5 ms·

> 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?

by 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
> "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. > 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. This is my point. I wasn't denigrating the effort to make chess more entertaining. I'm arguing that they haven't made a more entertaining version, they're confusing novelty with entertainment. I'm really not trying to troll you by suggesting that a more entertaining variant of chess is go. I mean, if we have to stick with the current set of pieces and how they move then I think that Fischer Random (Chess960) or something like it is the obvious improvement to go for. NoCastlingChess to me is a strange route to go down. Of course novelty makes an old form less jaded but that I'm not convinced it's intrinsically more entertaining – if it were shouldn't we ditch boring old chess?
- diogofranco 7y ago
  > I'm arguing that they haven't made a more entertaining version, they're confusing novelty with entertainment Is your position that disallowing castling does not lead to less king safety and thus less draws, more mating attacks, piece sacs and complex tactical games? Or is it that you think these things do not contribute to more entertaining games?
  - igravious 7y ago
    What I'm arguing is that disallowing castling totally changes the opening book and that a lot of the supposed increased "entertainment" being felt by Kramnik is the delight in having an a plethora of opening lines to explore (opening lines having long being exhausted by humans and machines in trad. chess). The fact that it leads to games which are more exciting because the king is more exposed is a small bonus – notice most of the article talks about all the changes you have to make to opening theory owing to the fact that you can't castle. My argument is that Kramnik is not recognising that most of the entertainment value comes from the fact that this is a new game (granted that it is an existing game tweaked), not that it forces more aggressive less draw-y games. Which is why I suggested, either go for a lot more novelty and combinatorial complexity within the game (Fischer960) or drastically overhaul the game (but in my opinion that has been done, and the game is called go). You can disagree with my opinion but it's not as if I'm not understanding what being said to me, it's just that I disagree with what's being said to me.
- gwd 7y ago
  > I'm arguing that they haven't made a more entertaining version, they're confusing novelty with entertainment. Well I'm afraid you're missing the main point of the change; but since I've said it twice now (and you've actually quoted me once), I'm not sure how to explain it any better. It's not primarily change for change sake; but rather, the entire class of possible games changes from "safe, boring, and almost always a draw" into "dangerous, dynamic, and someone almost always wins". At least, that's what I understood from the article. EDIT: As an example, consider the shot clock in basketball [1]. From Wikipedia: > The NBA had problems attracting fans (and positive media coverage) before the shot clock's inception. Teams in the lead were running out the clock, passing the ball incessantly. The trailing team could do nothing but commit fouls to recover possession following the free throw. Frequent low-scoring games with many fouls bored fans. The introduction of the shot clock in basketball wasn't simply change for change sake; it forced teams to actually have a more active, interesting game. Kramnik is claiming that the same thing has happened now to professional chess: the vast majority of games are boring draws. And he furthermore claims that when they trained AlphaZero from scratch without castling, the games were in fact much more dynamic and more interesting, not just different. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_clock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_clock
crashbunny 7y ago
>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. That's what I thought too. Kramnik said "For example, the openings seem to be more complicated in the AlphaZero no-castling games," Assuming it is more complicated, I wonder what that means in terms of the number of openings someone will have to learn? I'm going to take a wild guess and say there will be more than standard chess. If it takes off, I guess time will tell what effect it has on the game after everyone memorises the main lines and variations.