Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
Baseline chess with Fischer rules. Start with dropping major pieces on baseline, a variant that uses rules from Fischer Random Chess but is not random. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
M Winther wrote on Thu, Nov 3, 2011 04:27 PM UTC:
An even faster approach is Relocation variants:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/relocationvariants.htm
/Mats

Tjm wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 02:59 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Another variation of this would be to create a symmetrical setup: eg white places a bishop, then black places a bishop on the same file; then black chooses the next piece and white mirrors it. This would also make the process a little faster.

Anonymous wrote on Wed, Dec 8, 2010 06:55 AM UTC:Poor ★
Bseline chess?? Are you kidding me?? Pal Benko introduced PRECHESS in the 1970s and it was on the cover of Chess Life and Review, so it is hard to imagine a player like Regan does not remember this.

Ken Regan wrote on Thu, May 13, 2010 03:57 AM UTC:
Gene M., sorry I missed your excellent queries long ago.  The main benefit
is removing the randomness, and (I believe) improving Black's chances for
dynamic play.  The initial phase favors Black insofar as White must commit
first.  If Black needs to win in the last round or game of a match, he/she
can place his King on the opposite wing, etc.  I think it is harder to
deaden the game.  I see parts of similar arguments for Chess960 in the
selection from your book on your site.

You are right---my description omits the important detail that White begins
by placing 1 piece on the back row, then Black, then White..., as Bronstein
originally provided.  Move 8 is forced for each side, hence my joke about
it.  Your comment quoting Kramnik on corner bishops is especially
interesting.  I can add to my previous conversation with M. Winther (I
think this part was in private e-mail) that chess programs, at least the
ones I've tried which accept arbitrary starting positions, agree with
Kramnik in their evaluations.  However, one can also reply to Kramnik that
a corner Bishop is already 'developed'!---and go back to my original
point about recorded human tendencies.

I've heard anecdotally that a fair number of the symmetrical Chess960
setups are considered to magnify White's advantage of the first move,
enough that GM X was uncomfortable playing them.  Do you have stats on
White's win rate?  Of course it's possible that 'my' (really
Bronstein+Fischer's) variant would center on far fewer than 960 preferred
setups between both players, negating the hoped-for compounding by tens of
thousands.

GeneM wrote on Sat, Jan 19, 2008 03:50 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
Ken,

In the introduction to your Baseline Fischer Chess, I do not see any
description of the theoretical justification of this variant. In other
words, what problem is this nuanced variation of FRC trying to solve? Or
what additional benefit is it trying to gain?

RANDOM OR DELIBERATE?
The rule description is too vague: Is each player allowed to determine his
own setup on his back rank? I hope not. If not, then this is FRC-chess960
except two setups are randomly selected instead of just one. Could be very
unfair in many individual games.

ASYMMETRIC IS LESS DRAW-ISH; LESS FAIR?
I will admit that one possible justification of asymmetric setups is that
by itself, FRC-chess960 cannot reduce the high overall draw rate in
grandmaster chess by more than a modest fraction. Asymmetric setups
*might* have a bigger reduction in the draw rate.
However, even if asymmetric is less draw-ish, it might often be because
one player started the game with a better setup before the first move is
made.

CORNER BISHOPS ARE BAD
I have come to think that Bobby made a mistake by allowing bishops to
start on corner squares. There is only one way to develop a corner bishop
(Kramnik's point); and no other piece has that problem to that degree.
FRC-chess960 has at least 40% of its games start with a corner bishop.
Sometimes interesting, more often not.

Thanks.
Gene Milener

http://www.CastleLong.com/ , FRC-chess960

Dvoretsky's take:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/dvoretsky88.pdf

M Winther wrote on Fri, Apr 6, 2007 02:14 PM UTC:
Ken, it doesn't prove anything that they placed their bishops in the corners in those rapid games. It was probably only out of curiosity or convenience. One should have as few restrictions as possible. If there is no real reason to prohibit placing the bishops in the corners, then it should be allowed. Don't rush to conclusion. Use any chess program to set up a position where one party has the bishops at the corners, and the other party has his bishops on the bishop files. Then you let the program play against itself in several games. From this you can judge whether it's too advantageous to place the bishops in the corners. I suspect it has both pros and cons, so it should be no problem. /Mats

Ken Regan wrote on Thu, Apr 5, 2007 02:53 AM UTC:
While replying in Susan Polgar's thread on Chess960 here, I found the Benko+Bisguier 4-game 'Pre-Chess' match in the Nov. 1978 Chess Life & Review. Black placed Bishops in corners 7 of 8 times, White 5 of 8 times, so I think my latest adjustment is well-motivated. (I play while walking the dog pictured in a photo here, and she is becoming fairly good at it.:-)

Ken Regan wrote on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 02:52 AM UTC:

Interesting comment on possibly making the Bishops passive. The proof for me could only be 'in the playing'---and in Buffalo with time-crunch I don't get much opportunity. However, I used to fianchetto both my Bishops, even as Black against GMs---and this took an extra move to play Bb7/g7 compared to having the Bishop already in the corner :-).

I've sent some more greeting by private e-mail.


M Winther wrote on Fri, Feb 9, 2007 03:03 PM UTC:
I have now created a new form of drop chess: Meteoric Chess (with zrf). I think it's a sound but lively variant. It's along these lines, I think, that a fruitful randomized variant can be found. It's quite possible that it can be improved in some way. The relocation theme can also be used in other contexts. /Mats

M Winther wrote on Fri, Feb 9, 2007 07:39 AM UTC:
Ken, if black places both his bishops on the corner squares then he would have to choose a passive strategy in the centre, allowing white to place pawns there, as a black pawn on d5 or e5 would block one of his bishops, and it would take time to activate it. I am not so sure that double fianchetto is always so good. Bishops can also play an active role in the opening, by placing them on KB4, KN5, QB4, or QN5. Should white choose the positional strategy of placing the bishops on the corner squares, then, provided that black response is correct, I think he has forfeited his first move advantage. The bishops are very well placed on KB1 and QB1, where they can choose between a positional strategy (fianchetto) or a tactical (QB4), etc. The standard position seems to be the best, allowing for a maximum of strategical options, and we don't know which flank the king is to be placed on, etc. In this form of drop-chess with FischeRandom rules, I would suspect that both players will select the standard position, because it's probably the best alternative, for both parties. But this remains to be demonstrated. I have tried to tackle the problem in a different way, involving 'pawn relocation', in New Chess and Swedish Chess
/Mats

Ken Regan wrote on Thu, Feb 8, 2007 10:49 PM UTC:
My latest thought is to require that (at least) one of the Rooks must be placed in a corner. This prevents both players from fianchettoing both Bishops, which might lead to early trades of them and drawish positions. This still leaves a good number of sensible startup positions---and since Black need not be symmetrical with White, this number is squared!

11 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.