1. Joined
    26 Nov '03
    Moves
    11918
    28 Sep '07 09:181 edit
    Originally posted by zin23
    Circular chess is probably a bit too different, but the other two games are actually far superior games simply because they improve on the original. There is nothing 'gimmicky' in them. Omega chess is a commercial variants so they are trying to sell it. The other game birds and ninjas is open for evaluation, play and sales just like standard chess - freeware i ...[text shortened]... hess. Being close minded to great games out there does not bode well for the future for chess.
    I personally do not think they improve on the original chess at all. Circular chess dates back to the 12th Century and one of its past world champions in it is David Howell a teenager GM who drew against Kramnik and is the youngest person to take points off a reigning world champion. Whilst I wouldn't claim that it improves upon chess it interests me because the although the pieces are the same the board differs.
  2. Joined
    04 Jul '06
    Moves
    7174
    28 Sep '07 09:25
    Originally posted by stevetodd
    I personally do not think they improve on the original chess at all by introducing silly new pieces. Circular chess dates back to the 12th Century and one of its past world champions in it is David Howell a teenager GM who drew against Kramnik and is the youngest person to take points off a reigning world champion.
    don't emphasize too much the importance of the draw against Kramnik as, if I remember well, it was more like a show match and the draw was after a few moves, more like encouraging the kid...
    For example I also have a draw as black against a FM but I do not even count it as he proposed draw after 8 moves(probably bored or something)
  3. Joined
    26 Nov '03
    Moves
    11918
    28 Sep '07 09:342 edits
    Originally posted by vipiu
    don't emphasize too much the importance of the draw against Kramnik as, if I remember well, it was more like a show match and the draw was after a few moves, more like encouraging the kid...
    For example I also have a draw as black against a FM but I do not even count it as he proposed draw after 8 moves(probably bored or something)
    Hardly a few moves. He grading is I believe over 2500 so he is well above FM level. He is a GM! and obvioulsy at only 14 improving.

    David Howell vs. Vladimir Kramnik

    The Einstein blitz match

    Game 4



    White: Vladimir Kramnik
    Black: David Howell

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 a6 6.Bb3 0-0 7.h3 d5 8.Qe2 h6 9.Nbd2 dxe4 10.dxe4 Qe7 11.Nf1 Be6 12.Ng3 Rad8 13.0-0 Rfe8 14.Be3 Bxe3 15.Qxe3 Na5 16.Bxe6 Qxe6 17.b3 Nc6 18.Rfd1 Rd7 19.c4 Red8 20.Rd5 Qe8 21.Rxd7 ½-½



    Kramnik - "The position was equal, so I offered a draw."

    Howell - "I'm very pleased!"

    David's draw earns him the world record as the youngest person ever to have scored against a reigning World Champion in single combat - and he wins the Einstein trophy.
  4. Joined
    26 Sep '07
    Moves
    600
    28 Sep '07 19:47
    From the few games I have played on chessvariants.org, I like both Birds and Ninjas and Omega chess. It feels more spacious, and the new pieces blend quite well with the original pieces.
    In the birds and nijas, the bomber is very difficult to defend against, because it can land on any square after the enemy piece, so one has to be careful with advancing pawns especially .
    In omega, none of the new pieces have any long range power except for the wizard by jumping. But this plays quite well too.
    To me the tossup is which new game is better - I like them both more than standard chess. I just wish there were more players willing to play them ..
    One thing to note: if you ever played Xiangqi (Chinese Chess) there are two rooks and two cannons. There is a slight similarity with the cannons and the flying bomber. Also, the wizard is similar to the Camel found in very old chess variants.
    A lot of these 'new' pieces are actually variations of older pieces that existed before standard chess became popular.
    Its amazing how much history and variations existed before chess became the modern game today!
    With this in mind, I never dismiss a new chess variant anymore like I would have in the past when I believed that chess cannot get any better.
  5. Garner, NC
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    30820
    01 Oct '07 11:19
    Originally posted by Pigface1
    I think chess as is, takes years to master, I would not want to even consider playing any f the gimmicky variation games out there, you could spend years learning how to play on a circular board then years finding an opponent!
    No i havent tried it.
    Agreed.

    I've played chess on and off for 30 years and have some amount of natural talent. Yet still there is a never ending supply of worthy opponents, and I wouldn't even have to travel to a different city to find OTB opponents who can beat me without effort on their part.
    Chess is the game of analyticals.

    I would expect that if I spent a few weeks mastering circular chess I would be prepared to beat anyone I know and anyone I'd ever meet who cared to play the game.
  6. Joined
    04 Jul '06
    Moves
    7174
    02 Oct '07 14:27
    Originally posted by stevetodd
    Hardly a few moves. He grading is I believe over 2500 so he is well above FM level. He is a GM! and obvioulsy at only 14 improving.

    David Howell vs. Vladimir Kramnik

    The Einstein blitz match

    Game 4



    White: Vladimir Kramnik
    Black: David Howell

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 a6 6.Bb3 0-0 7.h3 d5 8.Qe2 h6 9.Nbd2 dxe4 10.dxe4 Qe7 ...[text shortened]... ored against a reigning World Champion in single combat - and he wins the Einstein trophy.
    now he is a GM and 2500, but at that time he was about 2200 if I remember well and I am sure Kramnik agreed upon this draw as it was a show game...
    Come on, when you know you are much stronger than your opponent at least you play until the and...the weaker player will probably do some blunder...
  7. Joined
    26 Nov '03
    Moves
    11918
    02 Oct '07 17:591 edit
    Originally posted by vipiu
    now he is a GM and 2500, but at that time he was about 2200 if I remember well and I am sure Kramnik agreed upon this draw as it was a show game...
    Come on, when you know you are much stronger than your opponent at least you play until the and...the weaker player will probably do some blunder...
    I have already said what his ecf was! it was 203 at the time
  8. Joined
    12 Nov '07
    Moves
    17
    13 Nov '07 00:11
    Greetings all, aforementioned ex-world champion here. To clear up a few points...

    Yes, David Howell entered (and won) once, but he's never come back and no other titled player has ever come near the tournament. Most world champions have been around 150-160 BCF/ECF; the only one who was around 120 was me, although there were some 150s playing that year, so relative strength at standard chess is not necessarily an indication of the likely result on the circular board. Any GM or IM who decided to try their hand would almost certainly win the tournament, but I've known players around 200 ECF who've tried it and completely failed to get the hang of it. For a long time it was the perceived wisdom that anyone below master level needed considerable experience of circular chess to have a realistic chance at the tournament, but that got blown out of the water by two of the last three champions (me in 2005 and Kevin McCarthy this year) being first-time entrants.

    Obviously the different geometry of the board makes endgame theory completely different - neither rook nor any combination of two minor pieces can mate a lone king, but on the other hand in K + P vs K there is no stalemate defence so unless the pawn can be captured this is always a win.

    One of the main differences between square and circular is that the latter has no opening theory; some people open with the king's or queen's pawn out of habit, others with the rook's on the basis that it enables development of the most powerful pieces. As far as I know no-one has done any detailed analysis so no-one knows what's objectively best.

    With the long range of the queen and rook it's easy to overlook an attack from the other side of the board, so a much greater proportion of games are decided by blunders than in standard chess. Additionally, announcing check is not obligatory so games are often lost by a player simply hanging their king. Despite, as has been mentioned, it being much easier for the board to become blocked, draws are a rarity; the 2006 world championship didn't feature any, and the fact that the 2007 one did was primarily due to Warwick University's resident drawmaster deciding to come along, and contributing three of them by himself.
  9. Joined
    26 Nov '03
    Moves
    11918
    13 Nov '07 09:211 edit
    Originally posted by Chile Nose Jam
    Greetings all, aforementioned ex-world champion here. To clear up a few points...

    Yes, David Howell entered (and won) once, but he's never come back and no other titled player has ever come near the tournament. Most world champions have been around 150-160 BCF/ECF; the only one who was around 120 was me, although there were some 150s playing that y resident drawmaster deciding to come along, and contributing three of them by himself.
    I guess from your post that your name is Michael then?

    Do you still play circular chess regularly, or was/is it merely a bit of fun and a change from original chess? I read your comments with interest about openings and the endgame, obvioulsy circular chess will never challenge original chess for popularity but it looks like fun to me. If I could interest a few at my club I would get a board, but I suspect that they would rather stick to original chess.
  10. Joined
    12 Nov '07
    Moves
    17
    13 Nov '07 18:02
    You guess correctly (the username is an anagram).

    I play circular chess whenever I can find someone else who wants to play, which isn't very often. I don't know of anyone who only plays circular, as far as I know all the "circs" as they call themselves are regular square chess players. So yes, primarily it's for a bit of a change, and as with Fischer random it compels you to do all your thinking at the board as there's no theory. I don't seriously expect it to challenge standard chess for popularity, it's just a bit of fun.

    You can try circular chess (along with a couple of hundred or so other variants) here: http://www.pathguy.com/chess/ChessVar.htm. As the guy who runs the site says, it's designed to give you a feel for how each variant works, rather than to be particularly good at it, so you should be able to beat it.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree