What do you guys think about Vladimir Kramnik's "no castling chess" (and yes, once upon a time there was no castling rule in chess) as he proposed it in this article: www.chess.com/article/view/no-castling-chess-kramnik-alphazero ? I think it would at least be an interesting variant for many, as it is fairly close to standard chess, but requires a different approach.
Yet another minority attack. ;)
What about my thesis: because we have got the same starting position for ages (including castling rights) chess is so popular.
Not allowing to castle casts a shadow on every position, at least that’s my educated guess. So both players have difficulties - I doubt that there’s a significant amount of people who try it out i.e. try to clean up their bad position from scratch. Same as Phisher Ransom Chess.
Indeed no-castling would be very interesting, especially with how the opening would need to be played as both black and white with how they want to deal with opening up their king.
I play "fishing pole like ideas"A lot in the Lopez and usually the game ends win or lose without castling.
I think the idea that this is going to significantly change the landscape in terms of making high-level games more dynamic or less drawish is probably pretty optimistic. The equilibrium will change and some openings will work better than others now, but the opening theory would eventually (probably pretty quickly) adapt to the new change without any real significant benefit.
I think something more radical like 960 is probably going to be needed if you really want to get away from theory.
You can't post in the forums yet. Play some games!