Vladimir Kramnik proposes an exciting chess variant!
12/9/2019 – From lay fans to top grandmasters, more or less everyone in the world of chess feels upset today about the significant number of draws that take place in virtually every classical elite tournament. Too much theory reinforced by extensive engine work is seemingly rendering the game of chess sterile and lifeless. One alternative is Chess960 and FIDE sanctioned the first Fischer Random World Championship this year. Recently the legendary Vladimir Kramnik has also proposed a solution to the problem that is simpler and more efficient than the Fischer Random, and which he believes will ensure more than 50% decisive games in top-level play.
Master Class Vol.11: Vladimir Kramnik
This DVD allows you to learn from the example of one of the best players in the history of chess and from the explanations of the authors (Pelletier, Marin, Müller and Reeh) how to successfully organise your games strategically, consequently how to keep y
No-Castling Chess!
High drawing percentage has become a menace at top level chess. According to many of the experts and top players, well established theories, particularly in the opening phase of the game, is taking away much of the fun and creativity in chess. In order to combat this problem, the 14th World Champion Vladimir Kramnik has come up with a very interesting suggestion — No-Castling chess! Everything, just about every rule in it, remains the same as in the regular chess. The only change being that the players cannot castle! How does this make things different? Read the following interview where IM Sagar Shah discusses the nuances of this new variant with Kramnik himself.
On this DVD Vladimir Kramnik retraces his career from talented schoolboy to World Champion in 2006. With humour and charm he describes his first successes, what it meant to be part of the Russian Gold Medal team at the Olympiad, and how he undertook the Herculean task of beating his former mentor and teacher Garry Kasparov.
Sagar Shah (SS): Hi Vladimir, great to have you on the show. You are here to talk about a new variant of chess, how do you call it? Is the the No-Castling chess?
Vladimir Kramnik (VK): Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me. I have honestly not thought about a proper name yet, it is just a proposition at the moment. It was probably proposed even before, by Bronstein, I don't know for sure. I mean, I don't claim any copyright on this idea nor do I have any financial interest in it. It is just a concept that I have been fond of for quite some time and since now I have stopped playing chess and we have a certain collaboration with DeepMind, it somehow felt right to explore it more deeply. The whole idea was quite experimental in the beginning but I feel we have done some good work and found some interesting results that ought to be presented to the general public.
Master Class Vol.11: Vladimir Kramnik
This DVD allows you to learn from the example of one of the best players in the history of chess and from the explanations of the authors (Pelletier, Marin, Müller and Reeh) how to successfully organise your games strategically, consequently how to keep y
SS: Okay, so coming to the core of it, what you are proposing is that let the game of chess remain absolutely the same but you just remove the rule of castling, correct?
VK: Yes. Let me start from the beginning. First of all I have been a professional chess player myself and I have felt this problem more and more at top level play. I would hear this from everybody, they would often complain especially when playing White that they have nothing to play! (laughs) Well, you are supposed to try something at least and create some chances but you have no idea how you are going to do it. We are not talking about advantage anymore, it is just about getting some chances and a reasonable fight. I have faced this problem quite a lot myself. If you see the games I played in the later years, you would notice that I was trying all kinds of things, from 1.Nf3, 1.g3 to 1.d4 2.e3, and whatever, just to find a game.
Actually I had already stopped looking for an advantage. I just wanted to get a game and even this was becoming more and more difficult. There is a clear demand from the chess fans in general who are disappointed by the statistics that reflect a huge number of draws but for me, the problem is not with the draws but the content of the games. I would like to clarify here that I am only talking about top level chess. For amateurs and club players this is not a problem at all. So I am not saying it has to be implemented everywhere. I mean, it is just a choice, to play with or without castling, and it doesn't have to necessarily substitute regular chess. But I was thinking more about getting back the interest in top level chess that has declined over time, because you know, the top level is sort of the face of chess. Again, there is clearly a demand for this as you can see Fischer random chess becoming more and more popular but Fischer random has its own problems. In my personal opinion I think No-Castling chess is a simpler and more efficient solution.
Opening package: 1.b3 and Black Secrets in the Modern Italian
Wesley So published two new opening DVDs: 1.b3, the so called Nimzo-Larsen-Attack, for White and his black secrets in the modern Italian. Get them in a package and save money!
Chess variants are becoming more popular. This is evident from the fact that the first FIDE World Fischer Random Chess Championship was held this year in Norway. It was won by Wesley So (right) ahead of World Champion Magnus Carlsen | Photo: Lennart Ootes
SS: I have one question on this front. You stopped playing chess somewhere in January. Did you start thinking about all these after you stopped playing or has it been in your mind before that?
VK: Long before. Actually, I started to think about it back in 2001 already. I remember mentioning it to some players including Peter Svidler. I don't know if they remember it but it was already starting to get unpleasant back then, the amount of problems one faced to get a game was of course nothing compared to what it is now but still it was substantial. My first idea was to introduce a pairing of openings but this obviously won't work anymore because at the top level everyone seems to know everything!
The idea of tweaking the rules a bit occurred to me a few years back but firstly since I was still into competitive chess I simply didn't get the time to work on it, and secondly I needed an opportunity to check the idea carefully with certain force. I am lucky in this regard that I had the opportunity to work with DeepMind and Alpha-Zero. I wanted to be serious about what I am proposing. I wanted to check it carefully, see the games, patterns, and statistics and only then bring it to the public. I have been working with other possible variants as well and they might even be more entertaining in some ways but No-Castling is by far the simplest.
You see, if we pretend for a moment that we are learning the game of chess for the first time in life, then it is only the rule of castling that doesn't seem to make any sense. It is the only move in the entire game that involves two pieces and for no definite reasons. It is possible to make sense of en passant even because it sort of makes the game more dynamic, without the en passant rule it would be quite easy to force closed pawn structures, but castling is a very absurd move and it doesn't add to the game at all, it doesn't make it better and only makes it different. The rule of castling didn't exist originally and historically came into being much later during the 15th century or so. There are only two explanation that I can think of behind its invention. One explanation is that many centuries ago people were not that strong at chess and castling was probably a way to prolong the game, to slow it down because otherwise a game could be over in just 15 moves with a direct attack.
My second theory is funnier and more political, you know chess was for many centuries considered more as a war than a game and so in a way it was one of the means to teach people how to make war and perhaps castling was invented to explain everyone that in a war first of all you have to take care of the king. The king's safety is always the first priority even if that means he can actually escape the battlefield in a strange and unjust sort of way. This is a strange story but it might have some truth behind it. Of course, somebody invented casting and somebody implemented it, so there has to be a reason behind it. So in a way this No-Castling chess makes the rules of chess more logical. It is not only simpler but also more logical to not have the right to castle.
SS: After you started working with DeepMind, at what point did you think that No-Castling chess was good to go out to the public?
VK: I was convinced even before checking it with this monster AlphaZero that No-Castling would only make the game more dynamic. First of all, every opening theory goes out of the window in this variant of chess right from move one. It is hard to say which is the best move to start with 1.e4, 1.d4, or 1.c4. In fact, I think 1.f4 makes a lot of sense under this new circumstances as it allows you to go for the quick ♘f3-g3-♗g2-♖f1-♔f2-♔g1 (laughs). I don't know 1.f4 might as well be the best move here but the point is it completely destroys all theory!
The main criticism I have received of this variant is that it is too simple and the new theory would develop very quickly. Now I can guarantee you that this won't happen so easily, this isn't the case. For example, suppose after 1.d4 d5 2.♘f3 ♞f6 I play the move 3.h3, I am sure that both sides will play a new game after this but the point is it doesn't surprise your opponent or create a new pattern. You can try some unusual move like this in virtually every opening to have a game but you in fact don't have a game because you don't create any new patterns. After 3.h3 anyone will be able to continue logically with 3...c5 followed by Nc6.
The problem is not the concrete moves but the patterns which are very well-known but once you change the rules and disallow castling all of these changes, I mean all these pawn structures start to take a whole new meaning. I have seen the games and I can tell you nothing is the same. It is easy to find concrete lines using an engine but it isn't easy to establish general standards and I would say it would take a good thirty or forty years for that to happen. In this scenario you can certainly have equal positions but it is a different kind of equality, it is nonstandard.
But let's say if you get an even position out of a Queen's Gambit with symmetrical pawn structure then most likely the game will end in a draw. But here with the kings in the center it is totally a new situation, you have to create your own plans from scratch. Also no castling makes the game objectively more complex, it keeps a lot of options open and you have to decide whether you want to take your king to the kingside or queenside or you just want to leave it in the middle. Moreover, you have to also figure out a plan to connect your rooks. No-castling chess is closest to regular chess in a way and at the same time it concretely eliminates all theory and not just for two or three years I assure you, but for tens of years. More importantly, it is very easy to play, you might as well go inside a normal tournament and make a gentlemanly agreement with your opponent that you don't want to castle.
SS: These are very deep insights coming from you. You have obviously understood and analysed this variant of chess very deeply and we are excited to see it in action. So maybe we can look into a game and understand how it works in practice?
Kramnik goes on to show a very interesting game in No-Castling chess of Alpha-zero against itself and draws attention to some specific moments where he thinks the variant is markedly different from the regular version. Check out the full game below with detailed analyses of some amazing lines shown by the seminal AI:
[Event "Computer Selfplay"] [Site "London, UK"] [Date "2019.09.25"] [Round "?"] [White "AlphaZero-NoCastle"] [Black "AlphaZero-NoCastle"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "D21"] [Annotator "Vladimir Kramnik"] [PlyCount "126"] [EventDate "2019.??.??"] 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 {[#]The Artificial Intelligence was given this position to start with (a Queen's Gambit Accepted). The idea was to experiment with all kinds of openings and get as broad a picture as possible.} 3. e3 e6 4. Bxc4 c5 5. Nf3 a6 {so far this looks familiar...} 6. h4 {A natural move. Even if I find Ke2 followed by Re1 and Kf1 even more logical.} h5 {stopping potential h5, Rh4} 7. a4 Nc6 8. b3 {A sensible setup under the circumstances.} cxd4 9. exd4 Bb4+ {Forgetting for a moment that White would not castle anyway? Even if so, seems like a good square for the bishop fortunately.} 10. Kf1 {[#]This is the point where the game starts to take a sharp turn. As castling isn't allowed White chooses to secure its king on g1 and develop the h1 rook to h3!} Nge7 11. Bb2 f6 12. Nbd2 Bd7 13. Kg1 Rc8 {We can only dream normally about getting such a complicated position in QGA!} 14. Ne4 {It may appear that White has a strong initiative but in fact the position is more or less balanced, and, considering the level of the players, will stay so until the end. But no doubt seeing how the game develops, if it was to be played by human grandmasters, it would likely not have been the case and a draw would certainly not be a likely outcome.} Na5 15. Be2 Bc6 16. Nfd2 {Hitting the h5 pawn, but black has a good control in the center and more active pieces in return for the eventual pawn deficit.} Bd5 {[#]} 17. Rh3 {White could have gone 17.Bxh5+ right away but that leads to some really unclear positions as Black gets a semi-open h-file at the same time highly active pieces.} (17. Bxh5+ {leads to a very unclear position after} Kf8 (17... Kd7 {might be interesting as well, running to b8} 18. Rh3 Kc7 19. Be2 Kb8) 18. Rh3) 17... Kf7 18. Bxh5+ g6 19. Bf3 Nf5 20. h5 { [#]} gxh5 $1 {The beginning of inhuman complications: Black decided to open up the position. A safer alternative obviously would have been g5. The tension is high, as often in this chess variation both kings do not feel completely comfortable, and it gets wild quickly} (20... g5 {is a bit safer, if this word can be used in this variation of chess, but after} 21. Be2 {White would have an advantage}) 21. Nb1 {Quite a move, isn't it? White decides to fight for the initiative by all means, trying to hit Black's bishop on d5.} (21. Bxh5+ Ke7 { would lead to a very complicated but rather balanced position, for example} 22. Bc3 Nc6) 21... h4 (21... Nxb3 {would lead to some amazing complications, but wouldn't objectively break the balance. Let us try to follow the thoughts of the players} 22. Bxh5+ Ke7 23. Rxb3 Bxe4 24. Rxb4 Bxg2 $1 {an unpleasant surprise} 25. Ba3 {looks decisive, but} (25. d5 $5 Qg8 (25... Bxd5 {leads to a complete mess} 26. Ba3 Kd7 27. Bf3 Qg8+ 28. Kf1 Rh3 {with equal chances (without any immediate perpetual check, just a dynamic balance)}) 26. Rxb7+ ( 26. Rg4 Rxh5 27. Ba3+ Kd7 {transposes to the main variation}) 26... Kd6 27. Ba3+ $8 Ke5 {finally finding a safe place} 28. f4+ ({or the immediate} 28. Bb2+ Kd6 29. Ba3+ Ke5) 28... Kxf4 29. Bc1+ (29. Qd2+ $2 Ne3 $19 30. Bd6+ e5 31. Bxe5+ Kxe5 32. Re7+ Kf5) 29... Rxc1 (29... Ke5 30. Bb2+ Kf4) 30. Qxc1+ Ne3 31. Qc7+ e5 32. Qg7 Bxd5 33. Nc3 {leading to an eventual draw in all variations. Don't ask why, you'll have to trust me on this.}) (25. Kxg2 $2 {loses} Qd5+ 26. Kf1 Qh1+ 27. Ke2 Qxh5+ 28. Ke1 Qh1+ 29. Kd2 Qh2 30. Qf3 Rh3 31. Qxb7+ Rc7) 25... Qg8 $3 {is a shocking counterblow} 26. d5 $1 {the only way to stay in the game for white and it might actually hold, for example} Rxh5 (26... Be4+ 27. Kf1 Qg2+ 28. Ke1 {holds}) 27. Rg4+ $8 Kd7 $8 28. dxe6+ $8 (28. Kxg2 { what is wrong with this, you might ask?} Ne3+ $1 29. fxe3 Rc2+ $1 30. Kg3 Rh3+ $1 31. Kxh3 Qh7+ 32. Rh4 Qf5+ 33. Rg4 Qh5+ 34. Kg3 Qh2+ 35. Kf3 Qf2+ 36. Ke4 Qf5+ 37. Kd4 Qxd5#) 28... Kc7 $8 29. Kxg2 (29. Rxg8 Rxg8 30. Qxh5 Bf3+ 31. Kf1 Bxh5 32. Nd2 {is enough to save it as well}) 29... Qxe6 30. Bc1 $1 Kb8 (30... Kb6 $5 31. Bf4 Rg8 32. Nc3 Rxg4+ 33. Qxg4 Nh4+ 34. Kg3 Nf5+ 35. Kg2 Nh4+ { is a draw}) 31. Bf4+ Ka8 32. Ra3 $1 {holding a draw after any of Black's numerous attempts.}) 22. Bh5+ Ke7 23. Nbc3 Bxb3 {The black position looks dangerous, but don't worry, it's all under control.} 24. Qg4 (24. Qf3 {was a serious alternative, leading to an approximately equal position after} Bd5 $13) 24... Qg8 {[#]} 25. d5 $1 {Although the queens are about to be exchanged it doesn't really calm down the position as the black king is clearly under fire! The evaluation of this position is extremely unclear at least from a human standpoint.} Qxg4 26. Bxg4 {I have noticed that even exchanging queens often does not lead to the position "calming down" due to a chronic king's vulnerability} Rhg8 27. Bxf5 exf5 28. Nxf6 {[#]The show is far from over even after the queens are off the board.} Rg6 29. Nh5 Kf7 {The endgame is equal but that usual equal as we know it...} 30. Nd1 $1 {Very resourceful. The fight for the initiative never ends with the "centralized" kings. The idea is rerouting the knight to e3 and once again fighting for the advantage.} Bd2 $1 (30... Bxd1 31. Rxd1 {would leave a minor plus for White.}) 31. Ne3 Bxe3 32. Rxe3 Bxd5 $1 { Well calculated!} 33. Nf4 Nc4 $1 34. Nxg6 (34. Nxd5 {is drawish as well} Nxe3 35. Nxe3 f4 36. Nf5 Rc2) 34... Nxe3 35. Ne5+ Ke8 36. fxe3 {[#]} Rc2 $1 { The point of Black's combination, trivial stuff for the computer, not so for human players. AlphaZero plays the only move at the end of a long sequence that keeps the balance. Now the g2 pawn falls and Black gets sufficient counterplay with its extra pawns.} 37. Ba3 Rxg2+ 38. Kf1 Rh2 (38... h3 39. Rc1 Be6 40. Rc7 Ra2 41. Re7+ Kd8 42. Rxe6 Rxa3 43. Nf3 f4 {draws}) 39. Rc1 Rh1+ 40. Kf2 Rh2+ 41. Ke1 Rh1+ 42. Kf2 Rh2+ 43. Kf1 Rh1+ 44. Ke2 Rxc1 45. Bxc1 h3 46. Nf3 b5 {required some accurate calculation, but that never seemed to be a problem for AlphaZero...} 47. axb5 axb5 48. Nh2 (48. Kf2 Kd7 49. Kg3 Bxf3 50. Kxf3 Ke6 51. Kg3 Kd5 52. Kxh3 Ke4 53. Kg3 b4 54. Kf2 b3 55. Ke2 f4 {was an important line shown after the game by both players at the press conference with us}) 48... Kd7 49. Kd3 Kc6 50. Ba3 Kb6 51. Kd4 Be4 52. Bb4 Bg2 53. Be1 Ba8 54. Bc3 Be4 55. Bd2 Bb7 56. Bc3 Be4 57. Bd2 Bg2 58. Ke5 Kc5 59. Kxf5 Kc4 60. Kf4 b4 61. e4 Bxe4 62. Kxe4 b3 63. Bc1 Kc3 1/2-1/2
Still unsure about this "no-castle" chess after watching this game? Try this at home!
SS: So you think organizers should already go ahead get some players and try out this new format of the game?
VK: Of course, they can if they want to, I don't insist. But you know, I have actually met many organizers who were worried about the increasing number of draws in the game of chess so of course, they can go ahead and try it out, why not! Also I don't think there should be any issue in rating games of chess played in this new format because it is exactly the same chess except that you play here from move 1 instead of move 20! But more importantly I would like people to try it out at home, in friendly blitz games, so that we get more feedback about it. I would really appreciate it if people gave their feedback to me, not only in general but after actually playing some games in it. I believe this version is by no means less than Fischer random or for that matter even standard chess.
SS: Well, thank you Vladimir for presenting this to us. A final question to you, if suppose such a tournament were to be held where No-Castling was introduced. Would you be interested in playing it, now that you have retired from competitive chess?
VK: For this particular case, I have to say I will make an exception. Normally I am not planning to play in any classical event, not even in rapid. But for No-Castling chess, yes I will consider. I really hope that there will some open tournaments or may be in a normal tournament some players will decide to play against the rules. It can be done and it would still be rated. Everybody is welcome to try it and then we will see.
SS: Thank you so much Vladimir for speaking to us. We really hope that this variant of chess will catch up and a lot of people will try it out!
On this DVD Vladimir Kramnik retraces his career from talented schoolboy to World Champion in 2006. With humour and charm he describes his first successes, what it meant to be part of the Russian Gold Medal team at the Olympiad, and how he undertook the Herculean task of beating his former mentor and teacher Garry Kasparov.
Do you think No-Castling can be a viable alternative to regular chess, just like Fischer random? Share your thoughts in the feedback section below, but best of all after you have played some games. You can also try some computer vs computer matches yourself – simply enter some opening you wish to explore but include a king move which you then take back, e.g. in the above game after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 enter 3.♔d2 ♚d7 4.♔e1 ♚e8. After that the computer will play No-Castling Chess.
Another method: in ChessBase or Fritz start a game not with Ctrl-N (= new game) but with "S" (= setup position), click "Reset" (to get the initial position) and then unclick the four possible castling rights.
After that you are set to go. Please send results and games to me at ChessBase India. We would be interested to discuss them with Vladimir Kramnik.
Sagar Shah shows you on this DVD how you can use typical patterns used by the Master of the past in your own games. From opening play to middlegame themes.
Discussion and Feedback
Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors
“ It is better to change the castling rules: ”
That would be unplayable in tournaments.
Kramnik’s whole idea is that you can do this without interfering with Fide rules, starting as of now. You just agree not to castle.
Of course, completely unrealistic at top level - which is the only place the game is in danger of being exhausted.
For now.
That would be unplayable in tournaments.
Kramnik’s whole idea is that you can do this without interfering with Fide rules, starting as of now. You just agree not to castle.
Of course, completely unrealistic at top level - which is the only place the game is in danger of being exhausted.
For now.
Interesting idea. I would love to watch the huge body of pre-analyzed opening move systems be adjusted to this new reality.
Fritz v.Next should offer users the option to make castling illegal, in either/both traditional chess and chess960-FRC (which Fritz has already long supported).
Fritz v.Next should offer users the option to make castling illegal, in either/both traditional chess and chess960-FRC (which Fritz has already long supported).
Castling contributes to the dynamics of chess, making it faster and more exciting. It is better to change the castling rules:
"Castle Chess" - chess with extended castle:
http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/castlechess.htm
"Adjutant Chess" - chess with empty extra corner squares:
http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/adjutantchess1.htm
Fide-chess 2.0 - chess with extended kingside castle:
http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/fidechess2.htm
"Castle Chess" - chess with extended castle:
http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/castlechess.htm
"Adjutant Chess" - chess with empty extra corner squares:
http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/adjutantchess1.htm
Fide-chess 2.0 - chess with extended kingside castle:
http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/fidechess2.htm
This is by far the most logical variant that has been proposed in my opinion but I suggest a new variant that does not change the nature of the game and it does not become old in say as bigvlad put it in 30 or 40 years just add two files to the chessboard add a new piece that can function both as a knight and a bishop (not simultaneously of course) depending on the color of the square the king is on. if its on the light square the new piece acts as a bishop and if its on the dark square it will act as a knight.this allows a lot of space for potential creativity just with a single king move in almost every position.
So what's being advocated is that we discard Chess and start again with a new game!?
So all that's gone before, the great players, the great games, chess lore, history, theory, literature is out of the window.
All this because a few top grandmasters are drawing too many games.
But haven't we been here before?
Didn't they have the same discussion in the twenties when everybody was sick of seeing the Ruy Lopez or QGD in every game and another World Champion, Capablanca, suggested adding new pieces on a 10x10 board.
Then came the hyper-moderns with a radical new approach to the openings, followed by the Soviet school taking Chess to a new level of dynamism and the game was saved.
But now elite Chess seems to be back in a rut.
Below are discussed some of the perceived problems which have led to this situation, along with suggested solutions that don't involve changing the game - all very interesting.
However I want to suggest another way forward.
Computers have been taking a lot of the blame for the current malaise, but they could point to the way out.
Now we have AlphaZero playing with an ultra dynamic style at a level never seen before.
What we need is for the players to emulate this style and take the game to the future in good health.
But what kind of incentives can you give to players to get them to light the Fire On Board?
That's easy - money! Don't invite the boring players.
So all that's gone before, the great players, the great games, chess lore, history, theory, literature is out of the window.
All this because a few top grandmasters are drawing too many games.
But haven't we been here before?
Didn't they have the same discussion in the twenties when everybody was sick of seeing the Ruy Lopez or QGD in every game and another World Champion, Capablanca, suggested adding new pieces on a 10x10 board.
Then came the hyper-moderns with a radical new approach to the openings, followed by the Soviet school taking Chess to a new level of dynamism and the game was saved.
But now elite Chess seems to be back in a rut.
Below are discussed some of the perceived problems which have led to this situation, along with suggested solutions that don't involve changing the game - all very interesting.
However I want to suggest another way forward.
Computers have been taking a lot of the blame for the current malaise, but they could point to the way out.
Now we have AlphaZero playing with an ultra dynamic style at a level never seen before.
What we need is for the players to emulate this style and take the game to the future in good health.
But what kind of incentives can you give to players to get them to light the Fire On Board?
That's easy - money! Don't invite the boring players.
“Why do top players draw so often?“
Because defense skills have improved. Top guns don’t crack under pressure - if there is a defense they will find it. As a result, winning positions don’t get won.
It’s a bit like World War One warfare, when defense got stronger than attack. You dig in, and you wait for the other guy to screw up. Attacking has gotten riskier.
Trying not to lose was first the approach in the “they shoot horses, don’t they?” Karpov-Kasparov match. It’s not an entirely new thing in WC matches.
The time management up to move forty has changed with the introduction of the increment. That may play a rôle as well. No more wild scrambles.
Quite a few of the suggested rule change suggestions are, to a larger degree than bringing chess into the future, a return to ancient chess.
Because defense skills have improved. Top guns don’t crack under pressure - if there is a defense they will find it. As a result, winning positions don’t get won.
It’s a bit like World War One warfare, when defense got stronger than attack. You dig in, and you wait for the other guy to screw up. Attacking has gotten riskier.
Trying not to lose was first the approach in the “they shoot horses, don’t they?” Karpov-Kasparov match. It’s not an entirely new thing in WC matches.
The time management up to move forty has changed with the introduction of the increment. That may play a rôle as well. No more wild scrambles.
Quite a few of the suggested rule change suggestions are, to a larger degree than bringing chess into the future, a return to ancient chess.
Alphazero has already worked out a huge chunk of "opening theory" for VladChess. In other words, we will very soon be back to square one (or to e1 if you prefer).
I have an idea: why not play OTB bullet chess our hands tied behind our backs!
Ajeeb007, I believe, has it right: the only problem, since thes days of Kasparov, that destroyer of organized worldwide chess, is that we are bored to desth seeing the same ten guys playing "prearranged draws" as Bobby would have said...
I have an idea: why not play OTB bullet chess our hands tied behind our backs!
Ajeeb007, I believe, has it right: the only problem, since thes days of Kasparov, that destroyer of organized worldwide chess, is that we are bored to desth seeing the same ten guys playing "prearranged draws" as Bobby would have said...
Solution: Experiment with shorter time controls.
Allowing Super-GMs forever and week to play naturally leads to draws.
Modifying the original game is an absurd alternative.
960 is little different than Bughouse.
Allowing Super-GMs forever and week to play naturally leads to draws.
Modifying the original game is an absurd alternative.
960 is little different than Bughouse.
To eliminate the draw is easy, if there is no legal move left to both players, look at the material advantage..if one player have a king and a knight, and the other have a king and a rook, then the player that have a king and a rook is the winner.
I can't see where this will solve the problem of draws. In the beginning, yes, but after players get use to it the novelty of it will vanish. My idea is to extend the option of the pawn to move one square or two to apply the entire game on EVERY move. It involves more calculation and makes the variation more difficult to figure out.
I think to castle or not it depends on a player..castling is a good idea where it allow us to use the center pawn. I suggest Kramnik get back from the rest and play chess back. The retirement is too early and still a lot of idea we can learn.
Kramnik produced a very nice proposal.
I expect it won't work.
I expect that in the short term the frequency of draws will decrease.
I also expect that it won't take months for Chessbase to produce a DVD 'Play 1.e4 in no-castling chess!'
Etc.
The process defeats the purpose.
The problem lies somewhere else completely.
I expect it won't work.
I expect that in the short term the frequency of draws will decrease.
I also expect that it won't take months for Chessbase to produce a DVD 'Play 1.e4 in no-castling chess!'
Etc.
The process defeats the purpose.
The problem lies somewhere else completely.
Why do top players draw so often? Is it because the same 10 or 15 players face each other over and over, because organizers only want the "best" for their tournaments? Maybe it's because there is only big money for the top 10 and therefor rating acquires a huge economic significance? Does this lead to players not wanting to take chances and risking their rating so they stick to engine analysis that will safely steer them to a draw? Can't risk dropping out of the top circle of select invitees! Carlsen held on to his title by drawing, knowing he could win the speed chess play offs. Perhaps the top players apply the same principle to retain their rating and position at the top. Chicken chess. The last two title matches were shameful and Kramnik and Kasparov were right to criticize the unworthy manner of playing by the world champion.
I would think that changing a rule that lessons each player's options, and thus reducing the total number of possible positions, would tend to hurt the game rather than help it.
“In a tournament, from a database of high-quality games a random position after 10 moves of white and black is selected for a given pair of players, and they simply have to continue. ”
Before the invention of double pawn move and castling, chess would have a number of “tabiya”, agreed positions from which to start the game. It would take about ten moves before armies had contact.
Before the invention of double pawn move and castling, chess would have a number of “tabiya”, agreed positions from which to start the game. It would take about ten moves before armies had contact.
To quote Quint: “You’re gonna need a bigger board.”
If you think that chess has more draws than is acceptable, then play Shogi, an established chess variant with a venerable history. Problem solved.
I like the idea.
However I do not think it should replace classic chess. There is nothing wrong with chess right now and people who complain of draw-death are overstating the case---look at any Candidates Tournament, plenty of wins/losses.
Chess really is fine the way it is. Love it or leave it I say.
However I do not think it should replace classic chess. There is nothing wrong with chess right now and people who complain of draw-death are overstating the case---look at any Candidates Tournament, plenty of wins/losses.
Chess really is fine the way it is. Love it or leave it I say.
I do like the idea, but it's funny how Kramnik says that the castling move is absurd and doesn't know why it was created, and then proceeds to say that the best thing one can do in no-castling chess is to manually castle as quick as possible.
Also, anyone else amused by him being interrogated by the SS?
Also, anyone else amused by him being interrogated by the SS?
Skip the opening. This is my proposal. In a tournament, from a database of high-quality games a random position after 10 moves of white and black is selected for a given pair of players, and they simply have to continue. The DB is trimmed to only those games which are approximately equal after those 10 moves (according to top engines). There could be more trimming, e.g. games with queens early traded are not kept (due to drawish tendencies of such games).
Although almost all positions after those 10 moves will look "basically familiar" to players, I expect they'll rarely be exactly variants well known by a particular player (e.g., even played by him/her, or studied carefully). And if 10 moves is too few after all, then use 12 or 13. What do you think?
Although almost all positions after those 10 moves will look "basically familiar" to players, I expect they'll rarely be exactly variants well known by a particular player (e.g., even played by him/her, or studied carefully). And if 10 moves is too few after all, then use 12 or 13. What do you think?
"No-castling chess is closest to regular chess in a way and at the same time it concretely eliminates all theory and not just for two or three years I assure you, but for tens of years."
The goal isn't to have a game that lasts for tens of years. The goal is to have a game that is immune to obsolescence.
In any case, it is weird to complain about the inability to "get a game," when a computer can, by playing better moves than you, crush you 95% of the time. How about we add a computer to top-level tournaments, and let the humans have the full point if they draw.
Btw, FischeRandom is dissatisfying, and the reason is right there in the name: It involves a random device.
The goal isn't to have a game that lasts for tens of years. The goal is to have a game that is immune to obsolescence.
In any case, it is weird to complain about the inability to "get a game," when a computer can, by playing better moves than you, crush you 95% of the time. How about we add a computer to top-level tournaments, and let the humans have the full point if they draw.
Btw, FischeRandom is dissatisfying, and the reason is right there in the name: It involves a random device.
In what world is top-level chess today “sterile and lifeless?”
A point many people seem to miss is this:
Opening analysis by traditional engines is worthless because their evaluation function is based on regular chess, and these evaluations are not trustworthy with the no-castling rule, which changes everything.
You need a neural net which has TRAINED with the no-castling rule.
(Or wait a few decades for human knowledge to catch up so that humans can implement this knowledge in the traditional chess engines as well.)
Of course a neural net trained with the no-castling rule will be created quickly (if it hasn't already), but that still leaves the problem that we humans do not really understand these new opening line (because they're based on new knowledge) so that the slightest deviation from the opponent and we're completely clueless as to what is the best approach.
Also opening theory would be way more complex with no castling. Kings are never safe, this changes quite a bit the nature of the game.
Opening analysis by traditional engines is worthless because their evaluation function is based on regular chess, and these evaluations are not trustworthy with the no-castling rule, which changes everything.
You need a neural net which has TRAINED with the no-castling rule.
(Or wait a few decades for human knowledge to catch up so that humans can implement this knowledge in the traditional chess engines as well.)
Of course a neural net trained with the no-castling rule will be created quickly (if it hasn't already), but that still leaves the problem that we humans do not really understand these new opening line (because they're based on new knowledge) so that the slightest deviation from the opponent and we're completely clueless as to what is the best approach.
Also opening theory would be way more complex with no castling. Kings are never safe, this changes quite a bit the nature of the game.
[continuation of previous comment]
Apart from this, as I said, I like the idea. It stays close enough to chess to give the same 'feel'. The problem with top Fischer random games I have, apart from the higher amount of ugly blunders, is that as an ordinary player you have less to relate to. It's like watching football where all players wear a different coloured shirt. Without known structure, you get to feel lost. You also lose an enormous amount of chess tradition.
In no-castling chess you will get a different game, but without losing known structure and tradition. In closed opening variations like in the French defence, a lot will stay the same. At least at a level where you will still can use patterns known from the standard game. Which will make it possible for amateurs to follow the games with some understanding, the importance of which shouldn't be underestimated if you want a rule change to become accepted.
Because it is so close to standard chess, you can easily mix the two variants. My guess is that differences in strength between players will not greatly vary between standard and no-castling chess. You can have tournaments where opponents can register before the game that they will play without castling, without getting unreliable elo ratings.
So yes, give it a try, the future may tell whether it will be just as succesfull as the introduction of castling in the 16th century. When changes prove to be accepted, games have changed in history and will do so in the future.
Apart from this, as I said, I like the idea. It stays close enough to chess to give the same 'feel'. The problem with top Fischer random games I have, apart from the higher amount of ugly blunders, is that as an ordinary player you have less to relate to. It's like watching football where all players wear a different coloured shirt. Without known structure, you get to feel lost. You also lose an enormous amount of chess tradition.
In no-castling chess you will get a different game, but without losing known structure and tradition. In closed opening variations like in the French defence, a lot will stay the same. At least at a level where you will still can use patterns known from the standard game. Which will make it possible for amateurs to follow the games with some understanding, the importance of which shouldn't be underestimated if you want a rule change to become accepted.
Because it is so close to standard chess, you can easily mix the two variants. My guess is that differences in strength between players will not greatly vary between standard and no-castling chess. You can have tournaments where opponents can register before the game that they will play without castling, without getting unreliable elo ratings.
So yes, give it a try, the future may tell whether it will be just as succesfull as the introduction of castling in the 16th century. When changes prove to be accepted, games have changed in history and will do so in the future.
[continuation from previous comment]
3. Castling was invented to slow down the game and make it easier to defend.
I would like to see proof of this opinion. It comes from the idea that with the enhancement of the possibilities of bishops and queen in the second half of the sixteenth century, the king had come too vulnerable. But it isn't too clear what happened first: the 'invention' of castling or the changes in possibilities for queen and bishops. There were special king jumps earlier in the history of the game. Moreover, these kind of jumps may have had quite another purpose: the slow king is in the way of other pieces and the rooks are difficult to develop, as the first files usually are opened in the center. So, contrary, castling may have been developed to speed up the game, as Jacob Woge already remarked.
4. The rules need to be changed because opening theory, aided by computer analysis, has gone too far.
Tim Krabbé's site shows a list of game comments by top GM's about having forgotten their preparation. There are limits to what a player can remember. Also, opening theory in practice is subject to fashion. Fischer already studied the 19th century Handbuch by Von Bilguer. Moreover, engines are getting so strong that it gets ever harder to understand what they mean. There might well be a ceiling to these developments.
5. A game by a top engine doesn't give a good idea about what the game without castling would be like. How would Petrosjan, or Karpov, or Karjakin play it? The game might as well get slower as faster.
[more in the next comment]
3. Castling was invented to slow down the game and make it easier to defend.
I would like to see proof of this opinion. It comes from the idea that with the enhancement of the possibilities of bishops and queen in the second half of the sixteenth century, the king had come too vulnerable. But it isn't too clear what happened first: the 'invention' of castling or the changes in possibilities for queen and bishops. There were special king jumps earlier in the history of the game. Moreover, these kind of jumps may have had quite another purpose: the slow king is in the way of other pieces and the rooks are difficult to develop, as the first files usually are opened in the center. So, contrary, castling may have been developed to speed up the game, as Jacob Woge already remarked.
4. The rules need to be changed because opening theory, aided by computer analysis, has gone too far.
Tim Krabbé's site shows a list of game comments by top GM's about having forgotten their preparation. There are limits to what a player can remember. Also, opening theory in practice is subject to fashion. Fischer already studied the 19th century Handbuch by Von Bilguer. Moreover, engines are getting so strong that it gets ever harder to understand what they mean. There might well be a ceiling to these developments.
5. A game by a top engine doesn't give a good idea about what the game without castling would be like. How would Petrosjan, or Karpov, or Karjakin play it? The game might as well get slower as faster.
[more in the next comment]
First of all, I like the idea. Secondly, I can't agree completely with most arguments in favour of it.
1. Castling is unnatural.
There is a lot unnatural about the game of chess. Pawns moving forwards and taking sideways, for example. (Not in Japanese chess, by the way, and I can tell you from experience that really makes a different game.) Stalemate: goes against logic, as GM Short stated. Double moves by pawns on the first move. (Anyone really wants to abolish that for the sake of naturalness?) En passant capturing.
This argument comes from the wrong assumption that chess rules have anything to do with logic. Chess is a cultural phenomenon, and its rules are shaped and changed reflecting how people in a certain era feel about it. We now live in a computer age and that influences our look at the game.
2. There are too many draws in top professional regular chess nowadays and draws are uninteresting.
- I would like to see figures that prove the assertion that the number of draws indeed has increased. I'm not so certain. From the 1920's comes the expression 'Remise-Tod des Schachspiels' (Capablanca already wanted to change the rules) In the 1960's there were many tournaments with exceptional drawing percentages.
- Top professional chessplayers nowadays play many draws because they are very good. That makes it harder to win a game. (And I think they are working hard for it; that the number of short draws actually has decreased.) Just a little lower on the scale there is no problem.
- I think well-fought draws between top players are interesting and games lost by blunders much less.
[more in the next comment]
1. Castling is unnatural.
There is a lot unnatural about the game of chess. Pawns moving forwards and taking sideways, for example. (Not in Japanese chess, by the way, and I can tell you from experience that really makes a different game.) Stalemate: goes against logic, as GM Short stated. Double moves by pawns on the first move. (Anyone really wants to abolish that for the sake of naturalness?) En passant capturing.
This argument comes from the wrong assumption that chess rules have anything to do with logic. Chess is a cultural phenomenon, and its rules are shaped and changed reflecting how people in a certain era feel about it. We now live in a computer age and that influences our look at the game.
2. There are too many draws in top professional regular chess nowadays and draws are uninteresting.
- I would like to see figures that prove the assertion that the number of draws indeed has increased. I'm not so certain. From the 1920's comes the expression 'Remise-Tod des Schachspiels' (Capablanca already wanted to change the rules) In the 1960's there were many tournaments with exceptional drawing percentages.
- Top professional chessplayers nowadays play many draws because they are very good. That makes it harder to win a game. (And I think they are working hard for it; that the number of short draws actually has decreased.) Just a little lower on the scale there is no problem.
- I think well-fought draws between top players are interesting and games lost by blunders much less.
[more in the next comment]
VK: "Opening theory would go out the window" and would be replaced by new opening theory. No castling is a ridiculous suggestion.
@Frederic Peut être que sans changer les règles pour les tournois de haut niveau, un tirage au sort des codes ECO pour chaque partie ? Vous en pensez quoi ?
Proposal for name: Nomad chess.
Please excuse me for commenting before playing a game in this variant. I would have really liked to try it out, but I am too busy in this period and cannot afford the time to play chess either. Due to the fact that I do not have any empiric knowledge about this game as mister Frederic Friedel points out that we should have I will avoid making value statements about the game. It is obviously very close to chess and I think that players playing this game are still playing chess, they are just restricted. There is the 30-move rule, for example, which I would argue that it's a bigger difference from chess than not castling and we still call the games where 30-move rule applies "chess". I think this game is definitely worth a try, but I also think that such a restriction, assuming that it increases the risks for both players can be analysed out just like chess was. As a programmer and a mathematician I do not see any greater difficulties to generate proper variations in this game than in chess. In fact, having fewer lines reduces the complexity of the game. I believe that such a variant, especially since it still qualifies as "chess" should be a penalty. If the players have made uneventful draws, then the arbiter should be able to tell the players that there is no castling today. If it can come as a surprise, players might want to prove that they are worthy of castling.
I think Petrosian would have liked it. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032639
Vladimir says quite correctly that castling is an artificial (and strange) move introduced in the 15th century, when people were not that strong. It was meant to slow the game down and make it easier to defend. In our time and age we are looking for ways to speed things up, make chess more exciting and results more decisive. The main point for me is that it takes around two seconds to explain to anyone how the new rules of the game work, and that if someone like Kramnik –one of the deepest thinkers in chess – advocate the change the least we change, the least we can do is to give it a try. Deep Mind is doing that. AFTER our experiments we can all decide that Vlady's proposal was rubbish, or that it has wonderfully changed the game. I am going to do exactly that: try it out with an open mind and then reach a conclusion. Our readers are invited to do the same. I will start pontificating when I have seen practical games and results.
@philidorchess: Yes, we all miss him. Vladimir has always been one of my best friends in chess. In January he will do another session with the baby GMs (who are now in the process of crossing 2600). This time it is in Chennai, and I will try to visit. It is great fun to watch and to fool around with them after the lessons or before, at breakfast time. There is not one kid I do not like.
@philidorchess: Yes, we all miss him. Vladimir has always been one of my best friends in chess. In January he will do another session with the baby GMs (who are now in the process of crossing 2600). This time it is in Chennai, and I will try to visit. It is great fun to watch and to fool around with them after the lessons or before, at breakfast time. There is not one kid I do not like.
@Frederic, I could play 1000 games in this variant (which I have nothing against) and it does not change the point that this game will very quickly (as in <50 years, Kramnik himself said "tens of years", if it is somewhat more than that does not make much difference) run into all of the problems that he describes with traditional chess. The same point was made by stevenjwagner and Jacob Woge.
Simply, no.
To eliminate all draws, why not make every game an Armageddon game? White receives, say, 150 minutes for the game, and Black receives 120 minutes for the game. Thirty seconds is added to the clock after every move beginning with the first move. This is much simpler than removing castling. World championship matches can be organized in, say, a best-of-thirteen-games format.
Chess isn’t broken. It doesn’t need to be fixed by altering the rules of the game. Most GM draws are not boring.
If tournament organizers want a higher number of decisive games, they can reward the winner of a game with bonus money to incentivize risk-taking.
If tournament organizers want a higher number of decisive games, they can reward the winner of a game with bonus money to incentivize risk-taking.
I've thought about this variant before and I like it! Not only does it change the game, but it kills alot of opening theory so that is a win already.
Like this variant and article.Miss Kramnik very much.
Football without the offside rule would produce more goals. But it would be less interesting.
There was a question about this on Chess Stack Exchange recently, you might be interested: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/27124/what-are-pros-and-cons-around-banning-castling
