I am guessing this would mean fewer checkmate in the middle game, as the King is not trapped by his own pieces, and the attacker can't sacrifice too many pieces to force a mate.
It's still better to give your king breathing room as it'd otherwise force you to lose a piece via self-capture and make your king open to similar attacks. Just sounds like a slower death to me.
@@greengoblin9567 I agree, it should not be illegal. It should be legal, just that self-capuring the King loses the game. This allows for "resigning in style", a delightful possibility!
The rules of classical chess are only what they are after having changed and changed again for centuries (chaturanga and even shatranj being quite different to mad-queen chess, i.e "classical"). Change is inevitable. And on the whole probably a good thing, at least where chess is concerned. The transformation of the Ferz or Vizier into the Queen (i.e. from moving diagonally one square to any number of squares both diagonally and orthogonally), for example, was probably a healthy development, livening up the game. Same might be said about the two-square pawn rule, etc. There's no guarantee that self-capture, say, or torpedo, or any of the other rule changes, would improve chess as we currently play it. But it's certainly a possibility! Therefore, should be explored - and if there really is improvement, then yes, adopted - whyever not?
You can also try what I call "all promotion chess". Only difference being, pieces promote at the 8th rank. Have to make it there to gain power. Knights gain the ability to move in “L” shape 3+1 and 3+2 squares, still can jump through pieces. Bishops gain moving 1 square orthogonally and then slide diagonally, thus controlling up to 12 diagonals. Rooks gain moving 1 square diagonally and then slide orthogonally. Queen promotes to queen+knight (amazon or superqueen). The openings should be more or less the same, but late game possibilities, there´s the beef.
@@eldoreschess2428 Thanks! You can have random chess like 960 that totally changes the openings but leaves the endgame untouched, or you can root for something like all promotion, that doesn´t affect the openings but deeply changes endgames. It´s a matter of taste; I guess.
Moving pawns backwards and sideways in my opinion will lead to very positional and defensive chess games. I just checked the Chess 960 variation with the least draws and found out NBRKQRBN is 11th variation with least draws. I like it because it is symmetrical. With that, in my opinion the most aggressive Chess variant is a Torpedo Chess, without an option to castle, and with this format: NBRKQRBN. I believe if we could have a tournament in this format it will produce exciting matches.
yes , this is some kind of the beauty of self - capture chess. but , what about the end of many many amazing combinations such as blockade , back rank , positional sac , discovered or doubled check and alot ,wich will disappear under the self - capture choice !!
Chess needs desperately a new piece that can break down closed positions! A bowman who can take pieces at the distance without moving. Bowmen were important in the middle ages and introducing it is important from a historical perspective and a gameplay perspective. A bowman should move like a king and take like a king, with one exception if it kills something it will not move.
Self-capture is like chess on credit. Get out of a fix now, but it may BITE ya back hard later down the road. I love the concept. Why did it take nearly a thousand years to consider such a simple yet elegant concept? I can’t wait to give it a try.
I love applying changes to the rules for the blitz tournament on the last club evening before Christmas, preferably when everyone has had a nice lunch and a few Schnapses. But I think these twists should be reserved for just such special occasions, and I feel a lot of the fun would be lost if they were analysed too deeply. And I’m certainly don’t against changing the normal rules of chess. If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it! The boys in my club invented a very drastic rule called “atomic chess”: If you capture a piece or a pawn, all other enemy pieces in the same file are captured as well! So watch out for the pawn in front of your king! One ten year old defeated an International Master in two moves in another variation: Queens can make knight’s moves too, and queen can not capture queen! 1.Qc3! d5?? 2.Qxc7 checkmate.
From a game design point of view, _Self-Capture_ buffs the already slightly stronger side - the attacker, White, side. Questionable balance. Beautiful design. Even more defensive gameplay for black than normal?
there are alot of draws in soccer, in cricket, rugby etc Whatever variant they come up with, the classical champion will always be regarded as THE champion
I think the point is that for many sports the draw happens after the players exhibit skills on the field or, usually in the case of cricket, the weather intervenes. With chess a player can memorise computer moves and complete a game, often a draw, without having to think on their own and thus avoid losing due to a lack of skill. As Siegbert Tarrasch once commented on a game “Up to this point White has been following well-known analysis. But now he makes a fatal error: he begins to use his own head”. In many post-game interviews I have heard some of the world's best players explain a long thought not by "I was looking at one or more ideas" but by "I forgot what my home analysis said to play now". At the top level computer preparation is in serious danger of making chess a game of memory instead of imagination. Also, draws are quite rare in rugby given the scoring system.
What an excellent application of Alpha Zero's self-learn capabilities! It appears from the paper that the draw rate was high for most rule changes considered -- especially when time controls were high. This suggests that as long as the rules are relatively balanced, draws will be a part of the game when both players get good enough at it. I am surprised to see that they didn't test rewarding 3 points to the winner and only 1 for a draw as it is the case in soccer, for example. Alpha Zero should respond to that by taking more risk.
It is quite terrifying to think about how a self-capture rule would potentially largely revise a lot known thus far about opening theory and chess principles.
If you ❤️ my videos do *subscribe* bit.ly/powerplaysubscription and do checkout the *supporting* *options* through Patreon: bit.ly/patreondanielking or through *PayPal* (links in the description)
Wow! What do you think about that possible changes? Are you a purist or all of the changes are enjoyable to you? Do you think for example that you had a chance (as the last generation) to enjoy your own preparations instead of crazy long draw engine lines? And, the last question, because I've got that idea now.... how about play random positions (like engines are forced to do - let's say from move 10)? They could be chosen in some kind of lottery (like Fischer Random) from thousands of openings which would have to be played as white and black by both sides? The most flexible and universal players would have pure advantage over the specialized ones. Any thoughts?
it feels to me that I wouldn't enjoy the game chess that much anymore with those changes. I love the opening because I can gambit the hell out of every opening (even if its bad). I couldnt do this with this change :/
This has been done, drawing pieces out of a hat, placing randomly and then selecting positions that are almost equal (but not exactly equal since these are often theoretical draws). A very informal survey revealed little enthusiasm for the variant: check out "Chess, but good".
Fun as variants are, I think the rules of Chess are fine as they are. I think games where a draw is agreed whilst still in theory are not actually that common.
Maybe capturing that preserves hierarchy would be better? I.e. bishop can take its own pawn but not the other way around. Limiting selfcapture privilege to the king might be another option
I'm almost sure that studying this variation or similar is counter productive for normal chess players. Once your brain gets used in self capture one will always consider it. The exception is Fischer Random.
It would be cool to see AlphaZero playing crazyhouse chess. I also know of another variant where you can make two moves per turn. (If four moves per turn, white wins every time. Unsure about three, but probably forced win also.) Also, four-player chess (as in that on chess.com) would be incredible to see with AlphaZero.
Torpedo chess looks the most exciting and promising, while not seemingly not being much different than regular chess. Although, game should be consisted of 2 half games (1 w/ white, 1 w/ black ) to be fair because white wins too often. It would be nice if you could cover a torpedo variant game. And thanks for the content, amazing!
Self-capture is lovely but it does make the pawns weaker. Philidor would not approve. So, to compensate for that, perhaps self-capture should be combined with torpedo (pawns can move one or two squares on any move, unless blocked of course, en passant and promotion applying). This would be a fun combination to try!
Loved the video. Stalemate used to be a win (in early 1800s) and should be a win. Comm'on, the opponent cannot make a move that doesn't lose. That doesn't deserve a draw. I am in favour of changing that rule at the very least. Self-capture I'm not so sure about. Would be fun to play a couple of tournaments like it.
For beginners, then it would be much easier to win with material advantage. Very easy with KQ - K to win, and KP - K you do not need to think about opposition.
Very interesting Daniel, wonder where this will go. After Fisher Random Ches we will have Kramnik Selfcapture Chess? Please bring more Shirov games too, I like them a lot! Trying to guess his crazy moves is extremely addictive, and it's not impossible to get it right knowing that if you pause the game, it must be a special moment :-)
Self capture chess would add an interesting dimension to the game. It would definitely add a dimension to the phenomenon of mouse slips, haha. Imagine king v king and pawn and accidently capturing your last pawn. However, it would also kill some of its beauty by removing almost all middlegame checkmates. Only a frontal mate with the queen would work right? The king would just end up eating some or all its own pieces... It would still lose because of the material deficit but I would definitely miss all the sacrificial mating brilliancies. It would also add some practical issues like: what do you do when you accidently knock down your own piece on the board when moving another? Your opponent can argue that that would be a legal capture ;) I still prefer the classical rules. For every chess player < 2700 level I think the game is still very enjoyable, especially with all the online blitz options.
I wanna do some version when pwan reach other opposite side ....that pawn cannot be queen or rock etc......but one power such as bishop left on board will be double powers😅😅that means when that bishop can move in two alternate ways ...one is diagonal of his characteristics but another move will be depending on player desire such as queen style or knight style ......🤣🤣🤣🤣 that 's insane ....😇😇😇😇😇😇
All that needs to be done to make draws fewer is when the players want to draw put the position into three Chess computers for 10 minutes. If two of them show a slight plus for either side, then keep on playing. Repeat that once and then after a further 10 moves they can agree to a draw.
All the mates would probably look like unelegant beginner mates with the king crowded by enemies. And no more hiding the king behind an enemy pawn... Btw, wouldn't more typical pawn endings be drawn too? Like W:Ke6, c5 B: Kc7, c6 1.Ke7 Kxc6 = :(
I would rather introduce some "partial wins" like giving 1 : 0 for a complete win, 0.9 : 0.1 for a stalemate, 0.8 : 0.2 for a threefold repetition (the player who forces the rep only gets 0.2), 0.7 : 0.3 for having more material in a drawn endgame (like after 60th move or so), 0.6 : 0.4 for an early draw (the player who formally offers the draw only gets 0.4) and 0.5 : 0.5 for other (rare) cases like two kings on the board.
Interesting variant, but might not change chess all that much. Easier to attack by self-capturing, easier to defend by self-capturing. Other than the occasional technical positions, that's probably about it.
These are fascinating variants (and those opposite coloured Bishops are one of the few times I've got a puzzle set on this channel :-)) but if the aim is to reduce the number of draws, isn't all this just an arms race: ultimately the best players will be evenly-matched won't they. (It'd be nice to live in a world where a well played draw could be appreciated for what it is and maybe even the GM draws seen as part of a bigger picture. )
They can have it as a variant just like many versions on lichess. But we want our standard chess laws. Self capture will introduce a rather ridiculous complications. Already chess is very hard and difficult even at GM level
basically an accepted clearance sacrifice. As is, I don't like it, because it takes away mating attacks. The king can always just gobble a pawn and run. An improvement to this would be that the king is not allowed to self-capture.
self capture variant would mean that you'd have so many possible moves/consequences to consider that your brain would get totally fried before the end. It would also be very slow and boring to watch while players consider the myriad of possibilities and future consequences before moving?
Mess with the code on your our time Developers. Time to move on to AlphaChess notating any game. Also publish the game with user control over Alpha's time to think and search depth.
It's funny to watch but I think it would make chess a poorer game. One of its most interesting rules is that you can't capture your own pieces. As others have argued, many checkmating possibilities would disappear. I think the best way to fight the draw problem may be to change the points system, like in other sports (at least in football/soccer): 3 for victory, 1 for draw, 0 for loss. Then players would struggle more to win. What do you think?
I don't think there needs to be rule changes to prevent so many draws in high level chess, It may be enough to change the scoring system, there is not much point risking a loss to try to push for a win with points of 0, 1/2, and 1 for loss, draw, win. Give 0 for a loss, 1 for a draw and 4 or 5 for a win, In tournament play or when playing the same opponent multiple times you would see a lot less settling for a draw.
i dont see the value in testing random chess rules, the only rule i would consider to change is the 3-fold repetition rule where the player who makes the 3rd rep move would lose the game, in this way players would be forced to play on, this rule does not really fit in chess anyway and this would give the attacking player more chances in the endgame
what does AlphaZero think of Chess960/Chess9LX ? It seems much better than any other alternatives and gets rid of the opening chess theory issues at least 90% ?
Thank You for the news - nice that the paper mentions the great variant player Mr. Pritchard :) - for all of those eager to see what a nice game a variant chess can be i recommend browsing into "chesswhiz" channel by themselves - the best Chess-Variant channel on earth with over 500 variants tested in battle :) !!! I really recommend it for you!
I would like to see how Alpha Zero takes care about MakRuk :) - the closest nowadays relative to Chaturanga - would it show some better/deeper way of playing that game :) - its more drawish than the long range international chess is
Very interesting for sure. It would do very little damage to opening theory (tick), and would reduce the potential for endgame draws, perpetuals and stalemates (tick). It might adversely affect attacking chess though - the defender gets a lot of extra options when facing mating patterns that rely on corralling and suffocation.
on 5:57 the King cannot capture the pawn because of the pawn on c4. The white king should start from the pawn on b3 or the pawn on h3. With the current flow, you have changed two rules and not just adding one rule to the game.
As the c4-pawn is also white, with the given rules here it is legal to capture the own pawn with Ke4xd5. Own pieces give not check in classical chess, as it is in the self-capture variant. So this is not a second variation.
I hope the professionals don't decide that they like one of these variations and simply impose it on the chess world they way they abolished descriptive notation.
What's wrong with chess at the moment? It seems to me that grace under pressure is still the quality that counts as it always will in a meaningful conflict.
The games shown were quite interesting and brought a smile to my face several times. However, it seems the "problem of chess" is really a problem of the 2600+ club. For the vast majority of us patzers chess is complicated enough. Perhaps there'll end up being a version of chess for the elite, and classical/standard chess for the rest of us, but it seems like that's a poor choice for the game.
I think self capture might be too powerful. Maybe there can be a variant where you can only capture your own piece ONCE per game. You can use your one self capture to attack or to develop rapidly or to escape a bank ranker. Thoughts?
I'm not a fan of conditional rules in any games. I rather keep it simple. The beauty in this change is that it's a simple change which makes the game far more complex. Whilst your suggestion is a more complex change that makes the game very little more complex. It's ugly.
For those interested in the details of the study, here is the link to the academic paper: arxiv.org/abs/2009.04374
I am guessing this would mean fewer checkmate in the middle game, as the King is not trapped by his own pieces, and the attacker can't sacrifice too many pieces to force a mate.
This self capture rule would end all back rank mates/tactics.
And all "smothered mates".
You can make it so the king can’t self capture
It's still better to give your king breathing room as it'd otherwise force you to lose a piece via self-capture and make your king open to similar attacks. Just sounds like a slower death to me.
@@alexchin3816 That's a great nuance!
True!
Cannibal chess, very enjoyable while nibbling a few fava beans and sipping a light Chianti.
Ah ah unforgettable Hannibal Lector
losing self blockade would diminish the game; i suspect this was sussed out about 1000 years ago, without a computer!
A separate rule "the king cannot capture its own pieces" can be added.
Chief advantage of self-capture chess seems to be the ability to resign *in style* by capturing one’s own king.
That's still an illegal move in this variant but hey.
It should not be illegal
lol
@@greengoblin9567 I agree, it should not be illegal. It should be legal, just that self-capuring the King loses the game. This allows for "resigning in style", a delightful possibility!
I enjoy playing variants as a bit of fun, but I don’t want to see the rules of classical chess changed
The rules of classical chess are only what they are after having changed and changed again for centuries (chaturanga and even shatranj being quite different to mad-queen chess, i.e "classical"). Change is inevitable. And on the whole probably a good thing, at least where chess is concerned. The transformation of the Ferz or Vizier into the Queen (i.e. from moving diagonally one square to any number of squares both diagonally and orthogonally), for example, was probably a healthy development, livening up the game. Same might be said about the two-square pawn rule, etc. There's no guarantee that self-capture, say, or torpedo, or any of the other rule changes, would improve chess as we currently play it. But it's certainly a possibility! Therefore, should be explored - and if there really is improvement, then yes, adopted - whyever not?
Did this variant result in more or less draws? More attacking possibilities but also more escape routes.
To reduce the number of draws, require each player to stand on one leg.
When AlphaZero plays AlphaZero, Black is stronger because it has one more ply of game history to learn from. :)
You can also try what I call "all promotion chess". Only difference being, pieces promote at the 8th rank. Have to make it there to gain power. Knights gain the ability to move in “L” shape 3+1 and 3+2 squares, still can jump through pieces. Bishops gain moving 1 square orthogonally and then slide diagonally, thus controlling up to 12 diagonals. Rooks gain moving 1 square diagonally and then slide orthogonally. Queen promotes to queen+knight (amazon or superqueen). The openings should be more or less the same, but late game possibilities, there´s the beef.
You are on tho something! Spread your idea!!!
@@eldoreschess2428 Thanks!
You can have random chess like 960 that totally changes the openings but leaves the endgame untouched, or you can root for something like all promotion, that doesn´t affect the openings but deeply changes endgames. It´s a matter of taste; I guess.
Maybe a more interesting variant if you can't self-capture out of check.
Definitely. Either the KIng can't self-capture at all or can't self-capture out of check.
This is an absolutely beautiful concept. Would love to see more of these self capture games for sure. I think this rule could actually work. Big fan
Moving pawns backwards and sideways in my opinion will lead to very positional and defensive chess games. I just checked the Chess 960 variation with the least draws and found out NBRKQRBN is 11th variation with least draws. I like it because it is symmetrical.
With that, in my opinion the most aggressive Chess variant is a Torpedo Chess, without an option to castle, and with this format: NBRKQRBN.
I believe if we could have a tournament in this format it will produce exciting matches.
yes , this is some kind of the beauty of self - capture chess.
but , what about the end of many many amazing combinations such as blockade , back rank , positional sac , discovered or doubled check and alot ,wich will disappear under the self - capture choice !!
Tal would be proud of this variant.
Chess needs desperately a new piece that can break down closed positions! A bowman who can take pieces at the distance without moving. Bowmen were important in the middle ages and introducing it is important from a historical perspective and a gameplay perspective. A bowman should move like a king and take like a king, with one exception if it kills something it will not move.
Self-capture is like chess on credit. Get out of a fix now, but it may BITE ya back hard later down the road. I love the concept. Why did it take nearly a thousand years to consider such a simple yet elegant concept? I can’t wait to give it a try.
I've been skeptical about chess variants for a long time, but I think I'm starting to come around. That was really interesting
I love applying changes to the rules for the blitz tournament on the last club evening before Christmas, preferably when everyone has had a nice lunch and a few Schnapses. But I think these twists should be reserved for just such special occasions, and I feel a lot of the fun would be lost if they were analysed too deeply. And I’m certainly don’t against changing the normal rules of chess. If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it! The boys in my club invented a very drastic rule called “atomic chess”: If you capture a piece or a pawn, all other enemy pieces in the same file are captured as well! So watch out for the pawn in front of your king! One ten year old defeated an International Master in two moves in another variation: Queens can make knight’s moves too, and queen can not capture queen! 1.Qc3! d5?? 2.Qxc7 checkmate.
There is no more back rank problem, no need for a "Luftloch".
From a game design point of view, _Self-Capture_ buffs the already slightly stronger side - the attacker, White, side.
Questionable balance.
Beautiful design.
Even more defensive gameplay for black than normal?
there are alot of draws in soccer, in cricket, rugby etc Whatever variant they come up with, the classical champion will always be regarded as THE champion
I think the point is that for many sports the draw happens after the players exhibit skills on the field or, usually in the case of cricket, the weather intervenes.
With chess a player can memorise computer moves and complete a game, often a draw, without having to think on their own and thus avoid losing due to a lack of skill. As Siegbert Tarrasch once commented on a game “Up to this point White has been following well-known analysis. But
now he makes a fatal error: he begins to use his own head”. In many post-game interviews I have heard some of the world's best players explain a long thought not by "I was looking at one or more ideas" but by "I forgot what my home analysis said to play now". At the top level computer preparation is in serious danger of making chess a game of memory instead of imagination.
Also, draws are quite rare in rugby given the scoring system.
Fascinating, but you can't deliver the classical smothered mate in this kind of chess, and this feels just sad.
What an excellent application of Alpha Zero's self-learn capabilities! It appears from the paper that the draw rate was high for most rule changes considered -- especially when time controls were high. This suggests that as long as the rules are relatively balanced, draws will be a part of the game when both players get good enough at it. I am surprised to see that they didn't test rewarding 3 points to the winner and only 1 for a draw as it is the case in soccer, for example. Alpha Zero should respond to that by taking more risk.
This was alot of fun to watch, thanks for sharing the paper!
Also, in self-capture chess back rank issues become minimal. And bye bye smothered mate
I've won some online tournament games with Smothered mate. Always a pleasant feeling.
It is quite terrifying to think about how a self-capture rule would potentially largely revise a lot known thus far about opening theory and chess principles.
This is super cool. I would likely be even worse at it than regular chess. Which is impressive
I think this would be fascinating as a partner to 960 chess events. However, nothing is more beautiful than the chess we now know and play.
If you ❤️ my videos do *subscribe* bit.ly/powerplaysubscription and do checkout the *supporting* *options* through Patreon: bit.ly/patreondanielking or through *PayPal* (links in the description)
the one rule I'd like to change is the check rule, so that it becomes possible to capture the king
Wow! What do you think about that possible changes? Are you a purist or all of the changes are enjoyable to you? Do you think for example that you had a chance (as the last generation) to enjoy your own preparations instead of crazy long draw engine lines? And, the last question, because I've got that idea now.... how about play random positions (like engines are forced to do - let's say from move 10)? They could be chosen in some kind of lottery (like Fischer Random) from thousands of openings which would have to be played as white and black by both sides? The most flexible and universal players would have pure advantage over the specialized ones. Any thoughts?
it feels to me that I wouldn't enjoy the game chess that much anymore with those changes. I love the opening because I can gambit the hell out of every opening (even if its bad). I couldnt do this with this change :/
Maybe you would get gambits in the lottery, haha :D More flexible players would win :)
@@MordimersChessChannel true hopefully one day :D
This has been done, drawing pieces out of a hat, placing randomly and then selecting positions that are almost equal (but not exactly equal since these are often theoretical draws). A very informal survey revealed little enthusiasm for the variant: check out "Chess, but good".
Fun as variants are, I think the rules of Chess are fine as they are. I think games where a draw is agreed whilst still in theory are not actually that common.
Maybe capturing that preserves hierarchy would be better? I.e. bishop can take its own pawn but not the other way around. Limiting selfcapture privilege to the king might be another option
So much fun! Thank you!
I'm almost sure that studying this variation or similar is counter productive for normal chess players. Once your brain gets used in self capture one will always consider it. The exception is Fischer Random.
New way to sack our own pieces? Mikhail Tal approves this variant!
The self-capture variation is a little too radical for me, as all back rank mate motifs would disappear.
It would be cool to see AlphaZero playing crazyhouse chess.
I also know of another variant where you can make two moves per turn. (If four moves per turn, white wins every time. Unsure about three, but probably forced win also.)
Also, four-player chess (as in that on chess.com) would be incredible to see with AlphaZero.
Very promising chess variant indeed. I hope we come to see more of this from now on. That's for showing us this, Herr König!
Torpedo chess looks the most exciting and promising, while not seemingly not being much different than regular chess. Although, game should be consisted of 2 half games (1 w/ white, 1 w/ black ) to be fair because white wins too often. It would be nice if you could cover a torpedo variant game. And thanks for the content, amazing!
Self-capture is lovely but it does make the pawns weaker. Philidor would not approve. So, to compensate for that, perhaps self-capture should be combined with torpedo (pawns can move one or two squares on any move, unless blocked of course, en passant and promotion applying). This would be a fun combination to try!
At 10:03 g5 would be a mistake because of g3 but here g3 would be a mistake because of Queen takes h6.
Loved the video. Stalemate used to be a win (in early 1800s) and should be a win. Comm'on, the opponent cannot make a move that doesn't lose. That doesn't deserve a draw. I am in favour of changing that rule at the very least. Self-capture I'm not so sure about. Would be fun to play a couple of tournaments like it.
Maybe 2 points for Stalemate and 3 points for Checkmate?
For beginners, then it would be much easier to win with material advantage. Very easy with KQ - K to win, and KP - K you do not need to think about opposition.
Very interesting Daniel, wonder where this will go. After Fisher Random Ches we will have Kramnik Selfcapture Chess? Please bring more Shirov games too, I like them a lot! Trying to guess his crazy moves is extremely addictive, and it's not impossible to get it right knowing that if you pause the game, it must be a special moment :-)
My question would be : Where can you find a chess software in which you can change the rules of the game ?
Self capture chess would add an interesting dimension to the game. It would definitely add a dimension to the phenomenon of mouse slips, haha. Imagine king v king and pawn and accidently capturing your last pawn. However, it would also kill some of its beauty by removing almost all middlegame checkmates. Only a frontal mate with the queen would work right? The king would just end up eating some or all its own pieces... It would still lose because of the material deficit but I would definitely miss all the sacrificial mating brilliancies. It would also add some practical issues like: what do you do when you accidently knock down your own piece on the board when moving another? Your opponent can argue that that would be a legal capture ;) I still prefer the classical rules. For every chess player < 2700 level I think the game is still very enjoyable, especially with all the online blitz options.
I wanna do some version when pwan reach other opposite side ....that pawn cannot be queen or rock etc......but one power such as bishop left on board will be double powers😅😅that means when that bishop can move in two alternate ways ...one is diagonal of his characteristics but another move will be depending on player desire such as queen style or knight style ......🤣🤣🤣🤣 that 's insane ....😇😇😇😇😇😇
All that needs to be done to make draws fewer is when the players want to draw put the position into three Chess computers for 10 minutes. If two of them show a slight plus for either side, then keep on playing. Repeat that once and then after a further 10 moves they can agree to a draw.
No more smothered mates is a deal breaker for me.
Self capturing idea will never fly.
All the mates would probably look like unelegant beginner mates with the king crowded by enemies.
And no more hiding the king behind an enemy pawn...
Btw, wouldn't more typical pawn endings be drawn too? Like W:Ke6, c5 B: Kc7, c6 1.Ke7 Kxc6 = :(
But it's a testament to the greatness of the game chess, that even many centuries after its invention it's very hard to improve upon!
Great video and concept
I would rather introduce some "partial wins" like giving 1 : 0 for a complete win, 0.9 : 0.1 for a stalemate, 0.8 : 0.2 for a threefold repetition (the player who forces the rep only gets 0.2), 0.7 : 0.3 for having more material in a drawn endgame (like after 60th move or so), 0.6 : 0.4 for an early draw (the player who formally offers the draw only gets 0.4) and 0.5 : 0.5 for other (rare) cases like two kings on the board.
Interesting variant, but might not change chess all that much. Easier to attack by self-capturing, easier to defend by self-capturing. Other than the occasional technical positions, that's probably about it.
Im in for the win for forcing a stalemate.
Not in for self captures.
And it should be leagal for a pinned piece to move to deliver checkmate.
These are fascinating variants (and those opposite coloured Bishops are one of the few times I've got a puzzle set on this channel :-)) but if the aim is to reduce the number of draws, isn't all this just an arms race: ultimately the best players will be evenly-matched won't they. (It'd be nice to live in a world where a well played draw could be appreciated for what it is and maybe even the GM draws seen as part of a bigger picture. )
They can have it as a variant just like many versions on lichess. But we want our standard chess laws. Self capture will introduce a rather ridiculous complications. Already chess is very hard and difficult even at GM level
I know this variant as bughouse version. You can take your own pieces and put it in like in crazyhouse
basically an accepted clearance sacrifice. As is, I don't like it, because it takes away mating attacks. The king can always just gobble a pawn and run. An improvement to this would be that the king is not allowed to self-capture.
This is an intriguing variant and might reduce the number of draws, but I'm not sure it would reduce the depth of opening theory.
self capture variant would mean that you'd have so many possible moves/consequences to consider that your brain would get totally fried before the end. It would also be very slow and boring to watch while players consider the myriad of possibilities and future consequences before moving?
Great video, I'd love to hear you talk more on these variations!
Mess with the code on your our time Developers. Time to move on to AlphaChess notating any game.
Also publish the game with user control over Alpha's time to think and search depth.
I only agree with no castling chess. It will promote creativity until the new opening theory develops.
It's funny to watch but I think it would make chess a poorer game. One of its most interesting rules is that you can't capture your own pieces. As others have argued, many checkmating possibilities would disappear.
I think the best way to fight the draw problem may be to change the points system, like in other sports (at least in football/soccer): 3 for victory, 1 for draw, 0 for loss. Then players would struggle more to win. What do you think?
If it is playing itself, surely it knows what it is thinking
can we call this
FRIENDLY FIRE?
Mathematically speaking, what is the effect on the complexity, how many more possible positions arise due to this additional rule?
The could call the self-capturing playstyle the "Crécy variation".
In some ways, self-capture injects chess with an autoimmune disease.
Keep the rooks and kings in classical position so we can castle classically, randomize just the bishops, queens and knights.
I'd like to see a variant where there's fog of war (can't see the whole board).
So casino chess
@@fickificki2391 Partial information like Starcraft. Or texas hold'em, sure.
I don't think there needs to be rule changes to prevent so many draws in high level chess,
It may be enough to change the scoring system, there is not much point risking a loss to
try to push for a win with points of 0, 1/2, and 1 for loss, draw, win. Give 0 for a loss,
1 for a draw and 4 or 5 for a win, In tournament play or when playing the same opponent
multiple times you would see a lot less settling for a draw.
I was waiting for this🙏
No back rank mate now.
Wow nice
11:20 white would have Kxf2 since you can own capture :)
i dont see the value in testing random chess rules, the only rule i would consider to change is the 3-fold repetition rule where the player who makes the 3rd rep move would lose the game, in this way players would be forced to play on, this rule does not really fit in chess anyway and this would give the attacking player more chances in the endgame
what does AlphaZero think of Chess960/Chess9LX ? It seems much better than any other alternatives and gets rid of the opening chess theory issues at least 90% ?
Thank You for the news - nice that the paper mentions the great variant player Mr. Pritchard :) - for all of those eager to see what a nice game a variant chess can be i recommend browsing into "chesswhiz" channel by themselves - the best Chess-Variant channel on earth with over 500 variants tested in battle :) !!! I really recommend it for you!
I would like to see how Alpha Zero takes care about MakRuk :) - the closest nowadays relative to Chaturanga - would it show some better/deeper way of playing that game :) - its more drawish than the long range international chess is
Wow nice 👍
...chess on a GO board with the necessary alternating black/white squares.....ok I don't even like my own idea
Very interesting for sure. It would do very little damage to opening theory (tick), and would reduce the potential for endgame draws, perpetuals and stalemates (tick). It might adversely affect attacking chess though - the defender gets a lot of extra options when facing mating patterns that rely on corralling and suffocation.
I was wondering if they would turn AlphaZero loose on 5D Chess with Time Travel.
wow
Powered play chessish May be the New your channel
Thx your effort anyway
on 5:57 the King cannot capture the pawn because of the pawn on c4. The white king should start from the pawn on b3 or the pawn on h3. With the current flow, you have changed two rules and not just adding one rule to the game.
As the c4-pawn is also white, with the given rules here it is legal to capture the own pawn with Ke4xd5. Own pieces give not check in classical chess, as it is in the self-capture variant. So this is not a second variation.
I hope the professionals don't decide that they like one of these variations and simply impose it on the chess world they way they abolished descriptive notation.
Is the King immune from capture?
What's wrong with chess at the moment? It seems to me that grace under pressure is still the quality that counts as it always will in a meaningful conflict.
Can you self-capture your own King?
i think Capablanca chess is better and it's time to consider it
This variation of chess eliminates the most elegant form to mate, the smothered mate
Interesting to see a chess engine build a fortress.
The games shown were quite interesting and brought a smile to my face several times. However, it seems the "problem of chess" is really a problem of the 2600+ club. For the vast majority of us patzers chess is complicated enough. Perhaps there'll end up being a version of chess for the elite, and classical/standard chess for the rest of us, but it seems like that's a poor choice for the game.
I think self capture might be too powerful. Maybe there can be a variant where you can only capture your own piece ONCE per game. You can use your one self capture to attack or to develop rapidly or to escape a bank ranker. Thoughts?
I'm not a fan of conditional rules in any games.
I rather keep it simple.
The beauty in this change is that it's a simple change which makes the game far more complex.
Whilst your suggestion is a more complex change that makes the game very little more complex. It's ugly.
what if there was a new piece that could eat its own pawns
Why doesn't g3 after g5 (attacking the knight, 10:05) trap the queen?