'No castling' variant
-
- Posts: 8838
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
'No castling' variant
Any views here on the recent Anand-Kramnik match with 'no castling allowed'?
A successful experiment: The Anand vs Kramnik "No Castling" match in Dortmund
Easier to play through than other variants, but am not sure what the point is. It can't be to discount computer training/use, as it must be trivial to get computers analysing games like this, or is it?
A successful experiment: The Anand vs Kramnik "No Castling" match in Dortmund
Easier to play through than other variants, but am not sure what the point is. It can't be to discount computer training/use, as it must be trivial to get computers analysing games like this, or is it?
-
- Posts: 21318
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: 'No castling' variant
They seemed to mostly go for positions arising from 1. c4 c5 with the play being mostly normal with the occasional outbreak of weirdness. It's a variant where you might want to set an engine loose in search for opening variations where the absence of castling made a useful difference to the established evaluation.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:06 pmIt can't be to discount computer training/use, as it must be trivial to get computers analysing games like this, or is it?
There's an idea in the Hippo where (Black) plays all the g6, Bg7, b6, Bb7, d6,e6, Ne7, Nd7, a6, h6 stuff but then is faced with Be3 and Qd2. The solution, a King march e8,f8,g8 h7 thereby defending the h pawn and connecting the rooks.
-
- Posts: 8838
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: 'No castling' variant
Would you just insert dummy rook or king moves for both sides to remove the castling right if you wanted to do computer analysis? Trouble is, you can't do that from the starting position that easily.
Actually, it is easy. Both sides play their king knight out, move the kingside rooks to g1 and g8 respectively, then back to h1 and h8, and then put the knights back on g1 and g8 and after those 4 moves by each side you have the starting position for this variant.
Alternatively, you manually set up a starting position that was the actual starting position, and specify that the castling rights had been lost by both sides.
Actually, it is easy. Both sides play their king knight out, move the kingside rooks to g1 and g8 respectively, then back to h1 and h8, and then put the knights back on g1 and g8 and after those 4 moves by each side you have the starting position for this variant.
Alternatively, you manually set up a starting position that was the actual starting position, and specify that the castling rights had been lost by both sides.
-
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm
Re: 'No castling' variant
That should be the easiest way and take 2 seconds.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 8:21 pm
Alternatively, you manually set up a starting position that was the actual starting position, and specify that the castling rights had been lost by both sides.
To Christopher's original question: it's because this variant is deemed to result in less draws as the kings are more exposed and entice players to go for nice attacks. As an additional bonus, it doesn't have centuries of theory and decades of computer analysis behind it.
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 'No castling' variant
I would have put the motivations the other way round, but yes.Wadih Khoury wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 8:38 pmTo Christopher's original question: it's because this variant is deemed to result in less draws as the kings are more exposed and entice players to go for nice attacks. As an additional bonus, it doesn't have centuries of theory and decades of computer analysis behind it.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm
Re: 'No castling' variant
If theory was the primary concern, they would just play Chess960 (Fisher random).NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 8:41 pm
I would have put the motivations the other way round, but yes.
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 'No castling' variant
I don't think so. Kramnik is challenging all assumptions, and one of those is that 960 is the only approach which removes the modern game's dependence on theory.Wadih Khoury wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 8:45 pmIf theory was the primary concern, they would just play Chess960 (Fisher random).
It would be a fascinating experiment, which obviously won't happen, to remove castling from all chess and see how long it takes, with today's computer assistance, for opening theory to develop to the same level that it has reached in the traditional game. A year, perhaps?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 21318
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: 'No castling' variant
The evidence of the KvA match is that games involving 1. e4 would be out as too risky and (boring) positional stuff after 1. c4 the order of the day. Actually an impression I had of David Howell's play in his younger days was that he never castled if there was something else to do and this took place in all openings including 1. e4 ones .NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:34 pmIt would be a fascinating experiment, which obviously won't happen, to remove castling from all chess and see how long it takes, with today's computer assistance, for opening theory to develop to the same level that it has reached in the traditional game. A year, perhaps?
-
- Posts: 1420
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm
Re: 'No castling' variant
et QSChristopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 8:21 pmActually, it is easy. Both sides play their king knight out, move the kingside rooks to g1 and g8 respectively, then back to h1 and h8, and then put the knights back on g1 and g8 and after those 4 moves by each side you have the starting position for this variant.
-
- Posts: 3052
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: 'No castling' variant
Certainly not long now that the computers are actually very good at creating opening theory from scratch.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:34 pmI don't think so. Kramnik is challenging all assumptions, and one of those is that 960 is the only approach which removes the modern game's dependence on theory.Wadih Khoury wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 8:45 pmIf theory was the primary concern, they would just play Chess960 (Fisher random).
It would be a fascinating experiment, which obviously won't happen, to remove castling from all chess and see how long it takes, with today's computer assistance, for opening theory to develop to the same level that it has reached in the traditional game. A year, perhaps?
-
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm
Re: 'No castling' variant
I sometimes wonder if castling is overrated (much though I like the right to do it). We have all 'castled into it'. I hardly ever leave my king in the centre - I suppose you could say I have been classically trained.
A word about connecting rooks. How much of this is simply for its own sake, or a way to avoid tactical weaknesses? Only occasionally does it improve the harmony of a position - a classic example is the sac on h7.
A word about connecting rooks. How much of this is simply for its own sake, or a way to avoid tactical weaknesses? Only occasionally does it improve the harmony of a position - a classic example is the sac on h7.
-
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm
Re: 'No castling' variant
Engines seems to have demonstrated the defensive value of castling: you can get between 50% and 90% of decisive games depending on sources.Nick Ivell wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:31 amI sometimes wonder if castling is overrated (much though I like the right to do it).
-
- Posts: 8838
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: 'No castling' variant
Oops. Forgot that queenside castling still possible!E Michael White wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 8:18 amet QSChristopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 8:21 pmActually, it is easy. Both sides play their king knight out, move the kingside rooks to g1 and g8 respectively, then back to h1 and h8, and then put the knights back on g1 and g8 and after those 4 moves by each side you have the starting position for this variant.
I wonder what the assessment would be in variants where only queenside castling is possible, or where only kingside castling is possible, or where White can only castle kingside and Black can only castle queenside, or where White can only castle queenside, and Black can only castle kingside?
Including the 'classical' game, I make that six variants on 'castling rights', is that correct? (All are sub-branches of the 'classical' game in the 'all possible moves' universe.)
-
- Posts: 21318
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: 'No castling' variant
Kramnik popularised a variant without queens where White castled and Black couldn't. It was called the Berlin.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:24 pmI wonder what the assessment would be in variants where only queenside castling is possible, or where only kingside castling is possible, or where White can only castle kingside and Black can only castle queenside, or where White can only castle queenside, and Black can only castle kingside?
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 'No castling' variant
Sixteen I think. Each of the four rooks can be "on" or "off".Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:24 pmIncluding the 'classical' game, I make that six variants on 'castling rights', is that correct?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.