31–40 of 47 posts
If the point of this exercise is to create a game that removes first move advantage, while keeping the game as unchanged as possible, this is an utter failure. Turning a game of perfect information into a bluffing and anticipation game is not a minor change. It's a fundamental change of the essence of what the game is.
1. White makes their opening moves - they can move more than one piece, and even the same piece more than once, but: all moves must be legal, and no captures.
2. When White is done, Black has the option to change sides, taking over the white pieces.
3. Regardless of step 2, the player with the black pieces makes the next move.
4. A draw counts as a win for the player with the black pieces.
Thus there are no longer drawn results, and the start must be relatively equal (between a white win and a black win or draw) in White’s estimation.
People get hung up on the unfair White advantage in chess, but actually it's not large enough. In tennis, on every point there's a big advantage to the server. Not because he "gets to go first" but because he gets a second chance in some situations. You can prove this: in high level mens tennis the server wins ~70% of points [0] but on a second serve - equivalent to playing without the second chance - he wins almost…
> This wouldn't be a popular or practical change for human play. What about Fischer random chess? That could help, no? I heard that even Magnus Carlsen played in some tournament with it.
If the point of this exercise is to create a game that removes first move advantage, while keeping the game as unchanged as possible, this is an utter failure. Turning a game of perfect information into a bluffing and anticipation game is not a minor change. It's a fundamental change of the essence of what the game is.
I don't think anywhere its stated that the author wanted to leave a game unchanged. Or as unchanged as possible.
In this perspective I think this article/exercise is not "an utter failure". Its pretty decent.
People get hung up on the unfair White advantage in chess, but actually it's not large enough. In tennis, on every point there's a big advantage to the server. Not because he "gets to go first" but because he gets a second chance in some situations. You can prove this: in high level mens tennis the server wins ~70% of points [0] but on a second serve - equivalent to playing without the second chance - he wins almost…
It's fairly significant given the 'theoretical' assumption that perfect play always ends in a draw. However, in practice, whites wins significantly more than black.
> In tennis, on every point there's a big advantage to the server. Not because he "gets to go first" but because he gets a second chance in some situations.
Yes. It allows servers to take chances and go all out on their first serve. It's extremely beneficial to power servers. But you don't get 'take backs' in chess. So your analogy doesn't apply. You can't gamble with white and if black knows the opening, then start all over with another opening.
> The point is that chess isn't in need of evening out the first-move advantage.
As long as both players get equal chances to play with white. No player would agree to a tournament where you get black 10 times and your opponents gets white. Just like no tennis player will agree to a tournament where his opponents gets to serve all game.
As you computer chess stats show, it seems like better play leads to more draw. And the assumption that if chess is solved, then perfect chess is always a draw. But that's not how it works in the real world. White has a distinct advantage. Whether it is due to human psychology or something else altogether is up for debate.
One game I've played and thought of as similar to some sort of simultaneous chess was Toribash. It's a turn-based fighting game where you control your character via contracting/extending muscle pairs on a simplified skeleton. Your opponent chooses which joints to move at the same time as you, then the time advances a few frames. The game gives you a preview of what would happen if your opponent did nothing that turn.…
If the point of this exercise is to create a game that removes first move advantage, while keeping the game as unchanged as possible, this is an utter failure. Turning a game of perfect information into a bluffing and anticipation game is not a minor change. It's a fundamental change of the essence of what the game is.
Magnus for example talks about the importance of purposely making a sub-optimal move as a way to bluff your opponent. Your opponent likely has memorized all the optimal moves and so you make a sub-optimal move to leave your opponent guessing whether you made a genuine mistake that you can be punished for, or whether you made that sub-optimal move on purpose because you studied it extensively whereas your opponent has not and you know if your opponent doesn't play it absolutely perfectly you can trap them.
I mean seriously you can watch the championship for free on Twitch right now with GM Naroditsky and GM Rozman, and they don't really talk that much about what the theoretical best moves are, they talk about the psychology, about players going on tilt, about making aggressive moves to throw your opponent off. It's fun and fascinating.
My solution to fair chess: 1. White makes their opening moves - they can move more than one piece, and even the same piece more than once, but: all moves must be legal, and no captures. 2. When White is done, Black has the option to change sides, taking over the white pieces. 3. Regardless of step 2, the player with the black pieces makes the next move. 4. A draw counts as a win for the player with the black pieces.…
So I propose that after White made all their opening moves, Black likewise makes their arbitrary legal moves, and then it's White who has the choice of swapping.
That should not only make the game fair, and optionally guarantee wins with your draw rule, but also eliminate all opening preparation.
There should probably be a limit on the number of moves that each player makes in their opening; perhaps around a dozen.