In No castling Chess what Engine would be the King or the best?

[lkaufman]

Does "no castling chess" have an official variant name?

Winboard says it is "nocastle" I suppose.

"nocastle" is a Fischer Random Castling variant without castling it seems from trying to get it to play in Winboard. So the question still remains, is there a variant name for standard chess without castling?

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but this can be re-posted under a new topic if anybody wants.

Fischer Random without castling was called "shuffle chess", it shouldn't have two names, so no castle chess seems like the proper name for normal chess without castling, regardless of what some GUI says. Well there may be a slight distinction in that shuffle chess normally allowed castling if the kings and rooks happened to be on their normal squares, but that's rather rare so no good reason for both variants to exist.

Not quite. This definition for Shuffle chess states there 2880 possible start positions, whereas FRC only has 960 start positions:

http://help.chessbase.com/playchess/8/E ... huffle.htm

I need some sort of agreed command from the GUI or chess protocol to the engine that says "castling not allowed" for any type of variant, including standard chess. I agree that no castle chess seems like a proper generic name. Unfortunately, the term "nocastle" has been reserved exclusively by Winboard for FRC/960 (or Shuffle chess) without castling. Therefore, it seems appropriate to request a Winboard modification/addition, or to create a new command perhaps called the "Kramnik" variant for generic no castling allowed - any and all variants. This should also be added to UCI protocol.

The restriction of the king being between the two rooks in FRC is to allow castling. The game you are describing, chess 960 with no castling, has no logical reason to exist and I don't know why anyone would play it; why limit the positions to 960 for no good reason?

[D Sceviour]

Does "no castling chess" have an official variant name?

Winboard says it is "nocastle" I suppose.

"nocastle" is a Fischer Random Castling variant without castling it seems from trying to get it to play in Winboard. So the question still remains, is there a variant name for standard chess without castling?

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but this can be re-posted under a new topic if anybody wants.

Fischer Random without castling was called "shuffle chess", it shouldn't have two names, so no castle chess seems like the proper name for normal chess without castling, regardless of what some GUI says. Well there may be a slight distinction in that shuffle chess normally allowed castling if the kings and rooks happened to be on their normal squares, but that's rather rare so no good reason for both variants to exist.

Not quite. This definition for Shuffle chess states there 2880 possible start positions, whereas FRC only has 960 start positions:

http://help.chessbase.com/playchess/8/E ... huffle.htm

I need some sort of agreed command from the GUI or chess protocol to the engine that says "castling not allowed" for any type of variant, including standard chess. I agree that no castle chess seems like a proper generic name. Unfortunately, the term "nocastle" has been reserved exclusively by Winboard for FRC/960 (or Shuffle chess) without castling. Therefore, it seems appropriate to request a Winboard modification/addition, or to create a new command perhaps called the "Kramnik" variant for generic no castling allowed - any and all variants. This should also be added to UCI protocol.

The restriction of the king being between the two rooks in FRC is to allow castling. The game you are describing, chess 960 with no castling, has no logical reason to exist and I don't know why anyone would play it; why limit the positions to 960 for no good reason?

The answer is simplification. It is simpler for engine protocol. FRC without castling would be available even if no one wants it. Users often enjoy choice and decision. The alternative is to unnecessarily double-name a lot of variants where castling will be prohibited.

[Nordlandia]

Is there any particular reason why there is close to zero tournaments arranged for variants?

I have always wondered why chess players for the most part, is so reluctant and hesitant when it comes to variants and more complex forms of chess.

New pieces or different board is exciting.

[PK]

I have always wondered why chess players for the most part, is so reluctant and hesitant when it comes to variants and more complex forms of chess.

I can reply for myself. Chess has its lore, its tradition, learning materials, famous games to behold. It has also a kind of balance shaped over the centuries. I enjoy a FRC blitz from time to time, because it shows how much one relies on that balance and on reflexes that work only for the normal starting position. It's like a breath of fresh air. But when I'm looking for another game, I'm drawn to the same qualities that chess attained throughout its developement, so I end up playing go or shogi, pretending to understand something abouth the former and being utterly pathetic at the latter.

[Ovyron]

Is there any particular reason why there is close to zero tournaments arranged for variants?

I have always wondered why chess players for the most part, is so reluctant and hesitant when it comes to variants and more complex forms of chess.

New pieces or different board is exciting.

I think what happens is that chess professionals decided at some point that they wanted to dedicate all their time to studying chess, because for them, it meant something. But imagine if one of them turned out to become the Crazyhouse World Champion and told someone and they replied "Crazywhat"?

[Metaphysician]

I don't understand the allure of the "no castling" variant of chess. And despite what GM Kaufman says, the rule permitting castling seems no more arbitrary to me than most of the other rules of chess.
If tournament promoters want more games with a decisive result, all they need to do is offer extra prize money for wins.
Nothing is wrong with chess; it's not broken and doesn't requiring fixing. Many GM draws are fascinating, at least to strong players. A chess game doesn't lose its aesthetic or sporting value simply because it ends in a draw.
Also, there is something highly artificial, at least to me, about Fischer Random and as well as GM Kramnik's recently suggested variant. Who among us can remember the moves of any of the Chess960 games played by top GMS recently?

[lkaufman]

I don't understand the allure of the "no castling" variant of chess. And despite what GM Kaufman says, the rule permitting castling seems no more arbitrary to me than most of the other rules of chess.
If tournament promoters want more games with a decisive result, all they need to do is offer extra prize money for wins.
Nothing is wrong with chess; it's not broken and doesn't requiring fixing. Many GM draws are fascinating, at least to strong players. A chess game doesn't lose its aesthetic or sporting value simply because it ends in a draw.
Also, there is something highly artificial, at least to me, about Fischer Random and as well as GM Kramnik's recently suggested variant. Who among us can remember the moves of any of the Chess960 games played by top GMS recently?

What rules besides castling in chess seem artificial? En passant maybe, but that's rare and at least easily justified if you consider the double pawn move to be two moves. The double pawn move itself maybe, a late introduction in chess, but it does speed up the game. The basic piece moves are pretty much the most natural ones one could propose. Stalemate is arbitrary and I also favor making that a win. But castling is only one of myriad variations tried in the past to speed up the game, and not the most sensible one; at least making queenside castling end with Kb1,Rc1 is more symmetric and logical than the current rule.
The problem is that the margin for a draw is just too wide. The organizers could offer a million dollars per win, but unless the players started throwing games to each other the inferior side would still generally hold the draw at top level. I thought about traveling to watch the last Carlsen vs Caruana match in person, I'm able to afford to do things like that, but I sensed that I'd be spending my time watching draw after draw, and indeed every regular game was drawn. In top level correspondence chess I hear that the draw percentage in games among the contenders is in the upper 90s. It's not an incentive problem; White usually tries to win, but just doesn't get enough edge to do so.
FRC does seem a bit artificial with the weird castling, but compensates by forcing the players to think from move 1. Kramnik's version is not at all artificial, clearly less so than normal chess, but it doesn't solve the preparation problem, and neither variant really solves the draw problem, though both help. My definition of a "solution" to the draw problem is one that brings the draw percentage below 50% even in top level correspondence play. NSBC Armageddon fully solves the draw problem in a fair way, but not the preparation problem.
You are right about not being able to remember FRC games. I think that is the point of having unfamiliar positions right from the start every time. It's easy to remember games when all you need do is think "Marshall Gambit 15.Re4" for example and immediately know the first 15 moves. But why is this desirable?

[Ovyron]

It's easy to remember games when all you need do is think "Marshall Gambit 15.Re4" for example and immediately know the first 15 moves. But why is this desirable?

Because it allows people the freedom of choice. It's only desirable if both players like it enough to play it on the board. If I get bored to death in the Marshall Gambit I can always play something else, and I can decide what, exactly, unlike in FRC (and my problem is not with the concept, but with the randomness, but nobody even commented about my proposed solution where players agree on what Chess960 position the opponent will play.)

I can now regularly beat 2000 elo rated players with openings they've never seen before with novelties played in record time, and if GMs have decided that they will play theoretical draws until their eyes bleed it's because they're lazy to find something else to play. We're in a sea of sound openings that remain unplayed, but it's the human fault if they'd rather play what they have studied for decades.

[Nordlandia]

Why don't GMs play Capablanca Chess ?

Or Gothic Chess advocated by Ed Trice.

Are they afraid of a challenge ?

[lkaufman]

Why don't GMs play Capablanca Chess ?

Or Gothic Chess advocated by Ed Trice.

Are they afraid of a challenge ?

I actually did play a game of Gothic Chess over the board with Ed Trice (I won, by swapping off the new pieces so it became normal chess), but it was before I got the GM title so I guess this doesn't count for your question!