Sounds interesting. I had played atomic chess OTB with my friend, with shuffled pieces on the start. It's interesting way to play, I can confirm. Feels like it equalizes stronger and weaker player a bit.
I agree with Cheater-Champ on this.
960 variants - must be fun.
It also will be cheaters-free games, as cheaters will suck without their engines having opening book moves.
960 variants - must be fun.
It also will be cheaters-free games, as cheaters will suck without their engines having opening book moves.
Antichess is about to be solved.
How about making it's 960 modification?
960 Antichess - sounds coool.
And then for atomic chess too.
How about making it's 960 modification?
960 Antichess - sounds coool.
And then for atomic chess too.
+1 to anti 960
we really need to switch up the opening patterns in anti cuz its getting a bit repetitive...
we really need to switch up the opening patterns in anti cuz its getting a bit repetitive...
#23, 24. However, some of the random openings might give one side an extreme advantage over the other. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I would be hesitant to play anti 960 because if I start a game I would have to go into it not knowing if the position is lost for me from the very beginning. I know black already starts with a huge disadvantage in normal anti, but at least they have a shot at winning the game.
Although, @BannedGM is right, at least cheaters would be given the boot for awhile after implementing anti 960. :D
Although, @BannedGM is right, at least cheaters would be given the boot for awhile after implementing anti 960. :D
#23. I forgot. Yeah, antichess is almost completely solved, but that doesn't mean the end of antichess. People play and, yes, win with 'lost' openings. Take these two people, for example:
http://en.lichess.org/@/B4opening
http://en.lichess.org/@/F4opening
Both b4 and f4 have been proven to be lost. However, both of these players have attained ratings >2150. So, basically, while computers have proven lines to be bad and have almost completely solved anti, humans are not computers. We blunder.
http://en.lichess.org/@/B4opening
http://en.lichess.org/@/F4opening
Both b4 and f4 have been proven to be lost. However, both of these players have attained ratings >2150. So, basically, while computers have proven lines to be bad and have almost completely solved anti, humans are not computers. We blunder.
Guys, even IF variants were "solved" by computers, you're forgetting that not all people play like computers play. I wager that none of the players in this thread could win 100 consecutive 3+ games as White against Stockfish -- and bear in mind that AI level 8 isn't playing at Stockfish's full potential either!
IMO the only variant which suffers from a theory standpoint is antichess, where a single blunder can instantly decide a game and in many (though not all) cases finding the blunder refutation is straightforward since most of the opponent's replies are forced. But even there, people can't possibly remember every variation and likely wouldn't win 100% against a strong AI.
IMO the only variant which suffers from a theory standpoint is antichess, where a single blunder can instantly decide a game and in many (though not all) cases finding the blunder refutation is straightforward since most of the opponent's replies are forced. But even there, people can't possibly remember every variation and likely wouldn't win 100% against a strong AI.
Yep, as far as I'm concerned (and my original opinion was different), f4opening and b4opening prove antichess is not over.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.