I was inspired with this idea. Recently Kramnik commented that he's
tried Fischer Random but thought it ruined the "symmetry" of the game
and made it look ugly.

Well, he's wrong. The starting position in all Fischer Random games is indeed
symmetrical.



After hearing his comments I've been thinking about it and I've come up
with a solution. It's similar to Crazyhouse but doesn't allow piece
swapping. Here it is:

The game of chess should allow a new rule. Each game of chess will be
played in normal fashion...with the addition of an extra set of pieces
in reserve for each opponent. At any point in the game, the player may
"drop" one of the reserve pieces (one piece of an entire extra set
except an extra king) onto the board. The catch is this: once that piece
is dropped onto the board and is used with the piece's normal
powers...it can't be replentished again if the piece is lost or
captured. So the rules of chess still apply. You play chess normally,
but at any juncture during the game...you can drop a pawn, bishop,
knight, rook or queen onto the board during your next move. But if it's
captured, that's it. You lose that piece permanently.

The benefit of this modified Crazyhouse is that it eliminates the need
to restock on pieces captured and used by the opponent during the game.
The other benefit is that such a modifed form of chess like this would
rejuvinate chess and stop the need to constantly memorize theory. It
follows Bobby Fischer's idea but adhere's to Kramnik's need for opening
board symmetry. Needless to say...chess played with an extra set of
pieces in reserve for each side will eliminate the problem of chess
death by draws. There's no way a draw could result from such a rule
addition like this. Games would always be decisive.

What do you people think?


It's basically an old Fairy Chess variant called Pocket Knight Chess, souped up
a bit. A fun diversion, but as Bill Z. Reuter would say "That ain't chess!".

"We can't destroy chess to save it."

See Viva Stalemate!

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/Eng...ans/040726.php


Way to go. I'm completely with you on this one. In fact, I think I said
something pretty similar in a letter to Larry Evans years ago. People don't
realize just what a huge effect abolishing the stalemate rule would have.

In article , Graeme
writes

I was inspired with this idea. Recently Kramnik commented that he's
tried Fischer Random but thought it ruined the "symmetry" of the game
and made it look ugly.

Well, he's wrong. The starting position in all Fischer Random games is indeed
symmetrical.

I think Kramnik knows about *that* line of symmetry, Graeme! :-) He was
talking about the line between the d and e files, about which in
standard chess the pawns, knights, bishops, and rooks all reflect onto
pieces of the same type, and the kings and queens onto each other; which
in Fischer Random is very rarely so.

--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)

I think Kramnik knows about *that* line of symmetry, Graeme! :-) He was
talking about the line between the d and e files, about which in
standard chess the pawns, knights, bishops, and rooks all reflect onto
pieces of the same type, and the kings and queens onto each other;

Probably, but if there's some symmetry left, then it hasn't been destroyed.
Unlike some variants where it really is. There are one or two assymmetrical
variants on ICC (Wild 4?), as well as Pre-Chess, one of the precursors to
Fischer Random that was briefly pushed in the 70's. Started out with only the
pawns in place, and the players spent the first 8 moves positioning their
pieces on the first rank. Benko and Bisguier even played a 4 game match to
promote it.

yeah, what is he talking about? it was definitely symmetrical.

he is wrong, what made him say something like that? the strategy is
definitely symmetrical.