Synchronous chess or reflections on some of the shortcomings of the classic chess game
In classical chess, with all their undoubted merits, there is one “flaw” that even novice chess players know (or guess): a player with white pieces goes first, which gives him an “advantage” over his opponent. This "advantage" is not particularly significant when playing two lovers, but it becomes more significant when more experienced players sit at the chessboard.
Assuming that a deliberately winning strategy (for both white and black pieces) does not exist from the basic position in chess, by the “advantage” of white I mean a slightly larger number of “favorable” scenarios for the player making the first move, with enough a good level of balance of chess, as such. And in general, with the “faultless” game of two chess players (or the game of God with himself), the inevitable result of a chess game should be a draw. Moreover, the chess draw zone is the widest among the most popular table-based logic games. So, the “advantage” of white is relative, and is manifested mainly statistically in chess tournaments of various levels in the form of a larger number of games won by white than games won by black.
Before starting work on this article, I was very clearly aware that I was not the first to raise a similar question and not the first to try to find the answer, how to get around such a “flaw”. However, my goal is not to research this issue, but just mind games for fun, and therefore I didn’t want to explore the Internet in search of other people's solutions and ask the all-knowing Google. But I wanted to develop my own independent idea, which obviously would not improve a near-perfect game called chess, but it would become a “new” look at it and, maybe, even seem interesting to someone else.
')
As you already guessed, the most obvious solution would be to “cut down the problem at the root,” allowing both opponents to make moves at the same time. So, we have just cut down a wonderful tree that has brought us tasty fruits for over a thousand years and has grown over the years tall, beautiful and branchy. Well, let's grow a new one.
The new principle of simultaneous progress of both players has a very strong effect on the gameplay and modifies the rules that exist in classical chess, because players can only speculate what the situation will be like on the chessboard after their simultaneous progress. For example, opponents can simultaneously try to occupy the same cage or “jump over” the cage occupied by the opponent’s figure, the “classic” pawn can try to attack the opponent’s figure diagonally, which by the same move goes to another field The “classic” style will be much more difficult.
Solving the “problem” with a pawn is quite simple - you just need to allow her to attack those fields that she could only walk on (one or two cells forward), and allow her to go to those fields that she previously could only attack (diagonally forward). ). Now our pawns are free to move one square diagonally forward, as well as one (or two, if the pawn is horizontal to the second from the player) cell forward, regardless of whether there is an enemy figure or not.
The “problem” of the movement of a figure through a field occupied by the opponent’s figure on the same turn can be considered insignificant by allowing such movements.
Now we will try to solve the “problem” of simultaneous movement of opponents' figures on the same cell. Alternatively, we can suggest that each attempt to simultaneously occupy the same field was considered invalid, with the prohibition of the next attempt of such movement of both pieces on the same turn. It can be assumed that such situations will occur quite often, and a “failure” when moving figures will significantly reduce the dynamics of a chess match.
The next option for this development will be the simultaneous withdrawal from the board of both pieces (the most dynamic of the options). Unfortunately, this option can quickly empty a chessboard and lead to a low-figure endgame.
The third option is a miscalculation of the outcome of the “battle” between the figures, simultaneously attacking this field, according to certain rules. There are countless criteria that can be used to identify the results of the "collision" of two figures of different colors. For example, the color of a disputed cell can be considered decisive in a fight, which is one of the simplest selection criteria. Having considered one of the solutions to the “problem” of simultaneous move to the same chessboard field, let us consider such terms as “check” and “checkmate” (from which the Russian name of the classic chess game originated) in a new context.
The simultaneity factor introduces some “unpredictability” into the game, because with each subsequent move both players are invited to respond to a situation that will appear on the board only after this move. Thus, it will not be superfluous to introduce into the game the possibility of taking the king as an ordinary figure, which will be considered the main goal of the game and the only opportunity to win it. If the players take kings at the same time, a draw is counted.
Let us try to create a structured set of rules, which so far does not explicitly take into account all possible situations that may arise during the game.
1. Players walk at the same time.
2. The course can be skipped. If both players miss a move two times in a row, a draw is counted.
3. The same figure can not walk twice in a row, but retains the area of attack.
Note: A non-moveable figure still has an attacking effect on movement fields that will become available next turn. Thus, the king of the opponent cannot walk on the cells under attack of this figure, as well as castling, if its attack extends to the initial, intermediate or final position of the king in the castling procedure.
4. The goal of the game is to take the opponent's king.
5. If the contenders simultaneously took the kings of each other, a draw is counted.
6. A pawn gains the ability to move or attack a cell from the front and diagonal cells from the front, as well as a move two cells forward or attack this cell, if it is on the second horizontal line from the player.
Note # 1: Thus, the set of cells to which the pawn can now move completely coincides with the set of cells attacked by it (in classical chess, the set of attacked cells does not intersect with the set of free cells to which the pawn can move). The same pattern is observed for any other pieces other than the pawn.
Note 2: In view of the significantly increased attacking power of the pawn, we introduce the rule written in the next paragraph.
7. The transformation of the pawn on the last rank is limited to the pieces of the same color already taken by the opponent. If no such pieces were taken, the pawn cannot advance to the last rank, but continues to attack it.
8. Shapes can "jump" through the figures of opponents, if on the previous move their path in this direction was free.
9. With the simultaneous movement of opponents on the same cell, the figure whose color matches the color of the cell remains on the chessboard, and the second leaves it.
Note No. 1: This factor leads to an increase in one of the elephants relative to the second for each of the parties. For example, for white, an elephant moving in white cells has a stronger attack than an elephant moving in black cells. Black is the opposite.
Note # 2: This factor also leads to the possibility of taking one king by another.
10. In the case of a mutual attack, the figures change places.
We got a chess game lacking a "lack of" sequence, but with an element of unpredictability. A game with similar rules will most conveniently play with a partner online using computers or mobile phones, or hotseat using one computer (although this option does not seem appropriate). Similar rules can be taught and a computer program. However, I personally don’t find it interesting to measure strength with a computer in chess games.
Is it possible to play similar "simultaneous" chess at a regular chessboard? This is real, although each of the players will have to write down the planned move in order to check it against the opponent’s move (after all, don’t believe the word of the perfidious opponent).
Assuming that a deliberately winning strategy (for both white and black pieces) does not exist from the basic position in chess, by the “advantage” of white I mean a slightly larger number of “favorable” scenarios for the player making the first move, with enough a good level of balance of chess, as such. And in general, with the “faultless” game of two chess players (or the game of God with himself), the inevitable result of a chess game should be a draw. Moreover, the chess draw zone is the widest among the most popular table-based logic games. So, the “advantage” of white is relative, and is manifested mainly statistically in chess tournaments of various levels in the form of a larger number of games won by white than games won by black.
Before starting work on this article, I was very clearly aware that I was not the first to raise a similar question and not the first to try to find the answer, how to get around such a “flaw”. However, my goal is not to research this issue, but just mind games for fun, and therefore I didn’t want to explore the Internet in search of other people's solutions and ask the all-knowing Google. But I wanted to develop my own independent idea, which obviously would not improve a near-perfect game called chess, but it would become a “new” look at it and, maybe, even seem interesting to someone else.
')
As you already guessed, the most obvious solution would be to “cut down the problem at the root,” allowing both opponents to make moves at the same time. So, we have just cut down a wonderful tree that has brought us tasty fruits for over a thousand years and has grown over the years tall, beautiful and branchy. Well, let's grow a new one.
The new principle of simultaneous progress of both players has a very strong effect on the gameplay and modifies the rules that exist in classical chess, because players can only speculate what the situation will be like on the chessboard after their simultaneous progress. For example, opponents can simultaneously try to occupy the same cage or “jump over” the cage occupied by the opponent’s figure, the “classic” pawn can try to attack the opponent’s figure diagonally, which by the same move goes to another field The “classic” style will be much more difficult.
Solving the “problem” with a pawn is quite simple - you just need to allow her to attack those fields that she could only walk on (one or two cells forward), and allow her to go to those fields that she previously could only attack (diagonally forward). ). Now our pawns are free to move one square diagonally forward, as well as one (or two, if the pawn is horizontal to the second from the player) cell forward, regardless of whether there is an enemy figure or not.
The “problem” of the movement of a figure through a field occupied by the opponent’s figure on the same turn can be considered insignificant by allowing such movements.
Now we will try to solve the “problem” of simultaneous movement of opponents' figures on the same cell. Alternatively, we can suggest that each attempt to simultaneously occupy the same field was considered invalid, with the prohibition of the next attempt of such movement of both pieces on the same turn. It can be assumed that such situations will occur quite often, and a “failure” when moving figures will significantly reduce the dynamics of a chess match.
The next option for this development will be the simultaneous withdrawal from the board of both pieces (the most dynamic of the options). Unfortunately, this option can quickly empty a chessboard and lead to a low-figure endgame.
The third option is a miscalculation of the outcome of the “battle” between the figures, simultaneously attacking this field, according to certain rules. There are countless criteria that can be used to identify the results of the "collision" of two figures of different colors. For example, the color of a disputed cell can be considered decisive in a fight, which is one of the simplest selection criteria. Having considered one of the solutions to the “problem” of simultaneous move to the same chessboard field, let us consider such terms as “check” and “checkmate” (from which the Russian name of the classic chess game originated) in a new context.
The simultaneity factor introduces some “unpredictability” into the game, because with each subsequent move both players are invited to respond to a situation that will appear on the board only after this move. Thus, it will not be superfluous to introduce into the game the possibility of taking the king as an ordinary figure, which will be considered the main goal of the game and the only opportunity to win it. If the players take kings at the same time, a draw is counted.
Let us try to create a structured set of rules, which so far does not explicitly take into account all possible situations that may arise during the game.
The main differences from classic chess:
1. Players walk at the same time.
2. The course can be skipped. If both players miss a move two times in a row, a draw is counted.
3. The same figure can not walk twice in a row, but retains the area of attack.
Note: A non-moveable figure still has an attacking effect on movement fields that will become available next turn. Thus, the king of the opponent cannot walk on the cells under attack of this figure, as well as castling, if its attack extends to the initial, intermediate or final position of the king in the castling procedure.
4. The goal of the game is to take the opponent's king.
5. If the contenders simultaneously took the kings of each other, a draw is counted.
6. A pawn gains the ability to move or attack a cell from the front and diagonal cells from the front, as well as a move two cells forward or attack this cell, if it is on the second horizontal line from the player.
Note # 1: Thus, the set of cells to which the pawn can now move completely coincides with the set of cells attacked by it (in classical chess, the set of attacked cells does not intersect with the set of free cells to which the pawn can move). The same pattern is observed for any other pieces other than the pawn.
Note 2: In view of the significantly increased attacking power of the pawn, we introduce the rule written in the next paragraph.
7. The transformation of the pawn on the last rank is limited to the pieces of the same color already taken by the opponent. If no such pieces were taken, the pawn cannot advance to the last rank, but continues to attack it.
8. Shapes can "jump" through the figures of opponents, if on the previous move their path in this direction was free.
9. With the simultaneous movement of opponents on the same cell, the figure whose color matches the color of the cell remains on the chessboard, and the second leaves it.
Note No. 1: This factor leads to an increase in one of the elephants relative to the second for each of the parties. For example, for white, an elephant moving in white cells has a stronger attack than an elephant moving in black cells. Black is the opposite.
Note # 2: This factor also leads to the possibility of taking one king by another.
10. In the case of a mutual attack, the figures change places.
Findings:
We got a chess game lacking a "lack of" sequence, but with an element of unpredictability. A game with similar rules will most conveniently play with a partner online using computers or mobile phones, or hotseat using one computer (although this option does not seem appropriate). Similar rules can be taught and a computer program. However, I personally don’t find it interesting to measure strength with a computer in chess games.
Is it possible to play similar "simultaneous" chess at a regular chessboard? This is real, although each of the players will have to write down the planned move in order to check it against the opponent’s move (after all, don’t believe the word of the perfidious opponent).
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/88497/
All Articles