A suggestion of new chess variant and one question about tournament ratings

#30 - For example, number of possible starting positions in Fischer chess is exactly 960 (which is usually randomly chosen by computer program), hence its alternative name, "960 chess". If, in total, 4 new pieces are introduced into game, it means this (960) rises up.

I hope it clarifies my question.

Sorry to disappoint everyone but...

Omega chess probably cannot be implemented anyway for copyright reasons. Though the author will have to be contacted to ascertain this.

Capablanca Chess is certainly doable though.
So is Grand Chess [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_chess ], which a lot of masters also appreciate. In fact, some prefer it and believe it's a smarter design than Capablanca chess.

Please cross-compare the two variants so we know where to look when the time comes.

@Moo: "Well, I think the devs are doing a great job with the site."

I hope my twisted turn of phrase did not suggest the contrary, of course they do!!

@Hellball: if it really is doable, you've got my vote (for what it's worth) for Grand Chess!!

#33, to be clear, by doable I meant 'no legal restrictions'! I do not mean to imply that lichess is close to a technical state where complex variants like this are currently possible.

Anyway, several high-rated people I've read up on take a somewhat nuanced opinion of Capablanca chess. That's why I wanted comparisons (preferably from high-rated players) between Capablanca chess and Grand chess.

If they replicate the feel and thought processes of each other, to the point that one effectively 'replaces' the other, then only one of them will be implemented.

So I want to read in-depth comparisons from someone who has played and/or studied both games. Anyone care to respond...?

Sure.

Still, if I may state a couple of things before we (hopefully) get opinions by more legitimate players:
- in the wikipedia page it is stated that Capa et al. chose the 10x8 board over 10x10 "because hand-to-hand fights start earlier on it". Moving pieces and pawns up one rank should then solve most of the issue, while the ability to move the rooks freely from the start should make the game it all the more dynamic
- the specific rules when it comes to promoting may lead to interesting situations, with more tactics involved
- the board does seem huge (nevermind the contradictions in my post): thirty-six additional squares are filled with only eight new pieces and pawns. Meanwhile, some of these squares may be easier to reach given the extra-qualities of the new pieces

So yeah, I'd love to hear from someone with experience too, just to know how this all really works out in practice.

Also, I found this: "José Raúl Capablanca and Edward Lasker worked on an idea that has been around since the end of the 16th century: Chess with a logically complete set of pieces by adding the other two pieces that combine basic moves: the rook-knight combination and the bishop-knight combination. They experimented with a 10x10 board as well as an 8x10 board, see Capablanca Chess.
They were hampered by another premiss: that pieces should fill the first row and pawns the second. Very strange, considering the existence of Xiangqi and Shogi.
Of course they intuitively favored the square board, but pawns would be too far apart. Giving them the option of a moving three squares initially gave rise to new problems concerning e.p. capture and the options of a pawn that initially moves only one square: may it still move two squares after that? Of course they still needed castling, with the rooks tucked away even farther.
Grand Chess solves all these problems simultaneously."

http://www.mindsports.nl/index.php/arena/chess/423-why-do-great-players-make-poor-inventors

Not sure how much credit to give to it.

I agree with elwood_ that the Grand chess board seems really, well, empty. I played several games of this against ZoG, and I honestly found it pretty underwhelming; control of the sides of the board was basically achievable with only pawn moves. The game is too strategic and too long (seriously, this game is *really* long) for my tastes.

I liked capa a bit more; it's certainly more tactical.

Well, over two weeks have passed since the last reply here, so it seems that there is no serious intention to implement "rating range" option into user-defined tournament options.

Which makes me wander: is it REALLY that complex thing to do so? Or is such improvement estimated as unnecessary? We all have noticed some nice improvements here lately (for example an improved tournament statistics "on the fly", which deserve ovations by us users, by all means), which, by my humble opinion, require even more programming works than suggested option.

Having that in mind, allow me to ask you: is there any serious reason which is actually stopping the developers from putting the "rating range" option - not THAT hard to do with some goodwill, as I frankly believe - where it belongs?

Pls be kind to inform us if it's NOT scheduled at all, and if it IS, may we ask for at least an approximate time of implementation?
Thanks.

It doesn't mean it won't be added; it probably will be added. Development on Lichess is perhaps a bit more lax than you presume: no one is paid to work on it -- they do so in their spare time.

#37, the problem is that 'serious intention' is in the eye of the beholder. I repeatedly stated it was a planned feature but now you put words in everyone's mouth and say we think it's unnecessary. It has been planned for a long time, the difference is, no-one has gotten around to it.

Just being in the roadmap does not mean something will be implemented anytime soon, it just means that they are features we would like to see one day. But no-one knows what that day is.

I informed you several times, it is not a function of how difficult something is, but how interested the developer is in it. It will happen when it happens. There is no ETA, simple as that. The only way to create an ETA is to program the feature yourself -- as this is an entirely volunteer-run project.