Stale Chess (variant idea)

[Steven DuCharme]

no checks. stalemate wins. thoughts?

[NickFaulks]

No checks, the way we all used to play blitz? I'm for that, although it's not really a variant, just a simpler and more logical way of playing the same game.

Stalemate winning is certainly different, but I think the stalemate concept adds something to the game and would be sorry to ditch it.

An entirely different idea got a mention on the forum a while ago, to combat the dominance of opening theory. Instead of the palaver of 960 chess, why not just start with the black king and queen switched ( with an obvious amendment to the castling rule )? In the unlikely event that that this chess v2 became popular, it would be interesting to see how long it took, in the modern world, for its opening theory to reach the same level as chess v1.

[Michael Farthing]

My idea has been that you start the game with just the pawns on display. The first 8 moves consist of each side adding their pieces in an order of their choice to any of the still free back rank squares. Castling, I think, woud need to be abolished.

[Stewart Reuben]

Michel there is nothing new in that. Except usually the pieces have to be symmetrically placed.Thus White puts his K on h1 and Black h8. Then Black his Q on d8 and White his Q on d1. Now its White's turn.

I have often wondered why the stalemate rule as a draw was introduced. But I suspect without it, White would score 60%. Tht would be OK if you played two games, one with White and one with Black. That is certainly how chess should be played.
I would like to organise a Swiss with each round consisting of two games against the same opponent. Two games a day of course standardplay. 7 rounds would be ideal, perhaps in 8 days.

[Roger de Coverly]

But I suspect without it, White would score 60%. Tht would be OK if you played two games, one with White and one with Black.

Would you really want to contemplate rewriting much of endgame theory, with the consequent knock on effects that made some openings unplayable?

[Stewart Reuben]

Of course not. That is why the Rules Commission always rejects proposals for radical changes without real discussion.
But chess is one of the few games where one player has a substantial advantage at the start of the game and no attempt is made to address that. If every encounter was a two game match, the problem would be solved. You still wouldn't change the stalemate rule.

[NickFaulks]

Would you really want to contemplate rewriting much of endgame theory, with the consequent knock on effects that made some openings unplayable?

I think that second point is the reason why you might contemplate it. A problem of today's top level chess ( as seen from where I am ) is that there are tedious defences available to Black reaching inferior endings which can, in the right hands, be held. Perhaps a change in the stalemate rule would render these lost, so Black would be forced to play more actively.

I wonder what people with a better understanding of the 2700+ game think. Is there a chance that chess would start to look like a forced win for White?

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps a change in the stalemate rule would render these lost, so Black would be forced to play more actively.

I think both players would have to play less actively as sacrificing a pawn for activity would likely lose unless it lead to an opposite Bishops ending or forced repetition.

[NickFaulks]

I think both players would have to play less actively as sacrificing a pawn for activity would likely lose unless it lead to an opposite Bishops ending or forced repetition.

You think people will only play enterprising chess if they think there's a bailout into a tenable ending if it goes wrong? That's a bit sad.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Perhaps a change in the stalemate rule would render these lost, so Black would be forced to play more actively.

I think both players would have to play less actively as sacrificing a pawn for activity would likely lose unless it lead to an opposite Bishops ending or forced repetition.

If Roger is right here, then what rule change would make it more rewarding for players to sacrifice material for activity, or to just play actively? i.e. Imagine a version of chess before the stalemate=draw rule was introduced. That version would have been more cautious and less active. The introduction of the stalemate rule made it possible to seek activity and then bale out later into endings that could be held. Is it possible to come up with a rule change like "stalemate is a draw" that would have a similar effect on today's game?

Maybe something that tips the balance towards the attacking player. Though silicon monsters would likely say that any such variant is a forced win for White.

What effect would allowing the defending player an extra (non-capturing and non-checking) move have? I think such variants exist but are not that well known. Something like:

When a player gives check, an additional non-checking and non-capturing move may be made in addition to the move giving check. The player who is in check must then first evade the check (i.e. not be checkmated), and can in turn make an additional non-checking and non-capturing move.

i.e. Players in check or giving check get the option of an extra non-checking and non-capturing move.

(I was going to say the extra move by the player giving check needs to be made with a piece other than the piece giving check [and that the piece giving check can't be used to capture the king with the extra move!], but then remembered that you can have double checks - also, the extra move might be used to block the original check, which could be confusing!)

Would this tweak aid the defence or attack more? It would depend on the position, I presume.

I don't think this has too much of an effect on K+P endgames (I hope!).

[Chris Rice]

Previous changes to the way pieces and pawns move have been designed to speed things up and perhaps all that's needed is just an extension of that. So how about allowing pawns to move up to three squares on their first move? I suspect this could speed up all phases of the game considerably. Imagine playing 1 e5 as your first move. Well, its not that hard to imagine as Carlsen as Black has had a game go 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ng8. An extension to the en passant rule might be added ie 1 b3 d5 2 e5 then the d-pawn can take the e-pawn either at e4 or e3. Endgame pawn races could be over in no time.
The stalemate rule could be left in but I've always thought it illogical that this should be counted as ½ - ½ rather than say ¾ - ¼.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick > Is there a chance that chess would start to look like a forced win for White?<

There is a way to establish the facts here. Program a computer to play chess where stalemate wins for the stalemater. Then have it play 10,000 games against itself.

Christopher >If Roger is right here, then what rule change would make it more rewarding for players to sacrifice material for activity, or to just play actively? <

Extreme changes in the current Laws are not required. Those you or Chris suggest make huge differences.
It is within the current Laws to award 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss. Some tournaments are played that way. But this has no effect on a two game match, or a knockout match. The system has not found great favour for various reasons.
In a normal tournament, Whire retains an edge. Why not?
10 for a win the Black, 9 for a win with White, 5 for a draw with Black, 4 for a draw with White, 1 for a loss with Black, 0 for a loss with White. That takes care of the colour imbalance problem, but does little to combat too many draws
10 for a win with Black, 9 for a win with White. 3 for a draw with Black, 2 for a draw with White, 1 for a loss with Black, 0 for a loss with White

That takes care of both problems and requires no change in the Laws of Chess.
Popularise the system by putting about £50 million into the game played this way. It would eventually become popular.

If there were a large number of games played other than the current 1. 05. 0 then a new rating system would be needed. Some years ago the QC decided that there was no need to bother with so few such games. The issue would be rvisited if it became a problem. But, of course, it is nonsense for 3/1/0 to use the same rating system.

[NickFaulks]

Nick > Is there a chance that chess would start to look like a forced win for White?<

There is a way to establish the facts here. Program a computer to play chess where stalemate wins for the stalemater. Then have it play 10,000 games against itself.

I'm not sure that's true. If you conduct the experiment under current rules, most games will be drawn but White will win some and even Black will win a few. What does that prove?

If under the new rules White had a convincing enough advantage that he always won, then it wouldn't take 10,000 games. Fifty out of the first fifty would convince me.

It would of course be interesting if White's percentage went up from 55% ( if that's what it is ) to 65%, but wouldn't prove anything fundamental.

By the way, you must of course find a way to stop it from continually playing the same game!

[Roger de Coverly]

If there were a large number of games played other than the current 1. 05. 0 then a new rating system would be needed. Some years ago the QC decided that there was no need to bother with so few such games. The issue would be rvisited if it became a problem. But, of course, it is nonsense for 3/1/0 to use the same rating system.

You have been asserting this for many years. Cam you explain why? Why does the predicted result in terms of wins, draws and losses vary with whether you score 3-1-0 or as at present? If you started to use 3-1-0 in rating calculations, you would break the Elo system, but why otherwise?

[Stewart Reuben]

If 3-1-0 makes no difference to the pattern, why bother with it? Of course, if people play properly, it will make a difference. Even Bogdan might become more aggressive when white. Anyway, if you don't think much of that, try 4-1-0.
One reason 3-1-0 has never gained popularity is that Geurt Gijssen and I were against it. We feared, if used in Swisses, there would be more cheating by collusion in the last round.

Nick >It would of course be interesting if White's percentage went up from 55% ( if that's what it is ) to 65%, but wouldn't prove anything fundamental.
By the way, you must of course find a way to stop it from continually playing the same game!

I believe on the games on ChessBase, it is about 51.5% to 48.5%.
Without stalemate I reckon a minimum of 55% to 45%. No proof of course.
You are quite correct. You would have to write the program so that variation was required at the latest after perhaps Black's 5th move.
The point of the exercise would be to provide a cogent answer why dropping stalemate would not do at all.

On another thread, it is suggested that, for games bewteen players under 140, the colour makes no difference.

A way to even things up: 1 Nc3 Nc6 2 Rb1 Nb8 3 Ra1 Na6 4 Nb1 Nb8. According to Fritz, the position is now equal. Moreover, an arbiter glancing casually at the position, would think it is the normal one.