Fairer Chess

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
Richard James
Posts: 1175
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: Twickenham
Contact:

Fairer Chess

Post by Richard James » Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:22 am

https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/f ... 0Chess.pdf

This paper is referred to in a paywalled article in today's Sunday Times.

The proposal is to make chess fairer by starting WB/BW/WB/WB etc..

I thought today was August 1, not April 1.

What do you think?

Joseph Conlon
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Joseph Conlon » Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:38 am

It would seem to reduce the complexity of the game by reducing the effectiveness of some traditional openings (e.g. 1. d4 c5 cxd4 seems at least equal for Black whatever White then does). Openings like the Reti appear unchanged.

Colin Purdon
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:45 pm

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Colin Purdon » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:07 am

I'd like to give it a go in a few casual games.

I used to enjoy the odd game of progressive chess (W plays 1 move, B plays 2 moves, W plays 3 moves, B plays 4 moves etc, I think it may be called 123 chess too) and the variant suggested in the paper looks like a much more restrained version of this. Even so, I suspect that a game would quite quickly become very volatile, which each side making devastating threats which could be replied to with another devastating threat. If this is confirmed in practice, this variant would be more a completely different game than a fairer version of the same game.

Have to admit that I was surprised at the high proportion of white wins in decisive games at the elite level - the paper quotes 64%.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Ian Thompson » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:22 am

Richard James wrote:
Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:22 am
What do you think?
Not an original idea, see Double Move chess. Invented in 1957, apparently. You might be able to play it online here. That site is blocked for me because it's been classified as a gambling site, so I don't know if it works or not.

Colin Purdon
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:45 pm

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Colin Purdon » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:42 am

Looks like it has an even older origin than that, under the name Marseillais Chess. That gives the date as between WW1 and 1926. The same site lists other "Double move chess" variants (not to be confused with "Double Chess"!).

Having said that, those variants - unlike "Fairer Chess" - do not start with a single move for White, and some allow king capture rather than standard check/checkmate.

User avatar
Stephen Westmoreland
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:55 pm
Location: Holmfirth

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Stephen Westmoreland » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:44 am

I think people need to stop messing with stuff :)
HDCA President

Richard James
Posts: 1175
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: Twickenham
Contact:

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Richard James » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:45 am

Colin Purdon wrote:
Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:07 am
I'd like to give it a go in a few casual games.

I used to enjoy the odd game of progressive chess (W plays 1 move, B plays 2 moves, W plays 3 moves, B plays 4 moves etc, I think it may be called 123 chess too) and the variant suggested in the paper looks like a much more restrained version of this. Even so, I suspect that a game would quite quickly become very volatile, which each side making devastating threats which could be replied to with another devastating threat. If this is confirmed in practice, this variant would be more a completely different game than a fairer version of the same game.

Have to admit that I was surprised at the high proportion of white wins in decisive games at the elite level - the paper quotes 64%.
This paper isn't proposing Double Move Chess: the idea is that White plays one move, Black plays two moves, White plays two moves, then the game continues with one move at a time, as in normal chess.

Richard James
Posts: 1175
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: Twickenham
Contact:

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Richard James » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:46 am

Stephen Westmoreland wrote:
Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:44 am
I think people need to stop messing with stuff :)
I agree, both generally and specifically! Others may not, though.

Colin Purdon
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:45 pm

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Colin Purdon » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:58 am

Sorry Richard, you are quite right, my eyes evidently couldn't handle the WB/ notation correctly.

I agree with Stephen Westmoreland and you that this meddling is unnecessary, except as a diversion. However, that could be from the perspective of club level chess and the authors of the paper do make an argument that at elite level and above (computers) the difference in White/Black results is so marked that alternatives should be considered. I don't see that elite chess is broken, so my vote would be to keep it as it is.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:14 pm

Colin Purdon wrote:
Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:58 am
I don't see that elite chess is broken, so my vote would be to keep it as it is.
As noted earlier it makes no difference if both players start N-KB3, P-KN3, B-N2. On the other hand sequences where an early capture is possible such as the Kings Gambit and Queens Gambit are presumably both ruled out until an engine works out from first principles who it favours.

I think it's understood that Black has sufficient chances in the initial position that were there to be a theoretical solution, the verdict would be draw, but with advantage to White. It follows then that when someone wins it's more likely to be White.

Paul Habershon
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:51 pm

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Paul Habershon » Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:24 pm

Colin Purdon wrote:
Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:58 am


I agree with Stephen Westmoreland and you that this meddling is unnecessary, except as a diversion. However, that could be from the perspective of club level chess and the authors of the paper do make an argument that at elite level and above (computers) the difference in White/Black results is so marked that alternatives should be considered. I don't see that elite chess is broken, so my vote would be to keep it as it is.
Agree with the 'unnecessary at club level' point. In many ways I am pleased not to be a GM. Too much hard work, whereas amateur chess has so many inaccuracies that it doesn't much matter if you are White or Black, you nearly always get your chances. Much more fun.

However, I wouldn't support the change at elite level either. Ok, in many tournaments you are going to get one more Black than White, but that's not significant enough for such a major change. Important events like the Candidates are double round anyway. I wonder what the programmers of Fritz et al would make of it?

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5820
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:08 pm

"I wonder what the programmers of Fritz et al would make of it?"

They would probably see what Stockfish had done?

Richard Thursby
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:25 am
Location: origin + pathname + search + hash

Re: Fairer Chess

Post by Richard Thursby » Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:11 am

Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:22 am
You might be able to play it online here. That site is blocked for me because it's been classified as a gambling site, so I don't know if it works or not.
I wouldn't go anywhere near that site; it doesn't use TLS. [With apologies for being absolutely nothing to do with the topic.]

Post Reply