Is Antichess Easier Than Standard Chess? .... or Harder?

People tend to assume that standard chess is harder. However, why is it that no one in antichess can get above 2400? The top guys lose to 1700 or 1800's regularly. I think it might be easier to blunder in antichess, which explains why top guys lose to low level guys. Not blundering in antichess is extremely difficult at a high level. Maybe it is easier to get to intermediate level in antichess. You can do that in a few days. But try getting 2300. Only a handful of people in the world can.

There is real world evidence to support the position that antichess is hard. Check out the player, @C9C9C9C9C9 . He's standard bullet chess champion, with a rating over 3000. He has over 2000 in every variant, but his antichess rating is the lowest of all variants, at just over 2000.

Actually, if you look at the leaderboard, the antichess champion has the lowest rating in antichess, compared to the #1 player in every other chess variant. Conclusion: antichess is the most difficult, and best, manifestation of chess.

Strictly looking, there is no such thing as easy or hard variant, unless it's very special case. GM will still be GM in antichess if there is enough motivation.
However, 2 points matter:
- in some variants win is matter of almost pure mind work (960) and in some long memorised lines solve most of games (antichess). I suspect top players don't play antichess because they see no interest to build up this huge opening memorisation, which is completely useless anywhere but antichess.
- for my personal experience, antichess patterns are actually opposite of chess ones. I dropped about 200-300 points in normal chess when was practicing anti. This did not happen with other variants. This works on completely intuitive level, you have very limited control over this auto-patterns. Brain turns on if move is longer than around 15 seconds: hyperbullet games are completely brainless, they won or lost with only associative part of brain (monkeys are known to be better than humans with fast numbers memorisation test). Which means that these patterns poison each other and trying to be simultaneously good in both variants may lead to drop from expected results in both.

Interesting response. Antichess has more memorization, you say? Really? Every time I hear about chess it's about one of infinite coined defences or strats. Ie: The Queen's Gambit. That's one of the reason I don't play regular chess, I didn't want to learn the trillion different types of openings.

How is there more opening memorization in antichess? Just don't play the d pawn, or e4. Any other opening can win. One of the best antichess players used to be @f4opening, using the very unpopular f4 opening, lol. If beating unusual openings was just a matter of memorizing, then top guys would be able to beat him easy, but that was not the case. I think you are incorrect in saying that long memorized lines solve antichess. It wouldn't be a good game if it was solved. If the computer plays against itself, it often draws. That's why it is a good game, it's not solved, and I assure you, the top players are not just doing long memorization.

But of course, if a player responds incorrectly to an opening, then yes, it can be punished, just like chess. I say there's no way antichess requires more memorization. Chess takes the crown for that.

With lichess opening book this things are well estimated.
Here is an experiment: use random number generator to make first 3-4 moves completely random. (Easy to do, number all pieces and number set of their moves, skip if move is not possible).

In normal chess you have dozens of equal continuations, and very few losing i.e. this approach will enrich game mostly while keeping your chances.

Try to act same in Amti and you have lost game most of attempts.

In fact, completely skipping learning openings in chess is good and valid approach. Probably works well up until to 2500.

Hmmm, interesting. If you can get past "memorizing" openings, I think you would find that the game has lots of room for tactics, and psych outs, and traps, like chess. Having played many games, I know there's only a few moves to avoid in openings that result in guaranteed loss. There's a few losing blunders that can be made early in each opening, I guess. It doesn't seem like a lot to memorize, to me, I don't even have a great memory. Of course, if one is actuully skilled at antichess, then you can see what early moves will result in loss fairly easy. But then again, skilled players can make it seem like they are "losing", while knowing that a poor looking board early might result in an impossible end game for the opponent. I maintain that anti chess is not overly focused on memorization.

I play c4 as white. I know of two variations that result in guaranteed mate within 5 moves. Not too much to memorize.

It's not easier at all. In Antichess, you can't tell who's winning or losing. It's incredibly inconsistent, most of the time, black doesn't win.

The most recent example of an outlier would be none other than the legend himself, PepsiNGaming, who managed to reach 2600 a bit over a year ago. Last time ratings like these were reached were when antichess was at its peak, a few years ago. Nowadays fewer players play, and a shrinking player pool is also contributing to lower leaderboard ratings (fewer players to deviate from the average). I would also like to add to the fact that antichess players often stick to lower time controls such as 2+0, since the game tends to get boring at longer time controls (With the exception of the ACWC - it is always exciting! :P ), and thus, they are prone to make mistakes more often.

There are probably loads of other factors that I haven't mentioned, but this is a quick summary made by a former top player (some say I still am, I disagree though) :)

@ShootingStar34 I disagree with you completely on both points.

For starters, if you give any random position on an antichess board, chances are every single one of the top 20-50 players right now would choose the same side to play as (obviously with a few outliers). Antichess is certainly different than standard, but after playing the game for a while and learning, you can most definitely say which side is slightly better in most positions (in most games).

Your second point was that black almost never wins. Interestingly enough if you look at the ACWC 2018 on Youtube by @looking5ward and @pepsingaming I'm pretty sure something like the first 8 games of the match were won by black...Antichess has been solved for white, but there are so many different possible scenarios and cases, it would take a lifetime to even have a small chance at that.

In general, do I think antichess is easier than standard chess? And to that I would say yes, but for different reasons. I would say comparing the top players from each isn't a fair way to do things because obviously there are millions of people who play chess every week and only about 10000 people who play antichess. I'd say because as previously stated, if you dedicated your entire life for say 10 years to antichess, there is a possibility you'd be virtually unbeatable, whereas in chess that certainly is impossible to say.

In short, antichess is still an incredible game that can be evaluated and played at the highest level, and the players that do play it at a high level (including both @Shiaxou and I), make it incredibly interesting and fun too watch. Is it "easier" than standard chess, yeah probably, but easy is also a relative term and I do not think antichess is "easy."

Edit:
@SeaSkank I think to answer one of your questions, I think antichess is more difficult to pick up on for standard players compared to other variants because the tactics and concepts are very different from other variants. I think within a couple months any titled player could become 2000+ at antichess, but because of the difference in concepts and how differently it is played relative to standard with respect to other variants, it is likely the strangest one to learn.

Anti chess is easier than standard.

lol @SeaSkank I love how you repeatedly say that antichess isn't solved, and that it's only good because of that. Actually, antichess is solved(and has been for years), but people seem to be enjoying it just fine anyway.
You may have missed this because it was called losing chess or suicide chess back when it was solved. Here's a link.
http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/~watkins/LOSING_CHESS/
Not only is 1.e3 a proven win, but 1.f4 is a proven(and relatively easy, for computers) loss.
And if you say that "computers playing each other usually draw", you aren't including the strong ones. They always win when they play white, no matter who/what plays black.
I suspect that the upper limit on antichess ratings is because once people get good enough to really start learning opening lines, they discover the proofs online and lose interest. Although some develop an interest in antichess960, which is only 1/960th solved :P