The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search

[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Rated Comments for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2008-04-14
 By Luis  Bolaños Mures. Braves' Chess. Solves the problem of draws in chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Charles Daniel wrote on 2008-04-17 UTCPoor ★
Regardless of whether one prefers Shatranj type conditions, bare king rules, stalemate win rules etc. This 'variant' or 'fix' which presumably uses the standard modern chess pieces is extremely poor. I challenge anyone here to actually play this game . It completely strips the beauty of the endgame from modern chess - basically all you get is a stripped down, dumbed down version of the original game

There are no new pieces, no new board - nothing .

In Capture the Scepter, I suggested a few changes to the winning conditions as well but it was pointed out to me subsequently by a more astute chess player that strong chess players sacrifice a pawn or 2 to initiate an attack that under worst case scenarios will fizzle to a draw. Removing conditions for stalemate reduces the motivation to take such a risk and thus leads to a much less dynamic game.

Some of the posters here still dont realize that the 60% draw will never be a problem for the strong to average chess player. In fact it wont be a problem with super GMs either if they didn't have to play each other all the time! The 'fix' to get a winner is simple - play a 24 game chess match - a winner will be determined.

Similar to this 'proposal' has been posted numerous times by beginners who do not understand the rules nor comprehend the subtlety of the endgame. A more fitting name would be Simple minded chess.

George Duke wrote on 2008-04-17 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
60%-Draws is atrocious. 20%-Draws is terrible. They are value judgments, deriving partly from other sports. As Luis Bolanos Mures writes, Braves' ''completely solves the problem of draws.'' If they just agree on Brave's ''Stalemate is a win'' etc., they eliminate the problem. The other couple details make Braves' Chess adequately unique for write-up by CVPage standard (and assure no Draws at all) -- although the concept ''stalemate is a win'' itself is old. Braves' provides for winner to be declared even after any 50-move no-capture or Pawn-advancement. So Draws need not be problem at all, once there is decision for this or any of 5 or 10 other specifically-defined ''Draw-eliminator'' Rules-set tack-ons. Now most CVs, being so infrequently played, do not bother to obviate, or even reduce deliberately, Draws. It has not, and never will, reach the stage of needing to fret about Draws for 9990 of 10000 ''invented'' CVs. Interesting discussions lately, but where are they going? M. Winther has pointed out most CV-writers must consider their work an art form instead of amenable to modification by agreement or consensus.

George Duke wrote on 2008-04-15 UTCGood ★★★★
Good thinking in however only one solution to supposed Draw problem. Hutnik says, ''Chess has multiple issues.'' The Computer problem is greater than either the Draw problem or the Stale-opening-lines problem. The latter two are solvable many different ways. Who wants to learn details of correct openings when Computer finds always the right move first? Only somewhat following recent Grandmaster Chess, is there less interest in Computer matches against GMs rated high in the stale 500-year-old form than only last year? Is is because the very top programs can be expected to beat all of them too now? Does that have to be the case with every Chess Variate or Rules-set or Winning condition? There has been thread once or twice about games more difficult for Computer. The cliche in Orthodox circles is that people still run foot races despite trains and cars. But that is physical not mental activity; Chess was supposed to be different in determining mental prowess, that is, when Chess was still paragon-test of intellectual skill -- no longer the case after Deep Blue and its progeny.

Charles Daniel wrote on 2008-04-14 UTCPoor ★
>>proposal to completely solve the problem of draws in
There is no problem of draws in chess. You need to be more specific. 

Libraries of opening theory analysis does imply that the  first 15 moves may be the same for many games - the logical result of cautious 
players very knowledgeable of  opening theory not willing to take too many risks.

 Stalemate =draw does not address the above 'problem'. 

Additionally, the proposal throws out every beautiful endgame study so I think being 'respectful' is sort of stretching it. 

Consider , creating  an actual chess variant (opening theory would have to start from scratch)  or perhaps  a game with changing parameters that make an accumulation of opening theory impossible.

4 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.