We have an article on the front page for this, but I really found the discussion of issues that chess has at high-level play to be pretty interesting. I wasn’t even aware of the problems because I’ve never been good enough to get to that level.
The idea that any game can end in a draw 60% of the time, require memorization of a jillion openings and end-games, and routinely takes over an hour to play is nuts if you were trying to sell the game now.
So, how would you solve the problems chess has? Are they even problems that need solving?
Yeah, obviously the end result wouldn’t be classic “chess”, but another different game. Not the real point of the discussion of how to improve the game.
I never particularly liked games like chess: highly constrained in moves imo, that makes the metagame to be based on brute force the tactics (do every possible move in your mind and judge the result, with expert players doing that and even more consecutive moves), I prefer games more “organic” in the tactics that can by played “by ear”. I think I would liked more Go if I would have learn it in my youth. From the knowledge I have of it, it seems to be more geared towards pure strategy than trite memorization/brute forcing it.
Maybe that’s why I always preferred video games to table games.
I have always been very fond of chess variants, but I think Sirlin’s duelling goes too far. Adding incomplete information as a mechanic shifts the game into an entirely different sub-genre in my book. The new pieces and the new victory condition would have sufficed to accomplish Sirlin’s design objective and distinguish his variant.
I had a similar reaction to the duelling mechanic. I get that there’s still a strategic decision in that you need to weigh the value of the win by portioning out stones over the whole game, but it just seemed a bit too wacky for chess in my mind.
The special powers of the rosters seemed cool, but it also seemed like the kind of thing that works best in a videogame with a computer keeping track. While getting rid of the move memorization is a good idea, I think this mechanic substitutes memorization of abilities instead. Obviously, it’s not as heavy as trying to memorize a billion moves, but teaching new players these abilities m,eans you’re adding another layer of complexity to a noob’s introduction.
This topic made me think of Arimaa. The rules don’t really resemble chess much at all but it’s played on a regular chess board using chess pieces and it manages to have very simple core rules that still allow for a huge variety of possible moves. For some reason, the human brain is pretty good at intuiting good moves whereas programming a good AI is extremely difficult (even more so than for Go).
It essentially fixes all the common complaints I’ve heard about the mechanics of chess so it gets my vote for being Chess 2.0
[ul]
[li]No possibility of draws; every match is settled with one of the players winning.[/li]> [li]Equal winning chances for both players. Neither side has a distinguishable advantage.[/li]> [li]No need to memorize openings since the starting position is not fixed. Requires on the spot thinking rather than memorization.[/li]> [li]End game tables are not useful since games can end with all pieces on the board.[/li]> [li]Computer cheating is not possible since humans are much better.[/li]> [/ul]
I watching now the tutorial of Arimaa. Looks really cool!
Telefrog, the way the rules are done, the game has several millions of initial formations, and each turn have a magnitude more of possibilities than chess (you have 4 “action points”, to be used with flexibility, 4 for one piece, 3 for one and 1 for the second, etc), only for that it’s like go, computers can’t brute force the solution to the game calculating millions of moves, as there are several magnitudes of possible combinations more than chess. That’s the part of “cheating” they mention, I imagine.
If anyone would like to develop a good AI for it, it would have to actually try to simulate human thinking of tactics, positional strategy, etc.
I find interesting also the more emergent behaviour when pieces meet in the table (pushing, trapping, freezing) so tactics can’t be predetermined easily.
I don’t think there is a problem that needs fixing. There are many, many other games of many types out there for people who don’t like analytical games like chess and go. At the highest levels, it’s always going to be a draw more often than a win, simply because the starting position is a draw. I am coming around to the idea that shuffle chess, or so called ‘chess 960’ is a better way to go at the highest levels, since it involves more pure chess skill rather than preparing lines 20+ moves deep using a strong computer. The only real downside to chess 960 is that some setups give one side more of an advantage than in the traditional starting setup, so for fairness each, each random starting position should be played twice, one game from each side. Again, I am really speaking about high level competition here.
Sorry if I veered off topic a bit there, I just am sort of mystified by the list some of the ‘problems’ that chess supposedly has. The listed ‘problems’ are only problems (if one considers them problems at all) for a minuscule percentage of players. How many players are really memorizing ‘jillions of openings and end games’, really? I would argue that those ‘problems’ are part of the reason that people have been playing and have been fascinated by the game for centuries.
I posted something similar elsewhere but it really belongs here: The problems with chess were fixed ~500 years ago. In Japan.
Shogi is the Japanese version of chess, and it’s lost nearly all of the baggage. There is practically no first-mover advantage. Draws are exceedingly rare. There is little to memorize. You can play against stronger opponents with a straightforward handicap system. Material advantage is not a guarantee of victory, and comebacks are common. In fact, games will often come down to simultaneous assaults with the outcome unclear until the last few moves. As one person put it: “You know those rare but memorable games of chess, full of furious combinations that snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? That’s like every game of shogi.”
As you may know, the main innovation is that you take possession of pieces you capture, and you can drop them back on the board pretty much anywhere at any time. Since pieces otherwise have mostly low mobility and strong defensive properties, you end up with a ruleset reminiscent of games like Neuroshima Hex or Summoner Wars. If not for the Japanese characters, it would be easy to convince someone that this is a modern TBS.
That’s just it, though. People haven’t been playing with the rules of chess that we’re familiar with “for centuries.” The rules have changed a lot over the years.
The funny thing is thinking that the inventor of the chess surely wouldn’t even understand the super high level known in present time used by the champions. I’m sure that in comparison, he would be a “casual” chess player. Would have he known the draw problem, for example, maybe he would have tweaked the rules.
Chess can’t be fixed because the whole point of it is it bears the weight of 500 years of analytical and stylistic development (in the modern game during which the rules haven’t changed). There is just too much inertia behind it, and the inertia itself is what provides a lot of the value. There are a million kinds of “fairy chess” that have been developed over the years. Some are arguably better games, but then, there are lots of games that are arguably better than baseball, but people play it anyway.
Same thing applies to go (wéiqí), which has these grotesquely horrible defects in the ko rule and in the mirror game; but if you try to “fix” the game you break the whole cultural and systemic tradition of the game.
That doesn’t follow. Backgammon starts with a symmetric position but draws are impossible, likewise in tournament Go. The high frequency of draws is unique to Chess. And it’s not a new thing: Ruy Lopez discussed stalemates in the 16th century.
But by far the biggest problem with Chess is that it lacks a decent handicapping system. In Go, Backgammon, Shogi, etc, there is usually a way to handicap the game, either with points or material, that gives both players decent odds of winning. In Chess, even a single pawn is often too great an advantage to give up.
It’s in a trendy part of the city so there’s fine dining and bars. It’s a walking neighborhood.
The HOF is free to visit and the real draw is their rotating exhibition of antique chess sets, many hundreds of years old. They really are a treat to view. They are from all areas of the world.
If someone would either license or steal ‘Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess’, and just incorporate it into a chess game, you’d change a good portion of the world lol. If you work through that book, chess changes from a game of a bajilliondy combinations, to what is actually a fairly simple game. I’m not kidding, that book will absolutely transform the game for people. I’ve often wondered why it isn’t revered as the bible of chess, it’s just monumental. If someone came out with a game that incorporated it, I’d buy it in a second, but that’s just me, and probably has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever lol.
I guess the point of that is, if you could teach people that chess is about the board, and not about the billions of possible combination of the pieces ( which is something you will never be able to memorize to any degree that it will make much difference), you could rectify at least some of the problems people have with the game as far as the barrier to entry. You would however probably up the draw % significantly.
