Good size blogs. Focus on few ideas to transmit... and recall the blog layout for a while.... among other good things
regarding content. I think the love of chess and positional plan decisions that could make from more subtle and longer battles, would try to reduce such fog increasing moves (for the decision time and sideness of it if position equipotent, isotropic?), or such king safety acceleration or deep safe room secret exit right in the middle of an otherwise rich game.
but the tournament logistic imperatives of shorter games for more people to participate (or the other way around...?) would pressure to keep all those anti-game protracting rules....
Ok it might not just be about whole game depth problem, but could shift around position issues in a more spatial way without affect that much the typical depth of equally paired ones.
But i don't think the iconic or cultural inertia is the only factor....
but the tournament logistic imperatives of shorter games for more people to participate (or the other way around...?) would pressure to keep all those anti-game protracting rules....
Ok it might not just be about whole game depth problem, but could shift around position issues in a more spatial way without affect that much the typical depth of equally paired ones.
But i don't think the iconic or cultural inertia is the only factor....
If you want to play chess without castling, you can do so on pychess.org and probably other places as well.
removing castling=no funny mates, nah
i like the fog of castling... don't get me wrong i was just analyzing the analysis of ruleset evolution.
Chess rules should change whenever the game is getting too solved. Could be :
- Switching castling rules :
- Illegal castling, replaced by king's leap (castle predecessor)
- Illegal castling, illegal leap,
- Multiple castling (the king can move then castle)
- ...
- Disabling en passant
- Pat is Mat
- All pawns move by one square at a time
- Promote on the 2nd/7th
- King promotion is a win
- ...
- Switching castling rules :
- Illegal castling, replaced by king's leap (castle predecessor)
- Illegal castling, illegal leap,
- Multiple castling (the king can move then castle)
- ...
- Disabling en passant
- Pat is Mat
- All pawns move by one square at a time
- Promote on the 2nd/7th
- King promotion is a win
- ...
solved? to what extent is it? I don't think it is. and not for human digestion (thinking of TB).
Even if strongly solved all the way, there is no way for one human to have all the possibilities in live memory.
Good that there are tools to explore alternatives though. They might even help contrast with standard. (ruleset mutations as probing mechanism).
Our limitations mean that there will always be long-term fog.
Even if strongly solved all the way, there is no way for one human to have all the possibilities in live memory.
Good that there are tools to explore alternatives though. They might even help contrast with standard. (ruleset mutations as probing mechanism).
Our limitations mean that there will always be long-term fog.
<Comment deleted by user>
Is castling an overpowered move? I think the author of this article raises a compelling argument. However, I think that a possible approach to this problem would be to allow castling to be less restrictive instead of more, or even banning it out right. Wouldn’t chess games be more interesting if the king could castle after he moved, provided that the king and the rook are in the right place? This would allow multiple castles per side, promoting more dynamic activity. On the other hand, castling is a pretty big commitment to your king, so some would probably use it as a get-out-of-jail-free card to escape threats on one side of the board.