lichess.org
Donate

Variant's role playing

Interesting!
I agree with many arguments.
That said, the structures in Chess960 are (unsurprisingly) often the same as in standard chess, so I see no negative there. The pieces are often differently places, but understanding typical structures and corresponding plans still helps a lot.
I also do not understand why not developing standard chess skills should be seen as a bad side of variants, unless one spends too much time on them.
I am referring to your following formulations: "players may lose out on practicing standard structures useful in classical chess" (about Chess960),
"You don’t learn about standard openings, piece coordination, or balanced strategy." (about Horde),
"its usefulness for classical training is limited" (Racing kings),
"The rules are so different that strategies do not transfer well to classical chess." (Atomic chess).
When you play football or read books, you should not consider it bad just because it does not develop your swimming skills. The problem with variants is when they deteriorate one's standard chess, assuming that it standard chess is the priority for a player. (Which can happen sometimes, but less often than it had been believed decades ago.)
I also noted that Horde is mentioned both under 7) and 11) in your text.
In my opinion, the impact on standard chess often depends primarily on how (how much) one plays variants. Standard blitz can be both useful and harmful for one's standard chess, depending on how one approaches it. (Learning from one's own mistakes helps.)

Interesting! I agree with many arguments. That said, the structures in Chess960 are (unsurprisingly) often the same as in standard chess, so I see no negative there. The pieces are often differently places, but understanding typical structures and corresponding plans still helps a lot. I also do not understand why not developing standard chess skills should be seen as a bad side of variants, unless one spends too much time on them. I am referring to your following formulations: "players may lose out on practicing standard structures useful in classical chess" (about Chess960), "You don’t learn about standard openings, piece coordination, or balanced strategy." (about Horde), "its usefulness for classical training is limited" (Racing kings), "The rules are so different that strategies do not transfer well to classical chess." (Atomic chess). When you play football or read books, you should not consider it bad just because it does not develop your swimming skills. The problem with variants is when they deteriorate one's standard chess, assuming that it standard chess is the priority for a player. (Which can happen sometimes, but less often than it had been believed decades ago.) I also noted that Horde is mentioned both under 7) and 11) in your text. In my opinion, the impact on standard chess often depends primarily on how (how much) one plays variants. Standard blitz can be both useful and harmful for one's standard chess, depending on how one approaches it. (Learning from one's own mistakes helps.)

yes, when play variant, everyone won't focus on variants' pros and cons. they just learn more and practice different skills in different styles of chess or variants.
but also tks for writer's care and thought

yes, when play variant, everyone won't focus on variants' pros and cons. they just learn more and practice different skills in different styles of chess or variants. but also tks for writer's care and thought