3 ms·
> I wonder if you misunderstood? [...] I meant the cake cutting for only the very first move. No, I got that. > I fail to see how this would be the case. I th
by sellyme 5y ago
> I wonder if you misunderstood? [...] I meant the cake cutting for only the very first move.
No, I got that.
> I fail to see how this would be the case. I think it may even increase opening variety.
At a high level players will be relatively comfortable with playing at least one opening from any (sensible) opening move, so swapping would offer very little disadvantage in terms of not being prepared. So the decision on whether or not to swap is almost entirely based on how good that opening move is.
Now, white has a significant advantage on just about every opening move that's currently played with any regularity. Therefore black will almost always swap, and gain that same advantage. So it's in white's interest to not play those moves, and instead pick whichever moves are as close to 50/50 as possible, so that their opponent cannot get an advantage.
The crucial thing to note is that most possible moves white can make are either good (preserve a meaningful advantage for white) or bad (immediately gives advantage to black). There are not many first moves that result in a 50/50 game. Therefore the number of viable first moves is decreased.
They're certainly different first moves, and we'd see a lot of variety for a year or two, maybe even up to a decade as people play and learn entirely new lines. But in the long run the number of opening moves that don't immediately give up an advantage would be reduced.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Tomminn 5y agoThis is a good response, upvoted it. It begs another question though, is chess a worse game if white begins with a pawn on a3 instead of a2 (assuming this is the result every time the suggested procedure is used), and black moves first? Maybe. But I think it's an okay solution if you want a neutral platform for a tie-breaking game.