Chess Variants

Ok, prepare yourself for a rather large post, so grab a nice cup of coffee or whatever you enjoy and lets get started.
I have played a considerable amount of chess in my life but never before had i tried chess variants (except 960). So when i found this site about a week ago, i said why not, lets try everything there is! It was a kind of mental challenge. I mean, the pieces move the same way but the games are completely different. How quickly can a mind recognize the new patterns, adapt, and finally find the winning strategies? And dont get me wrong , i dont claim i have, but after a vast experience of pain and punishment :) these are my sharings and my conclusions (for now) from the chess variants.
Racing Kings : Lets start with this my least favorite. I have only played 3 games so i cant tell you much about it. My feeling would be , grab everything you can and then with material advantage try and set up a defence along the 7th or 8th rank. Also I think that rooks are stronger here than in nomral chess and bishops would be stronger than knights. But hey dont take my word in any of this, havent try it out yet so these things might be completely irrelevant.
King of the Hill: Well, how can you not love this little variant? Its like normal chess with an extra winning condition. From all the variants I think this one is closest (is that a word?) to the regular chess. My advice here: play like normal chess!Although you may want to avoid some things. for example the value of the centre is a bit higher here than chess so you may want to avoid defences which give up a considerable amount of space( the King might start marching :) ) but as long as you keep one pawn in the centre you should be safe. I mean can you imagine a King getting to the centre when there are d4-d5 pawns or e4-e5 from each opponent? Its not that easy. So... if your opponent starts strolling with his King in the opening or middlegame, well, feel free to mate them. http://el.lichess.org/fkA7AFmiMhYY
Of course there are exceptions but these cases are rare and tricky to handle so, at the average or low level I feel you should not even bother with the extra win condition till an ending.
Atomic:one word for this variant:BOOM , you just got mated mate. Holy... it took me 30 games of pain ( 3 sec +1 sec per move) to even realize that after 1.Nf3 f6 is practically forced and after that 50 more to find 2... Nh6 to 2.Nd4. This variant is interesting and brutal for a beginner. Especially in the format that the atomic chess fans really love , namely the 3+1. So if u consider to give it a try , dont do it like me :), there is somthing out there that might help: https://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~chess/atomic/
these things might be correct or not, but at least it will help you survive the opening and let you feel the true nature of this game, which is... its extremely complex endgames! (believe it or not). I mean u might think an extra queen is enough right? maybe not
http://el.lichess.org/vcw3HkvWDHAS
Crazyhouse: Oh dear, pls make it stop. these are the words that come to my mouth after i try ( unsuccessfully) to defend against an attack which, hey, IT NEVER ENDS. U see i am the kind of person who more or less believes that every position has defensive capabilities and what can i say, i like grabbing stuff :) . But if u are like me and u try this variant, prepare yourself to experience a world of ever lasting initative for the opponent and pain, a lot of it. But hey, when u DO manage to defend and u have an entire army waiting to be put back into the board it feels nice , doesnt it? http://el.lichess.org/EoGSzituVj0F
or when u finallly manage to pull off an attack of your own.
When climbing the crazyhouse ladder i noticed some things, weak players attacks often feel premature. Strong players value development and pawn chains( yes pawn chains!) especially ones near the opponent King. Also If the opponent castles, a good way to start an attack is often to put a pawn on h6 or h3, its a useful trick ,try to remember that and good luck!
Horde: Horde variant might reveal some important answers to some important questions such as: is it better to have few with many abilities or many with few ablities. Will the chinese eventually take over the world? (Hey no offense i m just kidding)
On a more serious note, horde is a deeply interesting variant and it amounts to : how well do you understand pawn brakes,relative piece value over space, pawn chains , and finally... pawn tactics :) . For me it feels more natural to play the side with the pieces, but i ve had a couple of good games the pawns as well http://el.lichess.org/myW4amqriqWb
I m not sure what to tell you about the pawn side besides that it feels good when you see this unstoppable avalanche marching :) As for the pieces try and break the whites formation, seek activity , alway sacrifice a piece for 2 pawns and remember:the King is a great defender against passed pawns , as long as he doenst get mated ofc :)
3-check: in order to play well this variant you first of all need to understand one thing:namely 3 things:What is the value of the first check, what is the value of the second check and what is the value of the third check. Ok , the answer to the last is obvious, it is the value of victory, the value of the second check can vary, for example if u have the opportunity to sac a rook for the second check and u still have a queen u most probably want to do it, because the queen will sooner or later find a way to give a check or at least force one too many concessions. but what is exactly the valuse of the first check, should we sacrifice a piece for that? ofc it depends on the position but i personally wouldnt. but in most cases i wouldnt also allow a piece sacrifice for the first check so yeah... i dont know anything it seems. with white u should probably open with something aggresive like e4 and use the threat of the checks to gain some advantages in already established lines. With black u can try maybe some setups that avoid checks altogether , like the hippo maybe. After that it all comes to a hard battle of keeping control of the position as chess evaluation as well as balancing the check threats from u and your opponent. the easieast way is always to just outplay your opponent strategically. I mean its easier to tame restricted pieces right? http://el.lichess.org/YJe558DO94MD
Antichess:aka the mazochist version of chess. If u make too many blunders in chess maybe u should consider cheking this one out, Blunders are most welcomed here! Well jokes aside i m afraid i dont have anything useful to say about this variant, its strategic essence is yet very far from my grasp so i just make random moves and hope to outcalculate people (small hint: it doenst work) One thing i can tell u , which might be wrong anyway, is that pawns are the harder to get rid of, because of their small moblity so try first ot get rid of your own and try to avoid capturing the ones of your opponent.On a further note, I have noticed that this variant produces some extremely interesting endgames http://el.lichess.org/J1vPW3WeoGnH
As for the opening well... lets say that if in your games so far in answer to 1.e3 u played anything else than 1...b6 you were already losing by force! Antichess is in a state of weak solution, aka: after 1. e3 white wins in every variation by force except 1...b6. So if u really want to get better at this game i m afraid its gonna be hard work :) http://catalin.francu.com/nilatac/book.php
A small conclusion, the game might be solvable or not , but even if it is and you enjoy playing it, dont feel too bad about it. I mean connect-4 has been solved since 1988 (and its a simple game right?) but , yet still noone can play it perfectly and even till now the players with better understanding still crush their opponents , so i guess something similar will happen here.
Chess 960: arent you tired of playing the Vienna, the Berlin, the Catalan , or whatever your "correct" repertoire consists of?well then this is your chance to test your own positional understanding as well as your strategic and tactical vision from a fresh position which... remains fresh with each game :). Strongly recomended for masters or just anyone who hates opening theory http://el.lichess.org/8aYkBspldYbc
And thats the last of them, as to whomever managed to pass this wall of text till here, what can i say... congrats! hope you enjoyed this small journey and not find it overly boring.

Small tip: For atomic chess, it really is about endgame technique. Converting a material edge is not as easy as it may seem at first glance. The (wrong) reputation that atomic chess sees only short games, or is a forced win for white, probably comes from beginners getting repeatedly wiped out in the opening. (Atomic is very unforgiving for a beginner - sometimes I try to avoid mainlines to avoid scaring away new people.)

In the game you posted for atomic (http://fr.lichess.org/vcw3HkvW/black), it was drawn only at move 104 after 104. Qcb4?? f1=Q draw. Before that, white was always winning - K+Q vs K is draw, but K+Q v K+P is almost always winning for the queen. Before that of course K+2Q+P vs K+N+P is obviously winning for the queens. It is essential to learn the proper technique though. Vaguely speaking, it's about blockading the pawn, forcing the opponent's king next to his pawn (by moving your own king towards it in a certain way) and forcing a win by explosion.

I wouldn't trust all of Vlasov's opening book either, it is outdated. There are glaring errors and omissions such as 1. Nh3 g5 (which is a blunder) after which 2. e3 Nf6 3. Qf3 Rg8 is given, but 4. Bd3 and 5. Bg6 is mating fast. (Also 3. Nxg5 is just a win.)
Or 1. Nf3 f6 2. e3 d6 (?) after which strongest is 3. Nc3 (which is given a ?) entering a fairly forced sequence leading to white advantage.

Hey , thx for the feedback. this will defenitely look trivial to you but i realised during the game( with a few seconds on the clock) that Q+K VS K is a draw ( thats why i exchanged my knight for his pawn and try to promote my pawn after some time) so yeah for me that was quite an achievement:)
I checked one things or two and i have to tell u its quite tricky to win some endgames , you really have to aprreciate the power of zugzswang there .
and btw what is the correct answer to 1.Nh3?

Thanks for the read guys! :)

The correct answer to Nh3 is h6, but you don't look like you need too much rating help. ;)

After 1. Nh3, 1...h6, and 1...e6 are playable. But don't trust me too much, I don't really understand the positions after 1. Nh3 myself, neither white's attacking ideas nor black's plans to defend.

Very good defence in the endgame though, it's usually worth it to play out lost endings if you suspect your opponent doesn't know the proper technique. Very smart to realise that K+Q v K is drawn, it's counterintuitive to a normal chess player. It is useful also to learn how to win 2Q+K v K, Q+K v P+K, and pure pawn endgames. To avoid derailing this too much into an atomic discussion, I'll give my input on variants too:

King of the Hill: Very much a game of centre control, although if the centre gets blocked early expect just a normal game of chess leading to a strange endgame. I agree that it's probably the variant most similar to normal chess.

3-check: I agree the material value of a check has to be considered, and it's a complex question. Personally I think the second check is worth more than a piece, and the first check less than a piece. Also this is another calculation-heavy variant, where winning combinations can appear almost out of nowhere.
There is a theme here extremely similar to atomic: Sac to open a file for your rook to invade (check), and use it (possibly with a second rook) to deliver the 3 checks.

Crazyhouse: I haven't played much, but it is incredibly fun. It reminds me very much of shogi of which I play a little, right down to the headache of calculating who holds which pieces. I'm following Atrophied on Youtube now to see how a strong player thinks. His play seems almost parallel to shogi to me: Emphasis on creating weaknesses, targeting unguarded squares, providing support points for your attack, and the incredible importance of initiative and tempo. Crazyhouse does have a slightly more materialistic flavour though, probably since the pieces are more powerful.

Let me just comment about crazyhouse and three-check, since I don't really get the other variants.

3-check: The first check is worth less than a piece in my experience, but if you get to draw the king out 1 step with a sac (eg. 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5? Nxe4?? 4. Nxf7 Kxf7? 5. Bc4+ -- I just made that line up, don't look too hard at it), then it's kind of winning. Also, this variant has a lot of magical bolt-from-the-blue tactics. Watch out for piece sacs which are not direct checks. They can suddenly win games.

Crazyhouse: Madness. I tend to favour piece in hand over piece on the board, and generally just try to get pieces forward, since the 'sac-piece-on-random-looking-square' motif occurs so often. But I've been frustrated a few times by static defences (Ka8, Rb8, pawns on a7 b7 c7 a6 b6 is kind of hard to attack). Other than that, I really like the variant for its wacky moves. And because I get to sac a whole lot.

You missed a mate in 9 in that antichess game starting at move 31.

Well blakc missed it. The winning move was Ra8.

My mistake. Mate in 4 starting with 31. Rd6.