@seth_777 no team advertising please
got it
there is no edit button in my original post so:
Chess: 8
Chess960: 7.5
Crazyhouse: 7
Atomic: 6
Racing Kings: 9
3check: - (7.5)
KoTH: - (5)
Horde: 8
Antichess: - (5.5)
Chess: 8
Chess960: 7.5
Crazyhouse: 7
Atomic: 6
Racing Kings: 9
3check: - (7.5)
KoTH: - (5)
Horde: 8
Antichess: - (5.5)
@chessmasterlithum you ain't put Crazyhouse in.
Chess: 9
Chess960: 3
Crazyhouse: 6
Atomic: 4
Racing Kings: 10000000000000000000000000
3check: 5
KoTH: 4
Horde: 2
Antichess: 7
Chess960: 3
Crazyhouse: 6
Atomic: 4
Racing Kings: 10000000000000000000000000
3check: 5
KoTH: 4
Horde: 2
Antichess: 7
This is an interesting post. Fun to see how much variation there is in interest from individuals. The only (almost) consistently high rating appears to be standard chess. I suspect it might have something to do with the aspects of chess that each individual likes. As for me:
Chess: 9
Crazyhouse: 2
Chess960: 9
King of the Hill: -
Three-check: 8
Antichess: -
Atomic: 1
Horde: 6
Racing Kings: -
I've played enough crazyhouse to know I detest it. The player with white has a very distinct advantage as the whole game relies upon gaining and keeping the initiative. White starts with the initiative and unless they completely misplay the opening, they will get the first attack and that's all that matters in my experience. There is very little in the way of long term strategy. And if you're unfortunate enough to play black, it's all 1-5 move combinations which are often impossible to stop unless you have the tactical mind of peak Marshall or Tal. Too chaotic and too one-sided for me.
Fischer random is interesting because of the lack of known theory, the biggest aspect of standard chess that I dislike. I know enough to get through the opening without losing material (most of the time), but occasionally I end up with a very tough position without actually making any mistakes (only inaccuracies). Must get better, I know, however the fact that Fischer random eliminates this aspect is a great equaliser. You only have to know principles to try to push for advantage in the opening. It's reliance on strategic planning is more pure.
I actually suspect I would like King of the Hill, but I've not played more than a couple of games, so I can't really rate it fairly. I can see that there is still much of the reliance on opening theory, except that centre control overtakes development as the most important aspect of the game early on and activity is all consuming.
3+ is interesting because a whole different set of ideas apply when compared with standard or Fischer random. For example, it would be extremely disadvantageous to aim for 1. e4 and 2. d4 because that e1-a5 diagonal is a killer. Because of that, black can defend against 2. d4 indirectly with 1. ... e6 freeing the dark square bishop. However Black's claim over the centre is weak unless he then follows up with either 2. ... c5 (most popular) or 2. ... Nc6. The only reason I gave it 8 instead of 9 is because I also feel that white's advantage is too great if both players are equally skilled.
Anti-chess just seems like a more complex version of tic-tac-toe or a less complex version of draughts to me. I don't see the appeal. There are far too many forcing lines: so many forcing lines that the game has actually been solved and is just a win for white with perfect play. Of course in human play, this isn't the case since the number of iterations you'd have to remember is far too high, however I can't imagine a scenario in which any of the other chess variants mentioned could be solved without vastly improved computer power. I know some of you love it, but I just get frustrated by the lack of freedom in the middlegame.
Atomic is just bizarre. Advance your knights to win seems like the correct "strategy" at lower levels, and whilst I'm sure at higher levels it may have some fascinating nuances, I can't see a single redeeming factor to having half your pieces disappear from a single capture. Trade minors ASAP and get your Queen out. Nothing else matters.
Hoarde is a fun waste of time, much like bughouse. However, unlike bughouse, there may be some real learning opportunities from this game in terms of pawn movements and how to control space. Worthy of a 4 but I've busted that to a 6 purely because I like the social commentary of having a whole bunch of serfs being taken from behind by their lone autocratic ruler, supported by the church and the aristocracy. Also I find the number of stalemates at lower levels hilarious.
I don't really have all that much to say about racing kings. I need to play a bit more to make a decision. I simply don't understand the game yet. You can't check the opposing king which seems odd. I'm interested in it, though.
Chess: 9
Crazyhouse: 2
Chess960: 9
King of the Hill: -
Three-check: 8
Antichess: -
Atomic: 1
Horde: 6
Racing Kings: -
I've played enough crazyhouse to know I detest it. The player with white has a very distinct advantage as the whole game relies upon gaining and keeping the initiative. White starts with the initiative and unless they completely misplay the opening, they will get the first attack and that's all that matters in my experience. There is very little in the way of long term strategy. And if you're unfortunate enough to play black, it's all 1-5 move combinations which are often impossible to stop unless you have the tactical mind of peak Marshall or Tal. Too chaotic and too one-sided for me.
Fischer random is interesting because of the lack of known theory, the biggest aspect of standard chess that I dislike. I know enough to get through the opening without losing material (most of the time), but occasionally I end up with a very tough position without actually making any mistakes (only inaccuracies). Must get better, I know, however the fact that Fischer random eliminates this aspect is a great equaliser. You only have to know principles to try to push for advantage in the opening. It's reliance on strategic planning is more pure.
I actually suspect I would like King of the Hill, but I've not played more than a couple of games, so I can't really rate it fairly. I can see that there is still much of the reliance on opening theory, except that centre control overtakes development as the most important aspect of the game early on and activity is all consuming.
3+ is interesting because a whole different set of ideas apply when compared with standard or Fischer random. For example, it would be extremely disadvantageous to aim for 1. e4 and 2. d4 because that e1-a5 diagonal is a killer. Because of that, black can defend against 2. d4 indirectly with 1. ... e6 freeing the dark square bishop. However Black's claim over the centre is weak unless he then follows up with either 2. ... c5 (most popular) or 2. ... Nc6. The only reason I gave it 8 instead of 9 is because I also feel that white's advantage is too great if both players are equally skilled.
Anti-chess just seems like a more complex version of tic-tac-toe or a less complex version of draughts to me. I don't see the appeal. There are far too many forcing lines: so many forcing lines that the game has actually been solved and is just a win for white with perfect play. Of course in human play, this isn't the case since the number of iterations you'd have to remember is far too high, however I can't imagine a scenario in which any of the other chess variants mentioned could be solved without vastly improved computer power. I know some of you love it, but I just get frustrated by the lack of freedom in the middlegame.
Atomic is just bizarre. Advance your knights to win seems like the correct "strategy" at lower levels, and whilst I'm sure at higher levels it may have some fascinating nuances, I can't see a single redeeming factor to having half your pieces disappear from a single capture. Trade minors ASAP and get your Queen out. Nothing else matters.
Hoarde is a fun waste of time, much like bughouse. However, unlike bughouse, there may be some real learning opportunities from this game in terms of pawn movements and how to control space. Worthy of a 4 but I've busted that to a 6 purely because I like the social commentary of having a whole bunch of serfs being taken from behind by their lone autocratic ruler, supported by the church and the aristocracy. Also I find the number of stalemates at lower levels hilarious.
I don't really have all that much to say about racing kings. I need to play a bit more to make a decision. I simply don't understand the game yet. You can't check the opposing king which seems odd. I'm interested in it, though.
@Gambl0r I appreciate your longform comments and would like to suggest a few corrections based on lotsa experience (at higher levels as you may say).
Zh : white does not have such a great advantage, imo, at least below, like, way higher levels (like 23+). If you try and play a stronger player (1800, whatever), you will see that white far from always has the first attack (or it will be a weak one, like 3. Nxf7 "then what"). (All else you say is fine, indeed it is very chaotic especially at the lower levels, and precisely it's what gives black about 50% chances to come out ahead.)
Now in atomic, that's where white truly has a tremendous advantage, that is easy to maintain throughout the game. What you're missing is how key openings are in this one. Some openings are borderline theoretically winning for white, depending on who you ask. But if you give black slack, then the comeback might be sharp. "Trading minor pieces" doesn't make much sense since in the early game you don't actually trade pieces in atom, you only try to gain units by exploding two things or more. Up until a high level, one way to win is to be a specialist of one particular line for white, while with black you need to know enough to hold you own in just about all the opening lines.
And Horde is very much a fun waste of time, and there is an additional learning opportunity for combinations about defending against very many pawns with two lone remaining pieces, while the autocratic leader is busy in the back.
Zh : white does not have such a great advantage, imo, at least below, like, way higher levels (like 23+). If you try and play a stronger player (1800, whatever), you will see that white far from always has the first attack (or it will be a weak one, like 3. Nxf7 "then what"). (All else you say is fine, indeed it is very chaotic especially at the lower levels, and precisely it's what gives black about 50% chances to come out ahead.)
Now in atomic, that's where white truly has a tremendous advantage, that is easy to maintain throughout the game. What you're missing is how key openings are in this one. Some openings are borderline theoretically winning for white, depending on who you ask. But if you give black slack, then the comeback might be sharp. "Trading minor pieces" doesn't make much sense since in the early game you don't actually trade pieces in atom, you only try to gain units by exploding two things or more. Up until a high level, one way to win is to be a specialist of one particular line for white, while with black you need to know enough to hold you own in just about all the opening lines.
And Horde is very much a fun waste of time, and there is an additional learning opportunity for combinations about defending against very many pawns with two lone remaining pieces, while the autocratic leader is busy in the back.
I am surprised people rate chess so differently from chess960. For me 960 is not really a variant, it's just normal chess.
Chess 10
Chess 960:8
Crazyhouse: 8
3 check : 9.5
others that are not horde or atomic :6
horde:0
atomic:0
Chess 960:8
Crazyhouse: 8
3 check : 9.5
others that are not horde or atomic :6
horde:0
atomic:0
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.