3 ms·

The idea is incredibly simple. Basically: Don't allow castling. And the claim is that if you don't allow castling, it's basically impossible to set up a "draw

by gwd 7y ago

The idea is incredibly simple. Basically: Don't allow castling. And the claim is that if you don't allow castling, it's basically impossible to set up a "drawish" defense. You have to attack or die. In fact, it's so simple that it's sort of hard to believe. They've done tons of analysis with a retrained-from-the-ground-up AlphaZero and are convinced of it, so I definitely think it's worth a try, and look forward to see its effect. If it does turn out to be true, it will be kind of amazing how one simple rule tweak affected the highest level of Chess play.

Isofarro 7y ago
The first no-castling match has already taken place earlier this month as part of the London Chess Classic https://www.londonchessclassic.com/press/lcc19_pr5.htm https://www.londonchessclassic.com/press/lcc19_pr5.htm The current castling rule was an innovation of the Italians when the game was brought in from India. It, along with pawns moving two squares on their first move, ushered in the Italian School of Chess, known for its slashing attacks, sparkling sacrifices and all out aggression. However, the Indian form of the game did have something like castling, the king could move from its start square to g2, where a fianchetto'ed bishop would normally sit.
- nwsm 7y ago
  >known for its slashing attacks, sparkling sacrifices and all out aggression Interestingly this goes against the entire point of the article, that castling results in defensive play which results in draws.
igravious 7y ago
They haven't rethought chess though. They've merely invented a game called chess' and the suggestion that it opens up "new possibilities" is because it's a new game. Of course every micro-variant of chess is going to open up new vistas, the challenge is this, is it better (how do we define better?) than the original chess? I think they're confusing novelty for the qualities their seeking. The better chess has already been invented and it's called go. And the top human player of that has called it a day in the face of machine learning advancements (wrongly I think). Also I think go is a much more obvious and flexible game to tweak, if you so wanted.
- sanxiyn 7y ago
  How would you tweak Go?
  - roenxi 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_variants#Sunjang_Baduk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_variants#Sunjang_Baduk Very entertaining variant with a proud history. None of the usual defensive corner forms work.
- gwd 7y ago
  > Of course every micro-variant of chess is going to open up new vistas, the challenge is this, is it better (how do we define better?) than the original chess? They talk about that specifically. The claim is that at the moment, one grandmaster, unilaterally, can play in such a way as the result will be an inconclusive draw with a very high probability. I say "unilaterally" because even if the other grandmaster they're playing wants a higher-risk-higher-reward game, they can't force the game that way. Such games certainly require a lot of skill, but they're very boring to play and to watch. "Better" in this case means more entertaining; and specifically, the claim is that with the king in the center, it's not possible to "bunker down" and play a very static, defensive version of chess. It is not however, a completely new game. All the skills regarding pins, forced sacrifices, open files, and so on still hold. It's the same as if both players been forced early in the game to not be able to castle: the basic game is the same, but certain "boring" states are hard to get to. I do agree that the whole thing about opening book seems a bit overblown to me: obviously getting rid of castling means you have to mostly throw out the current "book"; but surely a new one will be written. I'd always thought another way to make tournaments more interesting would be to take a page from wrestling. In wrestling matches, each player takes a turn starting from a disadvantaged position, where it should be easier for the other person to pin them. They get points if they manage to break out of the position while avoiding the pin. Having some games start "in the middle" after an early "blunder" by one side would make things more interesting as well.
  - igravious 7y ago

by gwd 7y ago

Isofarro 7y ago

The first no-castling match has already taken place earlier this month as part of the London Chess Classic https://www.londonchessclassic.com/press/lcc19_pr5.htm https://www.londonchessclassic.com/press/lcc19_pr5.htm The current castling rule was an innovation of the Italians when the game was brought in from India. It, along with pawns moving two squares on their first move, ushered in the Italian School of Chess, known for its slashing attacks, sparkling sacrifices and all out aggression. However, the Indian form of the game did have something like castling, the king could move from its start square to g2, where a fianchetto'ed bishop would normally sit.

nwsm 7y ago
>known for its slashing attacks, sparkling sacrifices and all out aggression Interestingly this goes against the entire point of the article, that castling results in defensive play which results in draws.

igravious 7y ago

They haven't rethought chess though. They've merely invented a game called chess' and the suggestion that it opens up "new possibilities" is because it's a new game. Of course every micro-variant of chess is going to open up new vistas, the challenge is this, is it better (how do we define better?) than the original chess? I think they're confusing novelty for the qualities their seeking. The better chess has already been invented and it's called go. And the top human player of that has called it a day in the face of machine learning advancements (wrongly I think). Also I think go is a much more obvious and flexible game to tweak, if you so wanted.

sanxiyn 7y ago
How would you tweak Go?
- roenxi 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_variants#Sunjang_Baduk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_variants#Sunjang_Baduk Very entertaining variant with a proud history. None of the usual defensive corner forms work.
gwd 7y ago
> Of course every micro-variant of chess is going to open up new vistas, the challenge is this, is it better (how do we define better?) than the original chess? They talk about that specifically. The claim is that at the moment, one grandmaster, unilaterally, can play in such a way as the result will be an inconclusive draw with a very high probability. I say "unilaterally" because even if the other grandmaster they're playing wants a higher-risk-higher-reward game, they can't force the game that way. Such games certainly require a lot of skill, but they're very boring to play and to watch. "Better" in this case means more entertaining; and specifically, the claim is that with the king in the center, it's not possible to "bunker down" and play a very static, defensive version of chess. It is not however, a completely new game. All the skills regarding pins, forced sacrifices, open files, and so on still hold. It's the same as if both players been forced early in the game to not be able to castle: the basic game is the same, but certain "boring" states are hard to get to. I do agree that the whole thing about opening book seems a bit overblown to me: obviously getting rid of castling means you have to mostly throw out the current "book"; but surely a new one will be written. I'd always thought another way to make tournaments more interesting would be to take a page from wrestling. In wrestling matches, each player takes a turn starting from a disadvantaged position, where it should be easier for the other person to pin them. They get points if they manage to break out of the position while avoiding the pin. Having some games start "in the middle" after an early "blunder" by one side would make things more interesting as well.
- igravious 7y ago