Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Donation ketchuplover
    G.O.A.T.
    20 Jun '15 17:29
    An uncastled player should get a scoring and or rating bonus after defeating a castled player. Agree?
  2. Standard member byedidia
    Mister Why
    20 Jun '15 18:44
    That's a ridiculous idea. Reward a player for winning despite playing badly?
  3. 20 Jun '15 19:26
    Originally posted by byedidia
    That's a ridiculous idea. Reward a player for winning despite playing badly?
    How do you know a person played badly simply because the person didn't castle?
  4. Standard member byedidia
    Mister Why
    20 Jun '15 22:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    How do you know a person played badly simply because the person didn't castle?
    I guess I don't care whether it's better or worse. The point of the game is winning. Not winning without castling. Or winning without ever moving the c-pawn. or winning with no backwards moves. There should not be a bonus for winning a different way.
  5. 21 Jun '15 00:22
    In the pursuit of interesting chess I have to agree.

    Also as castling is in effect two moves. After you castle your opponent has two
    moves on the trot. That one simple rule change will make defunct all opening theory.
  6. Standard member JerryH
    Hyperbole Happy
    21 Jun '15 01:13 / 1 edit
    I don't know guys, this isn't such a bad idea. Enforced, pregame agreed, relinquished castling could even be one of several chess handicap or odds game options on Red Hot Pawn. Others could include: An extra move or two. Remove a pawn or two. Remove a knight or bishop. With enough data, a 2400 player could be evenly matched with a 1000 player for an exciting game. I think I'd like to see rated odds games on Red Hot 🙂 Relinquished castling doesn't mean a player can't reach the same castled position in extra moves so it's not bad play just chess handicap for extra rating.

    Edit: lol computers hate me, I made a blank post at first.
  7. Standard member Steve45
    Garry Kasparov
    21 Jun '15 08:28
    Originally posted by byedidia
    I guess I don't care whether it's better or worse. The point of the game is winning. Not winning without castling. Or winning without ever moving the c-pawn. or winning with no backwards moves. There should not be a bonus for winning a different way.
    I totally agree. What,s his next idea? Play snooker with 10 reds, or a football match with 70 minutes. If it's not broken, don't fix it.
  8. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    21 Jun '15 11:44
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    In the pursuit of interesting chess I have to agree.

    Also as castling is in effect two moves. After you castle your opponent has two
    moves on the trot. That one simple rule change will make defunct all opening theory.
    Nonsense. The other player also gets 'two moves on the trot', so it's even.
  9. Subscriber 64squaresofpain
    The drunk knight
    21 Jun '15 13:31
    Originally posted by steve45
    I totally agree. What,s his next idea? Play snooker with 10 reds, or a football match with 70 minutes. If it's not broken, don't fix it.
    Snooker can actually be played with 10 reds, I should know, I've been in a couple 10 red tournaments... it just makes for quicker games 🙂

    As for the non-castling idea, well it would give people an incentive not to castle, which could make for more attacking, dynamic chess,
    but probably best reserved for a special themed tournament or something.
  10. Subscriber Ragwort
    Ex Duris Gloria
    21 Jun '15 14:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by ketchuplover
    An uncastled player should get a scoring and or rating bonus after defeating a castled player. Agree?
    I'm sure these ideas are just part of the rich strategic pageant of the game and no more or less worthy than any other. Whilst I have had several good battles where neither side castled I can only think of one RHP game about four years ago where I beat the castled king.



    And you can read my original annotations here: Annotation 1501

    Of the uncastled either side games this one was one of my most recent to finish:

  11. Subscriber venda
    Dave
    21 Jun '15 18:54
    Good stuff Ragwort.
    I remember you were in my clan once but can't remember your name.!!
    Perhaps the people itching for chess variants should look at Shogi.
    You can play online agaainst others or a computer.
    I once made a set years ago and played against friends.
    Good fun
  12. 21 Jun '15 23:56
    ketchuplover is obviously having a joke, why not just get into the swing of things.

    How's about.

    Allowing yourself to be checkmated means you only lose half the grading
    points you were supposed to. That would be fun.
  13. 22 Jun '15 17:21
    Great idea; people should be more open-minded. I have a few ideas:
    1) win without moving your queen - 5 points;
    2) subbuteo chess - you have to move your pieces by 'flicking to kick', and captures are successful only if you knock over the object piece with the piece you flicked at it.
  14. 22 Jun '15 21:28
    Subuteo Chess is the future.

    How about anti-touch move chess.

    You move a piece or pawn and your opponent MUST unmove it from where
    you placed it and make another legal with it instead. (if he can)

    You want to play 1.e4 so you play 1.e3. Your opponent must make the move 1.e4.

    You want to play 1.Nf3 you play 1.Nh3. Only legal move is for your opponent to
    play the Knight to f3.

    I'm sure you could make up a nice problem with this rule. Here is clumsy effort.

  15. 22 Jun '15 21:48
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Subuteo Chess is the future.

    How about anti-touch move chess.

    You move a piece or pawn and your opponent MUST unmove it from where
    you placed it and make another legal with it instead. (if he can)

    You want to play 1.e4 so you play 1.e3. Your opponent must make the move 1.e4.

    You want to play 1.Nf3 you play 1.Nh3. Only legal move is for your ...[text shortened]... t to f3.

    I'm sure you could make up a nice problem with this rule. Here is clumsy effort.

    GP, I modified your problem a little, so that Black is also forced to move into check on the first move, which I think is nice.