More logical way to play chess

[Polchinski]

I propose the following modifications to chess that would make it more logical:

1) At the checkmate, the game is not over yet. There needs to be one more move where the king is actually taken. Therefore,

a) If Person A checkmates Person B, but doesn't notice it, the game continues
b) If Person A checkmates Person B, but runs out of time, Person A actually loses.

2) If someone accidentally puts the king under threat, this move is NOT illegal. Therefore

a) If Person A puts the king under threat, they are NOT to undo that move. In fact they are not allowed to undo it any more than any other move
b) If Person A accidentally puts the king under threat and Person B notices it, then Person B caputers the king next move and wins
c) If Person A accidentally puts the king under threat and Person B doesn't notice it, then the game continues

3) Stalemate is NOT a draw. Therefore, if Person A stalemates Person B, then Person B is forced to make a move after that, putting their king under threat. Then, after that occurs,

a) If Person A notices it, Person A caputers the king and wins
b) If Person A doesn't notices it, then the game continues
c) If either one of them runs out of time, then whoever runs out of time loses.

4) If neither party has enough material to checkmate the other party, it is NOT a draw, UNLESS they agree that it is. Therefore,

a) They might DECIDE to agree its a draw, and then it would be. BUT they can do the same in any other situation, EVEN IF they have enough material to checkmate.
b) If they DON"T agree to have a draw, and the game is timed, then they would both be moving their pieces as fast as possible and whoever runs out of time loses. That would be the reason right there not to agree that its a draw: if one player has significantly more time left than the other player, then whoever has a lot more time left will refuse to have a draw since they would anticipate to win on time
c) As they move around their pieces real fast, one of them might accidentally move their king into a threat. If one does it, then the other player caputers the king the next move and wins
d) If one accidentally moves the king under threat and the other player doesn't notice it (because they both move their pieces crazy fast) the game continues

5) If the game is NOT timed, then the way to prevent a losing party from stalling indefinitely is to make a rule that each party is allowed at most an hour to make a move. Clearly, an hour for one move is far too much time than needs be. Its sole purpose is to make sure nobody stalls if the game is not timed. In this situation

a) In case of Scenario 4, if the two players don't agree to have a draw, they would play this game forever. And to allow them to do so, there should be an option of playing multiple games in parallel. Thus, the games that are "never ending" are the ones that are effectively a draw.
b) In order for never-ending games not to keep players awake at night, the "1 hour deadline" can be lifted upon the agreement of the other player. Thus, if the other player sees that the first player just tries to avoid losing, they won't lift that deadline. But if they see that they are just trying to get away from never ending game then they can
c) Everything about capturing kings described in 1, 2, 3, and 4 applies.
d) If multiple games are played in parallel and they are NOT in a situation where one would expect a draw, they STILL all count as a draw UNTIL one of the players wins. Thus, the statement "its a draw" is not a prediction that it won't be won. Instead, it is a statement of the current situation. The real question is: will it STAY a draw.

 

[Stuttermabolur]

I have to admit that I don't see how these rules are any more logical than normal chess rules. It depends on what you see as the objective of chess. It seems like you think it is logical to prevent draws and not change movement rules based on the circumstance (for example ban the king from moving to a threatened space). Viewed from the opposite side, some might say it is more logical to allow draws to facilitate tournament play and prevent endless games, and that chess should depend less on perception and accidents and thus it's more logical to ban the king from moving to threatened spaces.

To me, your changes would change how chess is played in a way some people prefer (the ones who dislike draws) while others would prefer it stays the same (tournament players). I don't see either position as more logical, just like removing the "reverse" card in Uno or adding two more colours wouldn't change the logic of that game. It would just be different.​

 

[VictorR]

It's interesting that there's a number of variants to chess (crazyhouse being my favourite), but unlike many other board and card games (monopoly and hearts come to mind), chess isn't often played with "house rules".

Something that I personally find frustrating is when I find myself checkmated, but had forced mate sequence set up, and so if I were to create house rule variants, they would include one of:

I) A checkmated player is allowed to make one final move, and if that results in checkmate, then the game is a draw.

II) A checkmated player (B) is allowed to continue playing, as long as each move after they have been checkmated results in a check or checkmate against the other player (A). The other player (A) must respond to each check.
If this results in them no longer having player B in checkmate, normal play resumes.
If player B does not have any moves available that would check or checkmate player A, they lose.
If a mutual checkmate results, then the game is a draw.

 

[Polchinski]

I have to admit that I don't see how these rules are any more logical than normal chess rules.​

I think the easiest illustration of how it is more logical is item 3. I don't see how "not" being able to make a move would make it a draw. I think that person should lose.

It seems like you think it is logical to prevent draws and not change movement rules based on the circumstance​

It is definitely the latter. As far as the former, it is only a colorrary. Namely, the definition of a draw is based on the circumstance. So if I don't change rules based on the circumstance, this implies that the rules would never force me to have a draw. Unless the two players agree to have one (which I indicated they can, in item 4a)

As far as not changing the rules based on the circumstance, here is the logic. First, the players have to be "smart enough" to assess that circumstance. Most people are. But then if you expect them to be "smart enough" to avoid putting the king into a check, why wouldn't you expect them to also be "smart enough" to prevent what happens a step before that, and then a step before that? So where do you draw a line?

A lot more logical way to play is to just "follow your nose" and wait until one of the kings is being taken. Waiting until the king is taken is far simpler and more logical than avoiding the latter.

And as far as the draw, they have to be "smart enough" to see when its a draw. You can't expect them to do that either.

But of course if they do happen to be smart, they could always "agree" to have a draw. And similarly if the checkmated player is "smart" they could resign. But neither of those two things are forced by the game.

As far as stalemate, the conventional thing is even weirder. Since with stalemate any "smart" player will realize that stalemated player is going to lose. Yet the conventional rules make it a draw. Saying "I can't do something therefore its a draw" is weird: if you can't do something you lose. Thats why I REALLY want to alter that rule and make stalemated player lose.

But again, just like with checkmate, they won't lose if the "winning" player is "not smart enough" to actually take the king the next move. Then the game will continue and both players will wait until someone does finally take the king.

The logic is simple. If the king is taken, then whoever loses the king loses the game. If neither king is taken just yet, the game continues unless one of the players resign or they agree to a draw (neither is being forced by the game itself).

 

[Polchinski]

It's interesting that there's a number of variants to chess (crazyhouse being my favourite), but unlike many other board and card games (monopoly and hearts come to mind), chess isn't often played with "house rules".

Something that I personally find frustrating is when I find myself checkmated, but had forced mate sequence set up, and so if I were to create house rule variants, they would include one of:

I) A checkmated player is allowed to make one final move, and if that results in checkmate, then the game is a draw.

II) A checkmated player (B) is allowed to continue playing, as long as each move after they have been checkmated results in a check or checkmate against the other player (A). The other player (A) must respond to each check.
If this results in them no longer having player B in checkmate, normal play resumes.
If player B does not have any moves available that would check or checkmate player A, they lose.
If a mutual checkmate results, then the game is a draw.

I think this is "the opposite" to what I was trying to do. Because now you appeal even more to the "intellect" of the players when it comes to defining check or checkmate. Plus, your first rule where checkmate results in a draw is askin to the rule where stalemate results in a draw -- the rule I was trying to remove.

What I am trying to do is to make it simple. Whoever loses the king loses the game. The only reason the description of my rules sounded so complicated is because I was trying to "undo" the complications that others invented. But if both myself and others were tasked to explain the respective rules to whomever never saw the game of chess before, I think my explanation would be far simpler -- which is why I think it is "more logical".

 

[Slime_Punk]

I used to play this way as a kid, lol. I knew it was wrong, it was just kind of a 'house rule'. It seems logical and natural to my brain, but I also don't really like chess all that much as an adult, so there's that.