@JKS369 said in #1:
> While I like variants (atomic and racing Kings) I have gotten some criticism about them not being "real" chess. Are variants "real" and do they help improve our standard chess skills?
id say no
@edot12345 said in #6:
> depends on your definition of real
What would you define as "real"
I noticed that 960 players are often very strong at tactics (puzzles). By design it’s the closest to standard, so most synergy can be expected.
If I was to venture into variants, 960 would be my first stop because of that.
As for what’s real: just do the things you enjoy, you don’t need anybody’s approval.
@piazzai how does racing kings/ 3 check have a stronger effect than Antichess? In Antichess you literally have to give all your pieces away..
I would agree with the rest of numbers in your blog except antichess.
@SD_2709 said in #24:
>
@piazzai how does racing kings/ 3 check have a stronger effect than Antichess? In Antichess you literally have to give all your pieces away..
> I would agree with the rest of numbers in your blog except antichess.
I understand your point. I was also expecting Antichess to be as harmful as can be, considering you're supposed to do exactly what you shouldn't be doing in standard. One possibility is that, because Antichess is so evidently different from standard, you are a bit less likely to misapply experienced gained from playing it compared to what you would expect.
Three-Check really looks like standard but you are incentivized to throw your pieces at the enemy king even if this does not result in checkmate. This can be disastrous in a standard game. I honestly don't know about Racing Kings. I was expecting it to be more like Antichess. Perhaps someone else has an idea of why it is so bad for standard.
Well I guess the no check rule. Three check I get it but antichess I am a bit skeptical..
I mostly play variants just for fun and to improve in the variants (bc i love variants)
I think that Chess960 helps with your tactical knowledge and general chess awareness because you can't rely on book moves to do your openings, you have to analyze the board and decide which moves are the best as an opening
RK: i don't see any benefit for this, but it's kinda fun to play
antichess: i think this might help you in your combinations but the tactics are wildly different
atomic: I find that playing atomic chess makes me more aware of attacks i can start and how to sacrifice pieces
ZH: crazyhouse is.. well.. crazy. it can help with making attacks, but also defending them because you have to be good at both to be good at ZH (which I'm not lol)
3-check: i don't see any benefit for this other than how to find checks... which usually isn't all that useful in a real game
Horde: i mean maybe this could help you with pawn storms and how to defend them but other than that it's not really beneficial to normal chess
KOTH: i think this would give big benefits in general opening theory and controlling the center because, quite literally, that is what the game is about. You don't control the center, you almost certainly lose.
overall analysis: variants are fun! and a nice break from normal chess! as long as you don't forget that you're not playing a variant when you're playing normal chess, i think variants could potentially be helpful (and probably are especially 960) to your normal chess.
plus they're fUN
like who doesn't want to explode things??
are variants "real" chess?
technically, no. they have their own rules and tactics
BUT tactics from normal chess carry over into variants and some tactics from variants are more prominent in their variants and thus could help you learn that tactic in normal chess (as long as you don't overdo it [e.g. sacrificing pieces which is used a lot in Atomic chess])
I like to think of chess as the set of all possible positions. What we call a variant is a set of rules that excludes certain positions and defines the relationship between the others, and it also allows it to be played as a game. I think the variant that we call standard chess is particularly interesting, but I'm also drawn to it just because it has a rich history and an extensive body of literature to study. It seems like other variants are on the rise and it's difficult to predict which ones will develop their own rich histories and literature, but if you really like one of them, then you could be one of the pioneers. Incidentally, I think this is the best way to understand physical reality too: it's just an enormous set of positions and the laws of physics explain which positions are impossible and define the transformational relationship between all the others. There are no variants, of course, but we still imagine them anyway, with fantasy literature and other magical thinking.
Some variants like Chess960, Crazyhouse, KOTH or Three-check are inspired by real chess, but Antichess, Atomic, Horde and RK are variants not or little inspired by real chess
