandom.
cr:
Well, no. One has to in order to compete at the highest levels, so he had no choice.
Which was part of his point.
But it’s not simply rote memorisation; various openings have a strategic objective, and a deep understanding of it allows one to use it to advantage even (particularly!) when the opponent deviates from the book. So it’s better (and also takes less effort) to know a few opening/defences deeply than to know many superficially.
Interestingly, this leads to a meta-game where if some master is known for specialist knowledge about a particular defence, an opponent (in classical chess) will prepare specifically for that strength. For example, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave is considered a specialist in the Najdorf Variation of the Sicilian Defence, and yet, in a couple of recent matches in the Tata Steel tournament he lost to opponents who had clearly prepared for it.
file thirteen, thing is [rapid chess:classical chess::test cricket:20-20 cricket].
(Same game, but not really)
[erratum]
[classical chess:rapid chess::test cricket:20-20 cricket]
Generally rapid is what they call games with 20 mins total time (each) plus say 10 seconds additional per move, so it’s more like [classical chess:rapid chess:blitz chess::test cricket:one-day cricket:20-20 cricket], but I take your point. Having said that, correspondence chess players could validly claim that anything less is like 20-20. These days correspondence chess is all computer-assisted though -- does that make it the same game?
The history of changes to Chess rules…
https://www.regencychess.co.uk/blog/2012/07/chess-noob-10-how-the-rules-of-chess-have-changed-over-the-centuries/
Chess engine sacrifices mastery to mimic human play
Way back when I was on the high school chess team we played a number of variant rules chess games.
The one which was the most fun was a 4-person chess. Each side of the board had an additional two rows and your pieces were set on those rows rather than on the 64-square grid. You played against the person opposite you, but you couldn’t move into any occupied square. Which meant, since the people on either side of you were also playing against each other, moves you planned in advance would often be blocked by someone you weren’t playing against.
I’m not a particularly skilled chess player, in fact I’m pretty bad, but that variant was a real hoot to play.
Chess peaked with the invention of suicide chess. A very long time ago, when I was better at chess than I am now (but still bad), and a friend of mine had not yet taken a liking to the game, I managed to score two victories in a single game -- I was far enough ahead in both position and pieces in a standard chess game that my friend conceded, and we changed the game to suicide chess from that point… which I also won.
Playing the game these days would result in a sever thrashing for me -- he improved rapidly once he started going out with a FIDE master.
My chess game was fairly competent in high school and college but when I tried to teach the game to my nieces and nephews, they just weren’t that interested.
Then we discovered Knightmare Chess and they loved it.
hyphenman, that’s not chess; its very point is that there’s no luck involved at all.
(I propose “die chess” — both players roll a die, and the higher number wins)
The variation I used to pay in college was a ‘doubles’ game (there was another name for it, I’m drawing a blank).
Two games side by side, the player on the same side of the table were a team but playing opposite colors. If you and I are on a team, on my move I can choose to take one of the pieces you have captured from your opponent, which will be my color, and place it on any empty square of the board in lieu of moving a piece. There may have been some other restrictions on where you can place a piece.
The whole game could change in an instant with the possibility of new pieces for either side popping up out of nowhere. If your team mate was a strong player you could end up with three knights, four rooks, eleven pawns. You could talk to your team mate, “dude, I need that bishop, quick!”
Pitchers of beer often entered into the game strategy.
@John Morales No. 19.
Agreed, but it served as an entry point and two out of the seven stuck with me long enough to want to learn the real game.
I also found it greatly improved my own game because I had to keep rethinking strategies when I would get surprised by a card.
A while back I came across a variant where you’re blinded to the position of the opponent’s pieces unless they’re on a square where one of your pieces could move. It makes it a lot harder to plan ahead and wrecks traditional openings. E.g. black has to take their first move without having any information about white’s first move.
Fog of War chess.
I must have led a very sheltered life because I was not aware of any of these variations!
“Chess is a game whose rules were determined centuries ago”
Actually not. In several countries castling rules were different from nowadays less than 200 years ago. The abolishment of adjournment happened less than three decades.
“there is no question …..”
Everyone who has seen how Magnus Carlsen, one of the, if not the best player(s) of all time, lost a few days ago might question this indeed. The point is that opening theory has expanded so much that it exceeds the capacity of human brains.
“One unfortunate result of this is the increasing number of draws at the highest levels of the game.”
That’s actually the result of the best players getting better knowledge and understanding of all chess aspects, including the many (but of course not infinite) types of middlegames and the many possible endgames.
“Apparently Fischer disliked the memorizing element of the game”
No, he didn’t. He saw and understood what happened the 10, 12 years before: Karpov and Kasparov making incredible progress. He did a simple thing, extrapolated this development and concluded that somewhere in the future classical chess would be exhausted. So he tried to expand the game.
The greats of classical chess have been playing Fischer Random Chess for quite a while now. It’s remarkable that almost always they reach “normal” looking games within a couple of moves.
“What surprised me is that I had never heard of this variation until this week.”
That explains your many mistakes on the topic. All of them were made more than 20 years ago too -- I’ve been aware of FRC since the very beginning.
“It looks like it not only could be a lot of fun to play,”
That may be the case.
“it may allow for an entirely different kind of player to rise to the top.”
And that’s your last mistake. Those who excel at classical chess excel at FRC too. See, they don’t excel only due to memorization; the excel mainly because they excel at pattern recogniztion.
https://www.chess.com/news/view/carlsen-beats-nakamura-14-10-in-fischer-random-chess
@kenbakermn #20
I knew it as “transfer”. Wikipedia calls it bughouse but I’ve never that term before.
Another idea: Alternating moves. On turn one, it’s white/black, but on turn two, black/white. This means after white’s opening move, each player takes two consecutive moves. This could make standard checkmates very easy, winning could require double checkmate or some other criteria for winning (e.g. a player no longer has the pieces needed for double checkmate).
I knew a guy once who was a good player: he used to play in those things where he plays several, or many, games simultaneously with different opponents and walks from one to the other.
He told me that chess is a form of mathematics (well, it was to him), and he was a theoretical computer scientist who, I am sure, didn’t even know how to turn on a computer, he just thought about the math in his head.
I don’t think he memorized openings, or whatever: he just knew them in his head.
Oddly, he was a terrible bridge player. Since he was so good at chess, and math in his head, I thought that strange, and asked him why. He said that “Chess is an open problem, but bridge isn’t.”
Uh, OK. He made complete sense in the rest of his life, but he couldn’t really articulate how his head worked with math. I wonder if many chess masters think about it more like that? Intuitive, you know.
Here’s another one: Atomic Chess