Chess and Poker Forums    

Go Back   Game Forums > Chess and Poker Game Forums > Community Discussions
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-23-2008, 07:27 PM
richardhutnik richardhutnik is offline
Full Member (100+)
 

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 142
Default Which side would have an advantage: Pieces following Near Chess or normal rules?

You can find information on Near vs Normal Chess here:
[URL="http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/35799"]http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/35799[/URL]

Near Chess was discovered in an attempt to adapt Christian Freeling's Grand Chess to an 8x8 board. This produced a formation where both sets of pieces shift up one row. This was streamlined even more by dropping castling, how pawn promotion works and having king captured instead of checkmate. Near Chess is positioned as a chess variant friendly for those who don't normally play chess.

Anyhow, out of development of Near Chess came the question about how pieces following Near Chess rules would do against those following normal chess rules. To answer this question, Near vs Normal Chess was created to pit pieces following Near Chess rules against those following normal chess rules. Initially I thought the Near Chess side would have no chance. However, it ended up initially being closer than I expected, running it on the computer and personally playing it against human opponents.

After running the game a bunch of times over Zillions, I would likely give a slight edge to the Normal side, but I am not sure. I would like people here to perhaps speculate on which side has an advantage. Let's say we follow all of normal chess rules, except the Near side changes things this way:
1. Near moves its pieces up one row.
2. Near doesn't castle.
3. Near can En Passant Normal's pawns, but due to the limited movement of Near's Pawns can't be En Passanted.

Game is won on checkmate, and like in normal chess, you can have more pieces than usual counter mix. So, the question is, which side has an advantage in your assessment?

Near's advatages are:
1. Its pawns can be defended easier early, and aren't subject to en passant. In Near vs Normal, en passant is treated as a weakness with Normal chess pawns, not as a move that normal chess pawns do distinctly. The pressure Near's pawns put on the center also restricts how Normal would develop its pieces.
2. It can't be subject to a back rank mate or fool's mate.
3. Its pawns all start one row closer, meaning more pressure across the entire board on the center.
4. Its rooks can get mobilized earlier.
5. Its Knight, Bishop and Queen can mobilize behind its and protect themselves. Normal must bring its pieces out in front of its pawns normally to mobilize them.

Near's disadvantages:
1. No castling. King stays in middle of the board.
2. Near's non-pawn pieces are a bit limited in how they mobilize. If you bring a knight out, for example, Normal can manage to push a pawn 2 spaces, threatening to capture the Knight.


So, I will ask, which side do you believe has an advantage? My take is the sides are likely close enough to be able to have skill offset any advantage, but Normal probably has a slight edge. However, this represents play in Zillions mostly, so it is only one computer AI.

I ask this question, because if the sides are close enough, then Near vs Normal could be a variant people could play normally to mix things up, as a side game. If one side clearly has an edge over the other, then the stronger player could take the weaker side. Of course, there is white vs black, and perhaps that would also impact things in that maybe White Normal vs Black Near is an advantage for Near, while White Near vs Black Normal is an advantage for Normal. I don't know, which is why I ask here.

I guess also it would answer the question of whether or not castling plus intial pawn double move is stronger than all pieces shifted up one, and an empty back rank, without castling.

Comments are welcomed here. I am curious to see what people might have as thoughts regarding this.

- Rich

Near Chess was discovered in an attempt to adapt Christian Freeling's Grand Chess to an 8x8 board. This produced a formation where both sets of pieces shift up one row. This was streamlined even more by dropping castling, how pawn promotion works and having king captured instead of checkmate. Near Chess is positioned as a chess variant friendly for those who don't normally play chess.

Anyhow, out of development of Near Chess came the question about how pieces following Near Chess rules would do against those following normal chess rules. To answer this question, Near vs Normal Chess was created to pit pieces following Near Chess rules against those following normal chess rules. Initially I thought the Near Chess side would have no chance. However, it ended up initially being closer than I expected, running it on the computer and personally playing it against human opponents.

After running the game a bunch of times over Zillions, I would likely give a slight edge to the Normal side, but I am not sure. I would like people here to perhaps speculate on which side has an advantage. Let's say we follow all of normal chess rules, except the Near side changes things this way:
1. Near moves its pieces up one row.
2. Near doesn't castle.
3. Near can En Passant Normal's pawns, but due to the limited movement of Near's Pawns can't be En Passanted.

Game is won on checkmate, and like in normal chess, you can have more pieces than usual counter mix. So, the question is, which side has an advantage in your assessment?

Near's advatages are:
1. Its pawns can be defended easier early, and aren't subject to en passant. In Near vs Normal, en passant is treated as a weakness with Normal chess pawns, not as a move that normal chess pawns do distinctly. The pressure Near's pawns put on the center also restricts how Normal would develop its pieces.
2. It can't be subject to a back rank mate or fool's mate.
3. Its pawns all start one row closer, meaning more pressure across the entire board on the center.
4. Its rooks can get mobilized earlier.
5. Its Knight, Bishop and Queen can mobilize behind its and protect themselves. Normal must bring its pieces out in front of its pawns normally to mobilize them.

Near's disadvantages:
1. No castling. King stays in middle of the board.
2. Near's non-pawn pieces are a bit limited in how they mobilize. If you bring a knight out, for example, Normal can manage to push a pawn 2 spaces, threatening to capture the Knight.


So, I will ask, which side do you believe has an advantage? My take is the sides are likely close enough to be able to have skill offset any advantage, but Normal probably has a slight edge. However, this represents play in Zillions mostly, so it is only one computer AI.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-23-2008, 10:06 PM
chessandpoker's Avatar
chessandpoker chessandpoker is offline
ChessandPoker.com Owner
 

Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 390
Default

I haven't really analyzed this variation, but offhand I'd say the side that cannot castle would be at a pretty large disadvantage. It's hard to test out new variations because the skill levels vary so much and the optimal strategy is still very much in the dark.

p.s. your innate drive to discover new (and potentially more popular) versions of Chess is admirable and very much appreciated
__________________
Questions/Concerns? Private Message me and I'll be glad to help!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-23-2008, 10:55 PM
richardhutnik richardhutnik is offline
Full Member (100+)
 

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 142
Default

Well, Grand Chess is similar to this. And Skirmish Chess had the same set up. I just stumbled across it.

I will let people try to see what their thoughts are. As far as a disadvantage goes, Near replaces castling with the back row, that lets you drop rooks back so they can move, and also a spot to drop the king back. Zillions plays it up evenly.

I will try to have Fritz X try this, if I can figure out how the heck to get it to be able to configure the board and save the positions.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-26-2008, 03:56 AM
richardhutnik richardhutnik is offline
Full Member (100+)
 

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 142
Default

I did figure out how to get Fritz X to play it. Near Chess is a very dangerous game to play. Your rooks are threatened by the bishops, depending on how the pawns open up. You can bungle, and a game can end quickly. It also does hold its own against Normal.

A byproduct of Near vs Normal was a bunch of other formations (like the Bow and Mini-Grand) that were experimented with to. All said and done, there are over 5 configurations, including FIDE (normal) that can be played, in a game I am called "Mixed Formation Chess". And this has extended further to an attempt on my part to come up with a set of integration rules that could enable people who play Chinese Chess to play against FIDE Chess, and hopefully have it reasonably balanced in its play. That could prove to be real interesting if it works.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-26-2008, 05:45 AM
chessandpoker's Avatar
chessandpoker chessandpoker is offline
ChessandPoker.com Owner
 

Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardhutnik View Post
And this has extended further to an attempt on my part to come up with a set of integration rules that could enable people who play Chinese Chess to play against FIDE Chess, and hopefully have it reasonably balanced in its play.
that's cool stuff Richard. have you ever studied Shogi (Japanese Chess)? there is a book by Jonathan Tisdall (a great read) called "Improve Your Chess Now" where the author/trainer goes back to studying Shogi in an attempt to refresh his outlook on Chess and ends up both producing a great book and also increasing his skill level enough that he eventually became a Grandmaster after completing his project. anyway, I hope you have a breakthrough in your Chess pursuits very soon, I'm looking forward to it!
__________________
Questions/Concerns? Private Message me and I'll be glad to help!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-27-2008, 01:58 AM
richardhutnik richardhutnik is offline
Full Member (100+)
 

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 142
Default

Well, it is coming along. I put up an idea for a bidding system that has different chess games bidding on how long they can hold out turn-wise against a different chess game. As a warped bonus, you could pit chess against checkers, for example.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -1. The time now is 12:13 PM.
ChessandPoker.com Copyright © 2003 - 2018 All Rights Reserved.
Forum Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.