Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

What other variants should be added to chess?

@Nordlandia said in #40:

@nadjarostowa I reckon if the hourglass thingy's set right, the games won't drag on forever.

The problem with hour glass is its huge variance.

If you are starting with 30 seconds for each player, you can have a 60-move game that takes one hour.

On the other hand, if one player plays fast, the other is forced to play fast as well. Basically the faster player dictates the clock. If your opponent wants to play bullet, you have no choice but to play bullet as well.

I think this makes it quite unappealing for serious consideration.

@Nordlandia said in #40: > @nadjarostowa I reckon if the hourglass thingy's set right, the games won't drag on forever. The problem with hour glass is its huge variance. If you are starting with 30 seconds for each player, you can have a 60-move game that takes one hour. On the other hand, if one player plays fast, the other is forced to play fast as well. Basically the faster player dictates the clock. If your opponent wants to play bullet, you have no choice but to play bullet as well. I think this makes it quite unappealing for serious consideration.

@nadjarostowa said in #34:

This is all fun and good, but there dozens of different fairy chess pieces available. So the number of different kinds of "chess" is huge.

And this basically kills it. The more variety you have, the less people per variant. No variant is something special...
...You don't make something great by adding variants over variants. You just make it meaningless.

True. And yet we still invent Chess variants. There are even a few very good ones, such as Shogi or Xiangqi.

I'm largely done inventing Chess variants now, but I think it was still worth it to make the few good ones that I made.

@nadjarostowa said in #34: > This is all fun and good, but there dozens of different fairy chess pieces available. So the number of different kinds of "chess" is huge. > > And this basically kills it. The more variety you have, the less people per variant. No variant is something special... > ...You don't make something great by adding variants over variants. You just make it meaningless. True. And yet we still invent Chess variants. There are even a few very good ones, such as Shogi or Xiangqi. I'm largely done inventing Chess variants now, but I think it was still worth it to make the few good ones that I made.

Hourglass is a rope-pulling competition like tug o' war. It would've been cool to see some top-notch players duking it out in that format. Besides thinking about how the board position looks, they gotta watch out 'cause taking too long lets the other player rack up a bunch more time and vice versa. If the hourglass TC's set up right, the game should flow naturally, kinda like a steady beat between moves, like a metronome.

Hourglass is a rope-pulling competition like tug o' war. It would've been cool to see some top-notch players duking it out in that format. Besides thinking about how the board position looks, they gotta watch out 'cause taking too long lets the other player rack up a bunch more time and vice versa. If the hourglass TC's set up right, the game should flow naturally, kinda like a steady beat between moves, like a metronome.

A weak player is weak not just because they run out of time, but because they consistently make inferior moves. When it comes to chess variants, there’s no rule that says both players need to have equal conditions like in standard chess. For example, if you're matched against a higher-rated opponent, you should not press the berserk button to intentionally hinder your your skill level. That's sandbagging. To level the the playing field, that berserk option should be removed and controlled only by code that evaluates if it's going to sandbag a rating or not.

My idea of balancing time based on ratings could be a valid variant. The approach, like I said before, is the stronger player get's less time, while the weaker player get's more time. Something like a variant of Armageddon chess or Handicap chess. It's just to make things more fair, and it's not there to sandbag or prevent the game from getting completed.

At the moment ratings are influenced by time. If you remove the clock, what you have left is more of a pure test of skill, like correspondence chess. Those ratings are not compressed ratings. The clock distorts a player’s true ability. It's as bad as a school that giving you a 100 question exam and you must do it in a Hyperbullet environment. The result will be your passing mark. I don't think it would look good in a resume or prove your ability to answer the questions correctly. It proves nothing at all.

A weak player is weak not just because they run out of time, but because they consistently make inferior moves. When it comes to chess variants, there’s no rule that says both players need to have equal conditions like in standard chess. For example, if you're matched against a higher-rated opponent, you should not press the berserk button to intentionally hinder your your skill level. That's sandbagging. To level the the playing field, that berserk option should be removed and controlled only by code that evaluates if it's going to sandbag a rating or not. My idea of balancing time based on ratings could be a valid variant. The approach, like I said before, is the stronger player get's less time, while the weaker player get's more time. Something like a variant of Armageddon chess or Handicap chess. It's just to make things more fair, and it's not there to sandbag or prevent the game from getting completed. At the moment ratings are influenced by time. If you remove the clock, what you have left is more of a pure test of skill, like correspondence chess. Those ratings are not compressed ratings. The clock distorts a player’s true ability. It's as bad as a school that giving you a 100 question exam and you must do it in a Hyperbullet environment. The result will be your passing mark. I don't think it would look good in a resume or prove your ability to answer the questions correctly. It proves nothing at all.

@Toscani said in #44:

The clock distorts a player’s true ability. It's as bad as a school that giving you a 100 question exam and you must do it in a Hyperbullet environment. The result will be your passing mark. I don't think it would look good in a resume or prove your ability to answer the questions correctly. It proves nothing at all.

What a funny take.

I tend to think that someone who comes up with a solution in less time is more skilled than one who takes longer.

Not sure what your definition of "true skill" is - but you cannot really think that skill will not manifest itself in time needed for a solution. In fact, in many areas of life this is exactly what skill is about.

@Toscani said in #44: > The clock distorts a player’s true ability. It's as bad as a school that giving you a 100 question exam and you must do it in a Hyperbullet environment. The result will be your passing mark. I don't think it would look good in a resume or prove your ability to answer the questions correctly. It proves nothing at all. What a funny take. I tend to think that someone who comes up with a solution in less time is more skilled than one who takes longer. Not sure what your definition of "true skill" is - but you cannot really think that skill will not manifest itself in time needed for a solution. In fact, in many areas of life this is exactly what skill is about.

Skilled workers that work fast are not all perfectionists.
A perfectionist disregards time constraints and so wastes time on imperfection that might not matter in the long run.

Does the word good enough turn you on or off?
Skilled worker often say "good enough or it's perfect enough."
But that means that's not the best they can do, but best for the time given to do it in.

Chess in 2025 is about finding the highest quality move possible within the time available. So a move is good enough if it fits that description. But that's not a chess variant.

The subject title is: What other variants should be added to chess?
Ask 4 different AI's to get an answer. The answer will come from their training that probably came from other forum posts. It's not all hallucinations, but you can discuss those answers too.

Skilled workers that work fast are not all perfectionists. A perfectionist disregards time constraints and so wastes time on imperfection that might not matter in the long run. Does the word good enough turn you on or off? Skilled worker often say "good enough or it's perfect enough." But that means that's not the best they can do, but best for the time given to do it in. Chess in 2025 is about finding the highest quality move possible within the time available. So a move is good enough if it fits that description. But that's not a chess variant. The subject title is: What other variants should be added to chess? Ask 4 different AI's to get an answer. The answer will come from their training that probably came from other forum posts. It's not all hallucinations, but you can discuss those answers too.

@RubixOne said in #42:

True. And yet we still invent Chess variants. There are even a few very good ones, such as Shogi or Xiangqi.

They are not variants of European chess. Obviously there common root. If you consider them as variants then this European one is a variant as well. Though no-one know the rules of original one.

@RubixOne said in #42: > True. And yet we still invent Chess variants. There are even a few very good ones, such as Shogi or Xiangqi. They are not variants of European chess. Obviously there common root. If you consider them as variants then this European one is a variant as well. Though no-one know the rules of original one.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.