Neoorthodox Chess:

What would happen if we increased the board with one more square to the right? The corner square provides a hiding nest for the king should the player want to invoke play on the same wing and advance with the pawns.

Extended castle rule: besides normal castling one can choose to move the king three squares instead of two. The rook ends up on its usual square. The extended castle rule also makes play on the wings easier to achieve. Queenside castle becomes more attractive. The extra corner squares will enhance the strategical possibilities.

Read more he
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/neoorthodoxchess.htm

---------------------------------

Improved Chess:

A noteworthy improvement of Fide-chess: the only difference is the additional movement directions of the Pawn. The improved Pawn, provided that it (1) has reached the other half of the board, and (2) the forward movement is blocked, has the additional moves of a knight, but only in two forward directions: east-north-east, and west-north-west, and only to empty squares. There are no additional capture moves.

Middlegame and endgame are more aggressive while improved Pawns are not easy to block. In Improved Chess, drawish endgames will occur less often. Many theoretical endgames that have hitherto been drawn are now won. Its jump moves are not frequent (it must be blocked) so it's not overly wild.

Comparatively, in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block. This creates the marked drawishness of practical endgames. Therefore, most chessplayers prefer to keep the queen on the board, until they have created an advantage. I have tested this variant in a program, and exchanging pieces does not automatically lead to a draw. The tension often remains in the endgame.

Read more he
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm

Mats W

On Jun 22, 10:58 am, "Mats Winther" wrote:
Neoorthodox Chess:

What would happen if we increased the board with one more square to the right?

Then no one would play with it.

Den 2007-06-22 16:31:25 skrev Offramp :

On Jun 22, 10:58 am, "Mats Winther" wrote:
Neoorthodox Chess:

What would happen if we increased the board with one more square to the right?

Then no one would play with it.



On the contrary, it would marvelously enhance the strategical possibilities
on the flanks. Playing g2-g4 is seldom possible in standard chess, but now
the risk involved is much smaller because the king can take up its position
on j1 and be fully protected, while not encumbering the rooks on the first
rank.

Mats

Mats Winther wrote:
On the contrary, it would marvelously enhance the strategical
possibilities on the flanks. Playing g2-g4 is seldom possible in
standard chess, but now the risk involved is much smaller because
the king can take up its position on j1 and be fully protected,
while not encumbering the rooks on the first rank.

On the other hand, it may be that the more hidden position of the king
on j1 means that the attack via g4 is much less effective. This is
the sort of thing that can only really be evaluated by extensive
testing by strong players. I've no idea ho the extra attacking
possibilities you mention will compare to the extra defensive
possibilities.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Natural Wine (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a vintage Beaujolais but it's
completely natural and full of teeth!

Mats Winther wrote:
A noteworthy improvement of Fide-chess:

That your suggestion is `noteworthy' or an `improvement' is surely for
others to judge?

the only difference is the additional movement directions of the
Pawn. The improved Pawn, provided that it (1) has reached the other
half of the board, and (2) the forward movement is blocked, has the
additional moves of a knight, but only in two forward directions:
east-north-east, and west-north-west, and only to empty squares. [...]

In Improved Chess, drawish endgames will occur less often. Many
theoretical endgames that have hitherto been drawn are now won.

Why are these endgames won? It sounds to me that any blocked pawns in
the centre of the board will side-step one another and all promote,
leading to a potentially drawish multiple-queen endgame.

Its jump moves are not frequent (it must be blocked) so it's not
overly wild.

Au contraire. The jump-moves will occur in every pawn endgame.
That's a major change. It's not necessarily bad but it is major.

Comparatively, in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block. This
creates the marked drawishness of practical endgames.

I disagree. Your suggestion just means that blocked pawns will
sidestep and promote but KQ vs KQ is much more drawish than KP vs KP.

Therefore, most chessplayers prefer to keep the queen on the board,
until they have created an advantage.

Really?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Moistened Psychotic Dictator (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a totalitarian leader but
it wants to kill you and it's moist!

Den 2007-06-26 15:57:10 skrev David Richerby :

Mats Winther wrote:
A noteworthy improvement of Fide-chess:

That your suggestion is `noteworthy' or an `improvement' is surely for
others to judge?

the only difference is the additional movement directions of the
Pawn. The improved Pawn, provided that it (1) has reached the other
half of the board, and (2) the forward movement is blocked, has the
additional moves of a knight, but only in two forward directions:
east-north-east, and west-north-west, and only to empty squares. [...]

In Improved Chess, drawish endgames will occur less often. Many
theoretical endgames that have hitherto been drawn are now won.

Why are these endgames won? It sounds to me that any blocked pawns in
the centre of the board will side-step one another and all promote,
leading to a potentially drawish multiple-queen endgame.


You have not understood how it works. The pawn must be blocked on the
enemy side for it to acquire the extra jump moves to empty squares. Hence,
pawns blocking each other in the centre cannot sidestep each other. The
jump moves are not that frequent. I have tried this out in a program.

Mats




Its jump moves are not frequent (it must be blocked) so it's not
overly wild.

Au contraire. The jump-moves will occur in every pawn endgame.
That's a major change. It's not necessarily bad but it is major.

Comparatively, in orthodox chess a pawn is easy to block. This
creates the marked drawishness of practical endgames.

I disagree. Your suggestion just means that blocked pawns will
sidestep and promote but KQ vs KQ is much more drawish than KP vs KP.

Therefore, most chessplayers prefer to keep the queen on the board,
until they have created an advantage.

Really?


Dave.

Mats Winther wrote:
skrev David Richerby :
Mats Winther wrote:
In Improved Chess, drawish endgames will occur less often. Many
theoretical endgames that have hitherto been drawn are now won.

Why are these endgames won? It sounds to me that any blocked pawns in
the centre of the board will side-step one another and all promote,
leading to a potentially drawish multiple-queen endgame.

You have not understood how it works. The pawn must be blocked on
the enemy side for it to acquire the extra jump moves to empty
squares. Hence, pawns blocking each other in the centre cannot
sidestep each other.

OK. So that means that the player with the more advanced pawns is
overwhelmingly more likely to win a blocked pawn ending. Why do you
feel that's a good thing?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Mouldy Spoon (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a piece of cutlery but it's
starting to grow mushrooms and it
eats flesh!

CeeBee wrote:
On 27 jun 2007 David Richerby wrote in rec.games.chess.computer:
OK. So that means that the player with the more advanced pawns is
overwhelmingly more likely to win a blocked pawn ending. Why do
you feel that's a good thing?

If you're the player with the more advanced pawn in a blocked pawn
ending I guess that's not really a difficult question to answer.

Yebbut what if I'm the other guy? ;-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Adult Hat (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hat that you won't want the children
to see but it's huge!

CeeBee wrote:
David Richerby wrote in rec.games.chess.computer:
Yebbut what if I'm the other guy? ;-)

Then you feel it's a bad thing. Chess variants aren't so
complicated, really.

Thanks. Everything sounds so simple when you explain it. ;-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Salted Radio (TM): it's like a radio
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's covered in salt!

Den 2007-06-26 15:51:32 skrev David Richerby :

Mats Winther wrote:
On the contrary, it would marvelously enhance the strategical
possibilities on the flanks. Playing g2-g4 is seldom possible in
standard chess, but now the risk involved is much smaller because
the king can take up its position on j1 and be fully protected,
while not encumbering the rooks on the first rank.

On the other hand, it may be that the more hidden position of the king
on j1 means that the attack via g4 is much less effective. This is
the sort of thing that can only really be evaluated by extensive
testing by strong players. I've no idea ho the extra attacking
possibilities you mention will compare to the extra defensive
possibilities.


Dave.


You forget that black has not got recourse to this extra square on the
kingside. Black's extra square is on the queenside. Evidently, it will
be much more attractive to move the g-pawn two steps as white's
king is much less exposed while there is an extra square where it
can hide, and it does not encumber the rooks.

Mats