Tweet
Double Move Chess
=================
In the U.S. National Football League, each team gets 3 timeouts in both the first and second halves of a game. Sometimes they use them all, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they use one or two early on and then wish towards the end of the half that they hadn't used them up early.
Of course, having a "time out" in chess would hardly change anything... but what if there were some other resource each player were given that could be used at any time in the game, and that was limited to 3 or 4 instances per player? This could introduce a new, almost impossible to quantify element into chess without actually introducing randomness or luck.
I thought of such a resource: a "double move".
Each player could be alloted 4 double moves per game. A double move would be just what it sounds like: making 2 moves in the place of one. When it is your clock ticking, you may decide to play a double move if you still have any of the 4 remaining. There would have to be restrictions on double moves; you can see them at the end of this post.
So that each player's count of double moves is apparent, you place a circular token much like a checkers piece but green on one side, red on the other (each player has 4 of them) by your side of the clock. It is placed green side up to indicate you are now on a double move. You make the two moves, taking as much time between them as you like, and only when the second move has been made do you flip the token over to red and then hit your clock. The now red token indicates a used up double move. It is up to both your opponent and yourself to make sure you flip the token over to red.
Before getting to the restrictions: What is the point of Double Move Chess (DM Chess)?
It is one new form of chess that, without changing the pieces or the board or the opening setup, nevertheless changes everything about the game beyond the first 8 moves (that's one of the restrictions: no double moves for the first 8 moves per player). No standard chess computer engine will be of any use in DM Chess. This removes any concerns about smartphones being present during a DM Chess game.
DM Chess may represent the least disruptive change to standard chess that renders all chess engines and tablebases unusable FOR YEARS INTO THE FUTURE. With chess960, another low-disruption variant, engines can be and have been easily adjusted to allow the new openings and castling rules.
But with DM Chess, even if someone should write an engine that plays DM Chess rules, such an engine (just as the human players) would have a much higher number of possible moves per ply to consider and thus its search horizon would be very limited. The engine author would have to be careful that the engine didn't immediately want to play double moves as soon as it can, one right after the other. In other words, the strategic concept of holding double moves for the best moment(s) would have to be somehow coded into the engine, and that is something that isn't just brute force numerical calculation. Each engine, just like each human, would have its own "preferences" that would trigger making a double move at one particular juncture of a game. Chess would become less about pure logic and calculation and more about personality.
Although engines would still be good with tactics, their shorter search horizon and exaggerated strategic weakness would give humans the edge for many years to come. It represents a whole new challenge for engine coders.
There would be a whole new set of strategic and tactical concepts to learn in DM Chess. Even seasoned regular chess players would have a lot more to look out for. Chess book authors would have a whole new, unexplored universe to play with, especially where it comes to endgames where each player has 1 or more double moves remaining. The current set of Namilov endgame tablebases would be invalid for DM Chess where either player has a double move remaining.
And so with the years-long, perhaps decades-long, stifling of computer engines, we would have a new day where, unless a double move in a certain position leads to forced mate or a forced win (which would be harder to prove if both players have double moves remaining), assessing such a position becomes much more difficult.
And now, as promised, the restrictions on double moves:
(1) Neither player can make a double move before his or her move 9 (allows for standard openings up to Black's 8th move).
(2) The first move of a double move may not give check.
(3) The first move of a double move may not capture material.
(4) A double move cannot be made if the King is in check. (this could lead to superfluous checks by regular chess standards that are played to prevent a double move for the opponent with the hope of deadening that double move's effects)
(5) The same piece may be moved on both moves(meaning "ricochet" Bishop, Rook, or Queen moves are possible, as well as lengthy Knight moves). However, if the piece could be captured on the first square it stops on, then after it's been moved the second time, the opponent may capture it "en passant" just as with the en passant rule for Pawns. The opponent must do this on the move immediately following the double move or the opportunity is lost.
(6) For OTB play, neither player may be more than a few steps away from the board on their opponent's time, in case the opponent wishes to execute a double move. Players may only leave the game area on their own time (this may require some lengthening of time controls for Double Move Chess).
(7) Consecutive double moves are allowed as long as the player has tokens remaining.
(8) A player's remaining double move tokens may not be hidden from plain view.
Number (6) requires a bit of an explanation. Without it, this could happen:
Your opponent steps away from the board. You initially play a single move and hit your clock. But while your opponent is away, you might still be analyzing on his or her time and realize after 5 more minutes that you have an excellent second move. You could then surreptitiously place your green double move token by the clock, switch the clock back to your time, and instantly make the second move, then hit your clock and flip the token. This means you made your second move on your opponent's time, at some risk of being caught.
Note also that rule (5) will change everything when it comes to calculations involving passed pawns reaching promotion squares. Covering the promotion square isn't enough if the pawn can move twice, first to promote and then to escape! But of course, that can't happen if you used all your 4 double moves earlier in the game...
Illegal double moves would be treated the same as illegal moves in standard chess.
* * * *
"The changes in chess concern the perfection of computers and the breakthrough of high technology. Under this influence the game is losing its charm and reducing more and more the number of creative players. – Ljubomir Ljubojevic
DISCLAIMER: DM Chess is not the variant I will be putting online later this year (as mentioned in previous posts). However, its transformative effects on chess in general are so beneficial for both the chess-playing world AND the chess-engine-authoring world that I will eventually make efforts to lobby for its becoming the "next" standard chess.
Let the dissing begin (and the tldr's).
=================
In the U.S. National Football League, each team gets 3 timeouts in both the first and second halves of a game. Sometimes they use them all, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they use one or two early on and then wish towards the end of the half that they hadn't used them up early.
Of course, having a "time out" in chess would hardly change anything... but what if there were some other resource each player were given that could be used at any time in the game, and that was limited to 3 or 4 instances per player? This could introduce a new, almost impossible to quantify element into chess without actually introducing randomness or luck.
I thought of such a resource: a "double move".
Each player could be alloted 4 double moves per game. A double move would be just what it sounds like: making 2 moves in the place of one. When it is your clock ticking, you may decide to play a double move if you still have any of the 4 remaining. There would have to be restrictions on double moves; you can see them at the end of this post.
So that each player's count of double moves is apparent, you place a circular token much like a checkers piece but green on one side, red on the other (each player has 4 of them) by your side of the clock. It is placed green side up to indicate you are now on a double move. You make the two moves, taking as much time between them as you like, and only when the second move has been made do you flip the token over to red and then hit your clock. The now red token indicates a used up double move. It is up to both your opponent and yourself to make sure you flip the token over to red.
Before getting to the restrictions: What is the point of Double Move Chess (DM Chess)?
It is one new form of chess that, without changing the pieces or the board or the opening setup, nevertheless changes everything about the game beyond the first 8 moves (that's one of the restrictions: no double moves for the first 8 moves per player). No standard chess computer engine will be of any use in DM Chess. This removes any concerns about smartphones being present during a DM Chess game.
DM Chess may represent the least disruptive change to standard chess that renders all chess engines and tablebases unusable FOR YEARS INTO THE FUTURE. With chess960, another low-disruption variant, engines can be and have been easily adjusted to allow the new openings and castling rules.
But with DM Chess, even if someone should write an engine that plays DM Chess rules, such an engine (just as the human players) would have a much higher number of possible moves per ply to consider and thus its search horizon would be very limited. The engine author would have to be careful that the engine didn't immediately want to play double moves as soon as it can, one right after the other. In other words, the strategic concept of holding double moves for the best moment(s) would have to be somehow coded into the engine, and that is something that isn't just brute force numerical calculation. Each engine, just like each human, would have its own "preferences" that would trigger making a double move at one particular juncture of a game. Chess would become less about pure logic and calculation and more about personality.
Although engines would still be good with tactics, their shorter search horizon and exaggerated strategic weakness would give humans the edge for many years to come. It represents a whole new challenge for engine coders.
There would be a whole new set of strategic and tactical concepts to learn in DM Chess. Even seasoned regular chess players would have a lot more to look out for. Chess book authors would have a whole new, unexplored universe to play with, especially where it comes to endgames where each player has 1 or more double moves remaining. The current set of Namilov endgame tablebases would be invalid for DM Chess where either player has a double move remaining.
And so with the years-long, perhaps decades-long, stifling of computer engines, we would have a new day where, unless a double move in a certain position leads to forced mate or a forced win (which would be harder to prove if both players have double moves remaining), assessing such a position becomes much more difficult.
And now, as promised, the restrictions on double moves:
(1) Neither player can make a double move before his or her move 9 (allows for standard openings up to Black's 8th move).
(2) The first move of a double move may not give check.
(3) The first move of a double move may not capture material.
(4) A double move cannot be made if the King is in check. (this could lead to superfluous checks by regular chess standards that are played to prevent a double move for the opponent with the hope of deadening that double move's effects)
(5) The same piece may be moved on both moves(meaning "ricochet" Bishop, Rook, or Queen moves are possible, as well as lengthy Knight moves). However, if the piece could be captured on the first square it stops on, then after it's been moved the second time, the opponent may capture it "en passant" just as with the en passant rule for Pawns. The opponent must do this on the move immediately following the double move or the opportunity is lost.
(6) For OTB play, neither player may be more than a few steps away from the board on their opponent's time, in case the opponent wishes to execute a double move. Players may only leave the game area on their own time (this may require some lengthening of time controls for Double Move Chess).
(7) Consecutive double moves are allowed as long as the player has tokens remaining.
(8) A player's remaining double move tokens may not be hidden from plain view.
Number (6) requires a bit of an explanation. Without it, this could happen:
Your opponent steps away from the board. You initially play a single move and hit your clock. But while your opponent is away, you might still be analyzing on his or her time and realize after 5 more minutes that you have an excellent second move. You could then surreptitiously place your green double move token by the clock, switch the clock back to your time, and instantly make the second move, then hit your clock and flip the token. This means you made your second move on your opponent's time, at some risk of being caught.
Note also that rule (5) will change everything when it comes to calculations involving passed pawns reaching promotion squares. Covering the promotion square isn't enough if the pawn can move twice, first to promote and then to escape! But of course, that can't happen if you used all your 4 double moves earlier in the game...
Illegal double moves would be treated the same as illegal moves in standard chess.
* * * *
"The changes in chess concern the perfection of computers and the breakthrough of high technology. Under this influence the game is losing its charm and reducing more and more the number of creative players. – Ljubomir Ljubojevic
DISCLAIMER: DM Chess is not the variant I will be putting online later this year (as mentioned in previous posts). However, its transformative effects on chess in general are so beneficial for both the chess-playing world AND the chess-engine-authoring world that I will eventually make efforts to lobby for its becoming the "next" standard chess.
Let the dissing begin (and the tldr's).
Comment