Near Chess was discovered in an attempt to adapt Christian Freeling's
Grand Chess to an 8x8 board. This produced a formation where both
sets of pieces ****ft up one row. This was streamlined even more by
dropping castling, how pawn promotion works and having king captured
instead of checkmate. Near Chess is positioned as a chess variant
friendly for those who don't normally play chess.
Anyhow, out of development of Near Chess came the question about how
pieces following Near Chess rules would do against those following
normal chess rules. To answer this question, Near vs Normal Chess
was created to pit pieces following Near Chess rules against those
following normal chess rules. Initially I thought the Near Chess
side would have no chance. However, it ended up initially being
closer than I expected, running it on the computer and personally
playing it against human opponents.
After running the game a bunch of times over Zillions, I would likely
give a slight edge to the Normal side, but I am not sure. I would like
people here to perhaps speculate on which side has an advantage. Let's
say we follow all of normal chess rules, except the Near side changes
things this way:
1. Near moves its pieces up one row.
2. Near doesn't castle.
3. Near can En Passant Normal's pawns, but due to the limited movement
of Near's Pawns can't be En Passanted.
Game is won on checkmate, and like in normal chess, you can have more
pieces than usual counter mix. So, the question is, which side has an
advantage in your *****sment?
Near's advatages are:
1. Its pawns can be defended easier early, and aren't subject to en
passant. In Near vs Normal, en passant is treated as a weakness with
Normal chess pawns, not as a move that normal chess pawns do
distinctly. The pressure Near's pawns put on the center also restricts
how Normal would develop its pieces.
2. It can't be subject to a back rank mate or fool's mate.
3. Its pawns all start one row closer, meaning more pressure across
the entire board on the center.
4. Its rooks can get mobilized earlier.
5. Its Knight, Bishop and Queen can mobilize behind its and protect
themselves. Normal must bring its pieces out in front of its pawns
normally to mobilize them.
Near's disadvantages:
1. No castling. King stays in middle of the board.
2. Near's non-pawn pieces are a bit limited in how they mobilize. If
you bring a knight out, for example, Normal can manage to push a pawn
2 spaces, threatening to capture the Knight.
So, I will ask, which side do you believe has an advantage? My take is
the sides are likely close enough to be able to have skill offset any
advantage, but Normal probably has a slight edge. However, this
represents play in Zillions mostly, so it is only one computer AI.
I ask this question, because if the sides are close enough, then Near
vs Normal could be a variant people could play normally to mix things
up, as a side game. If one side clearly has an edge over the other,
then the stronger player could take the weaker side. Of course, there
is white vs black, and perhaps that would also impact things in that
maybe White Normal vs Black Near is an advantage for Near, while White
Near vs Black Normal is an advantage for Normal. I don't know, which
is why I ask here.
I guess also it would answer the question of whether or not castling
plus intial pawn double move is stronger than all pieces ****fted up
one, and an empty back rank, without castling.
Comments are welcomed here. I am curious to see what people might
have as thoughts regarding this.
- Rich
|
