Freestyle chess. why…. ?
Sort:
Feb 22, 2025
0
#2
If both players picked their back rank positions, then whoever picked second gets a big advantage. If they pick at the same time, it’s no longer a game of strategy (there might be a rock-paper-scissors loop of positions.
Feb 22, 2025
0
#3
SacrifycedStoat wrote:
If both players picked their back rank positions, then whoever picked second gets a big advantage. If they pick at the same time, it’s no longer a game of strategy (there might be a rock-paper-scissors loop of positions.
True, but maybe they could set up with half the board partitioned off to their opponent.
Mar 8, 2025
0
#5
I actually came up with a good idea.
They take turns placing pieces in this order: Black white white black white black black white.
That’s the Thue-Morse sequence, which is mathematically fair.
They take turns placing pieces in this order: Black white white black white black black white.
That’s the Thue-Morse sequence, which is mathematically fair.
Two things:
-Setup chess already exists.
-I think you're missing the point of Fischer Random. The whole idea is to remove all opening theory. If you get to choose how to place the back rank, there would be an optimum way of doing that you can memorise, which would become the new "opening theory".
ATJ1968 wrote:
Why do both players have to have the back rank symmetrical to one another? Surely the greater skill would be for each player to pick their own back rank positions.
Chess is a game of war, and in a proper war, the enemy wouldn’t have the same starting point.
Chess is a game of war, and in a proper war, the enemy wouldn’t have the same starting point.
brilliant idea!
you should patent it!
I'll also add:
If both players set their board up "blind", most likely there will indeed be a rock-paper-scissors setup, this is common similar scenarios like decks of trading card games.
This is because:
-There will be one "meta" setup which has an advantage over the vast majority of available setups.
-There will be one "anti-meta" setup which is designed to optimally beat the "meta" setup.
-And there will be one "anti-anti-meta" setup, which is designed to optimally beat the "anti-meta" setup; but as it's not designed to beat the "meta" setup it tends to lose to it.
So someone would have to memorise the three setups plus theory for each of the 3 match-ups of those three setups. This is very feasible for someone to do; so it would not remove opening theory at all.
It may take some time for the opening theory to develop, but that's true of all varients. They don't have as much opening theory as standard chess primarily because they are underexplored.
What Fisher Random is designed to do is invalidate opening theory even when it becomes a well-understood game.
which is why it needs regular modification to prevent it losing popularity.
Leftehnuhnt-Lmao wrote:
which is why it needs regular modification to prevent it losing popularity.
Well, that's what trading card games do.
Chess varients, however; generally try to be something that will last forever.
It would dramatically extend the time of games bc one can think a lot of time before the game to set up pieces.
One side could end up having an enormous advantage, even if the players thought a lot. In 960 positions when one side has a big advantage, the best players had no idea until they are told after the game. I don't think it's desirable if one side is starting with +3, eg.
IMO players would rather have the position set up for them roughly equal and not have to figure out how to place them.
idoun wrote:
It would dramatically extend the time of games bc one can think a lot of time before the game to set up pieces.
One side could end up having an enormous advantage, even if the players thought a lot. In 960 positions when one side has a big advantage, the best players had no idea until they are told after the game. I don't think it's desirable if one side is starting with +3, eg.
IMO players would rather have the position set up for them roughly equal and not have to figure out how to place them.
I can't imagine it would make games take that much longer.
Effectively all you're doing is adding an extra 5 turns at the beginning of the game (once you've placed the queen and minor pieces the others fit in the holes).
It's hard to tell where to place pieces to get an advantage, but that's also true for moves in the game itself.
I do have an objection to this though: which I mention above: this kind of negates the main aims of 960 to start with.
Chess is a game of war, and in a proper war, the enemy wouldn’t have the same starting point.