#8 @boorchess
Oh um... hm, yeah; I kind of did jump in on the hijacking of your thread >.> I guess this puts a good number of variant suggestions in one thread...? Anyway, even by this early point I think it already is what it is. Hopefully it'll lead to discussion about which variants are better for the evolution of chess and why; though aside from the evolution of chess I think there's merit to even variations that are less complicated than standard chess, to help either ease weaker players into the world of chess without them ending up building poor habits in more complex variations when playing against other weaker players closer to their own skill level or just let the weaker players have their fun amongst themselves. Personally, to be completely honest I still struggle with seeing even 2 moves ahead; I tend to lose positions Stockfish later tells me should've been winning by ~3 or 4 or so, or better yet just blunder my queen a few moves before the move where she actually gets taken if not outright. So while more complex variants certainly have my interest I think that I would probably do well to use a less complex variant to get a better grasp of chess before diving headlong into anything more complex. Do I have the right idea, or does using more complex variants including standard chess itself to learn actually accelerate the building of better habits; contrary to what I currently think + feel?
While it goes almost without saying that some formations are going to prove to be at the top of the pack in Screen Chess when the game is analyzed more thoroughly, I think the very nature of the game lends itself to some rock-paper-scissors relations between different decent starting formations. The decent formations for black are completely different than the decent formations for white; white formations are all about several strong opening options almost regardless of what black has set up and then being able to also stay defended while continuing the plan of attack, black formations are all about being able to respond to white's opening without losing any important pieces in the opening and then being able to counterattack in the turns following the first few. A large part of skill at Screen Chess is having just a few good starting formations so that you don't get caught maining your rock in a rock-paper-scissors style environment, though also have enough practice with your chosen formations that you'll know exactly what to do with them when you play games using them.
I don't fully understand why you prefer the idea of having "an actual opening phase" for Screen Chess. You can't see your opponent putting their pieces down whether you're playing as black or as white; so I don't have a grasp of how having players place their pieces into a formation during a 16-turn opening phase instead of creating, saving, and loading starting formations would have any impact on the starting formation meta. If anything, I think people making starting positions on their own time and then loading them when entering a game would most likely be healthier overall for the Screen Chess meta; because that way people would not be under the pressure of an opponent waiting for them to finish placing their pieces when they're thinking about their starting formations.
A fusion of Screen Chess and Placement Chess that has a 16-turn opening phase where both players can see both sides of the board while taking turns placing each of their 16 pieces during the opening phase is something that I can easily see as an incredibly interesting variant of its own, though I believe the metas of the resulting fusion and Screen Chess itself would most likely be; while intrinsically linked; almost entirely different. Starting formations would have stronger similarities to Screen Chess starting formations, though decent skill at Placement Chess would practically be a prerequisite to even attempting to play the fusion. The fusion could be aptly named "Screen Placement Chess".
Oh um... hm, yeah; I kind of did jump in on the hijacking of your thread >.> I guess this puts a good number of variant suggestions in one thread...? Anyway, even by this early point I think it already is what it is. Hopefully it'll lead to discussion about which variants are better for the evolution of chess and why; though aside from the evolution of chess I think there's merit to even variations that are less complicated than standard chess, to help either ease weaker players into the world of chess without them ending up building poor habits in more complex variations when playing against other weaker players closer to their own skill level or just let the weaker players have their fun amongst themselves. Personally, to be completely honest I still struggle with seeing even 2 moves ahead; I tend to lose positions Stockfish later tells me should've been winning by ~3 or 4 or so, or better yet just blunder my queen a few moves before the move where she actually gets taken if not outright. So while more complex variants certainly have my interest I think that I would probably do well to use a less complex variant to get a better grasp of chess before diving headlong into anything more complex. Do I have the right idea, or does using more complex variants including standard chess itself to learn actually accelerate the building of better habits; contrary to what I currently think + feel?
While it goes almost without saying that some formations are going to prove to be at the top of the pack in Screen Chess when the game is analyzed more thoroughly, I think the very nature of the game lends itself to some rock-paper-scissors relations between different decent starting formations. The decent formations for black are completely different than the decent formations for white; white formations are all about several strong opening options almost regardless of what black has set up and then being able to also stay defended while continuing the plan of attack, black formations are all about being able to respond to white's opening without losing any important pieces in the opening and then being able to counterattack in the turns following the first few. A large part of skill at Screen Chess is having just a few good starting formations so that you don't get caught maining your rock in a rock-paper-scissors style environment, though also have enough practice with your chosen formations that you'll know exactly what to do with them when you play games using them.
I don't fully understand why you prefer the idea of having "an actual opening phase" for Screen Chess. You can't see your opponent putting their pieces down whether you're playing as black or as white; so I don't have a grasp of how having players place their pieces into a formation during a 16-turn opening phase instead of creating, saving, and loading starting formations would have any impact on the starting formation meta. If anything, I think people making starting positions on their own time and then loading them when entering a game would most likely be healthier overall for the Screen Chess meta; because that way people would not be under the pressure of an opponent waiting for them to finish placing their pieces when they're thinking about their starting formations.
A fusion of Screen Chess and Placement Chess that has a 16-turn opening phase where both players can see both sides of the board while taking turns placing each of their 16 pieces during the opening phase is something that I can easily see as an incredibly interesting variant of its own, though I believe the metas of the resulting fusion and Screen Chess itself would most likely be; while intrinsically linked; almost entirely different. Starting formations would have stronger similarities to Screen Chess starting formations, though decent skill at Placement Chess would practically be a prerequisite to even attempting to play the fusion. The fusion could be aptly named "Screen Placement Chess".