Relocation in the standard array...

[Mats Winther]

I want to strike a blow for alternative setups of pieces. This will
enhance creativity in chess, at least it's good for chess training. I
think chess journalist should seriously begin to discuss this issue in
this era of computerized opening preparation.

There exist alternative ways of generating moderate alterations of the
intial setup. Before play begins, one can swap places between the king
+ queen and another piece except the rooks, whilst castling is
retained according to Fischer Random castling rules. White always
makes the last relocation, which allows him to develop a strategical
initiative. While these are modest deviations from the standard
position the general chessplayer would feel at home in any of the
resultant positions. Moreover, unlike randomized Chess960 (which is
included in FIDE's chess-rules from 1 July), the player here decides the
setup of his own pieces. Below is a link to an article with diagrams, and
links to software that can play the variants. Please read and evaluate.

http://www.two-paths.com/bg/relocationvariants.htm

Mats

[Mats Winther]

Relocation Chess. This is the simplest of my proposed relocation
methods in that it only needs two half-moves to execute. Nevertheless,
it can produce 64 different positions. Both players can relocate
either the king or queen. Black begins by making the initial swap.
Alternatively he can choose to leave the position as it is. The white
player then has the option to relocate his king or queen, whereupon he
starts the game by making the first move. In this example, Black has
relocated the king to b8 and the relocatee to e8. White has relocated
the queen to b1, and the relocatee is thus placed on d1. Castling is
retained according to Chess960 rules, that is, king and rooks end up
on their usual squares.

Curtailed castling: as an alternative rule, the king may retain
its castling right only if it is placed on any of the four central
files. In other words, if the king is positioned on the g or b file,
the castling right is forfeited. After all, such a safety move brings
certain advantages, so it should cost something. This restrictive
rule would also enhance strategical predictability. Read more here:

http://www.two-paths.com/bg/relocationvariants.htm

Mats

[Mats Winther]

Forgive me for bumping this. Please evaluate my proposal.
/Mats

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Please evaluate my proposal."

Possibly five years of silence does evaluate it.

[Stewart Reuben]

Being kinder than Kevin. There is nothing new in the proposal that wasn't suggest 500 years ago. Another wrinkle is that each player makes his selection of placement of the pieces privately and writes them down. Then all is revealed.
Another alternative. Count the pieces as of point value 39. Then you can divide them as you wish. e.g. 4Q + 3P.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Another alternative. Count the pieces as of point value 39. Then you can divide them as you wish. e.g. 4Q + 3P.

In that variant, I'd deinitely pick 39 pawns and wait for my opponent's queens to come forward

[Stewart Reuben]

Mostly quintupled pawns!

[MartinCarpenter]

39 pawns not really legal to deploy Most variants like this only give you the 2nd/3rd and 4th rank for pawns. 1st rank if kind I guess, but the 5th is your opponents!

You do have to be careful with going too far over the top with pawns though - your opponent will be able to sacrifice a bit to force an open rank or two and then your king may well be very exposed.

16 pawns and 7 knights vs a normal(ish) chess set is a rather saner idea, quite balanced/fun to mess with.

The one 'unbalanced' game with real historic prestige seems to be swapping one sides Q for 8 extra pawns. Anywhere on the 3rd/4th ranks. Even some non trivial preopening (where the pawns go) theory in the encylopedia.

Having tried such things with various non standard pieces thrown in - using printed western style shogi piece anologues made keeping track possible - the thing which truly breaks is ~20 non royal kings. Just an all consuming blob Not sure what'd be fair - 14 maybe?

[Niall Doran]

I don't really see the point of chess variants, other than Chess960 or Fischerrandom, as the problem is you'll never find anyone to play against, and even if you do, there'll never be any serious competitions.

[MartinCarpenter]

Well I've got a pair of brothers I believe that some of the variants like progressive, suicide etc have at least moderately well established correspondence communities.

To be honest, you wouldn't actually wan't to play the substantial majority of variants as seriously as standard chess. They really wouldn't stand up very well to the sort of detailed evaluation that would come from having lots of people seriously playing and studying them

The stuff with variant chess piece layouts like 8 pawns for a Q, the odd variant chess piece etc, is all close enough to orthodox chess that it'd work very nicely for club night blitz.

[Stewart Reuben]

Niall Doran >I don't really see the point of chess variants, other than Chess960 or Fischerrandom, as the problem is you'll never find anyone to play against, and even if you do, there'll never be any serious competitions.<

Kriegspiel used to be very popular. It went out of fashion probably because foling cardboard boards are no longer used.
Alice chess is another excellent variation.
Both have the merit of being utterly alien to standard chess. They require different types of thinking. I see little point in a variation which is just another chss game. They also have the merit with children that it teaches them the value of the coordinates.
Exchange chess is very popular with children up to the age of about 13.

[Niall Doran]

Yes Stewart, unfortunately I'm only too aware of the popularity of exchange chess with that age group, as I generally have to reorganise the mismatched sets in my club when they've gone home!