61–70 of 116 posts
I think what this analysis really shows is that less time lead to less draws. Maybe we could rethink time controls. Classic could maybe be something like 1h+20sec increment for both sides. This would also make it more interesting to watch such an event live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is one problem: there are too many draws at top human level.
I'm in top 1% of rapid chess players on lichess, and I hardly ever see a draw. If top 100 or 500 players on the whole planet have this problem, well, they can try some other game, probably, I don't mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is not for these 100 players specifically. It's for all the fans watching them.
They can watch blitz of bullet games, it is by far more entertaining.
Maybe World Championship matches format needs some tweaking. Draws are much more common there as losing one game can easily mean losing whole match and players are extra cautious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software rendering of these rules might lag a bit—but if you have dedicated hardware, it should be possible to make this work.
This is such an intriguing comment. What question are you answering?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not chess, that is a completely different game. The only similarity is that they are both board games.
This (v13) variant was arrived from altering normal chess step-by-step, evolving from this(v1->v13) variant https://github.com/FrozenVoid/Game-Design-DB/blob/main/Board... which is fairly mundane variant with extra pieces and slightly larger board. It would be interesting to know at which point FrozenChess variants become not-chess(or where chess variants become board games).
That doesn't look mundane to me.
What about "Progressive chess"? White makes 1 move; black makes 2; white makes 3; etc.
I'm surprised that so many comments talk about "too many draws in classical chess problem" as just yesterday we just finished Tata Steel that was a terrific tournament with plenty of decisive games (84 out of 182) and even most of the draws were thrilling games. During commentary, GM Naroditsky mentioned that he asked past World Champions Anand and Topalov about influence of Magnus Carlsen on the game and both respon…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capablanca_chess
He wasn't the first to propose these sorts of changes (see the Wikipedia article).
In 1925, his comments on why he proposed these things is as follows:
"I spoke with Dr Tartakower, a great master and also a friend of mine, and he published, in very condensed form, my ideas on certain reforms that I believed it would be appropriate to make in chess. I told him that previously in various newspapers and magazines things had been attributed to me which I had never said, and this seemed to me a good opportunity to clarify the facts and to expound the only modifications that I really considered appropriate, while at the same time clarifying that it was untrue that I had ever declared that chess had reached its limit and that to draw was easy. It is of course easy to understand how much has been written and said on this matter. In reality, what I have heard and read on it demonstrates that I have not been understood."
"...In reality, today there exists, as it were, a separate form of chess, which is understood only by the most select of the great masters, and which very often relies on a highly-developed technique which already today threatens to make talent equal to genius; that would make chess rather similar to what the game of draughts is today. Thus despite the old history of chess and the thousands of books written on chess played on a 64-square board, it is necessary to avoid what would undoubtedly be a disaster. In order to prevent, for a few centuries at least, technique from again becoming such a dominant factor, I have suggested increasing the field of operations."
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/2xxl2p/what_do_you_t...