[HN Gopher] Fairer Chess: A Reversal of Two Opening Moves in Che...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Fairer Chess: A Reversal of Two Opening Moves in Chess Creates
       Balance
        
       Author : sova
       Score  : 66 points
       Date   : 2021-08-08 19:36 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (arxiv.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org)
        
       | JerryDot wrote:
       | This paper is pretty awful.
       | 
       | Two amateur chess players guessed the best sequences of WBBWW and
       | then plugged the result of their guesses into an engine to
       | statically analyse the position. There is absolutely no chance
       | that they found the best options for either player.
       | 
       | The sequencing argument that they make has no real foundation.
       | Introducing double moves could have all kinds of side-effects
       | which they later mention when showing their guesswork-variations
       | but skip over when trying to make the previous "logical"
       | argument.
       | 
       | The only semi-useful sentence in this paper is the following:
       | 
       | > More light would be shed on this question if the two leading
       | machine-learning chess programs, AlphaZero and Leela Chess Zero,
       | were taught to play with our proposed change in the order of the
       | 3rd and 4th moves from White-Black to Black-White.
       | 
       | The rest can be summarised as "We thought of this potential rule
       | change and it seemed to us to be more even for black."
       | 
       | If they had wanted to then there are only around 10,000,000
       | possible game-states after the first WBBWW and potentially
       | looking at computer evaluations of the whole tree of
       | possibilities could be semi-interesting and definitely very
       | achievable. Probably better and easier to guess instead though to
       | be fair.
        
         | shmageggy wrote:
         | Lichess has an API endpoint for their cached analysis, so they
         | could have easily automated at least some of the new tree.
         | 
         | Or they could have inserted a couple of `if` statements into
         | Stockfish, recompiled, and simply analyzed the root position.
         | 
         | Even calling this a "paper" is a stretch. I'm usually against
         | twitter post threads as content but that seems about the level
         | of analysis that's actually present here.
        
         | ummonk wrote:
         | > If they had wanted to then there are only around 10,000,000
         | possible game-states after the first WBBWW and potentially
         | looking at computer evaluations of the whole tree of
         | possibilities could be semi-interesting and definitely very
         | achievable. Probably better and easier to guess instead though
         | to be fair.
         | 
         | This is what I was expecting them to do from seeing the
         | abstract. Instead they just examined a handful of novel lines
         | and evaluated them with Stockfish. An interesting proposed
         | rules change, but a rather low quality analysis of it.
        
       | YetAnotherNick wrote:
       | > Other expert programs, including Leela Chess Zero and
       | Stockfish, when pitted against each other in the superfinal of
       | the unofficial world computer chess championship (TCEC), give
       | White even greater odds of winning, but the outcome is still a
       | draw in the large majority of games (see https://tcec-chess.com).
       | Despite the fact that computer programs start play from 50
       | preselected opening positions in the TCEC superfinal (once as
       | White and once as Black), it is remarkable that Black has not won
       | a single game in the last two TCEC superfinals
       | 
       | This line is very dubious. TCEC SuFi openings highly promotes one
       | side over other as otherwise it was seen that almost all matches
       | ends in a draw. It could very well select 1. g4 and black will
       | win all matches. Also there had been an incident where Leela won
       | an opening both with black and white pieces and it happened only
       | once in TCEC history.
        
       | Asraelite wrote:
       | Something somewhat similar happens in the game of Connect6.
       | 
       | Connect 4 and Connect 5 (aka Gomoku) significantly favor the
       | first player, but Connect6 follows a BWWBBWW... pattern where
       | each player places two stones per move expect for the first move
       | where only one is placed. It ends up being very balanced.
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect6
        
       | fsckboy wrote:
       | this is amazing!
       | 
       | white gets the first tempo on the first move, black gets the
       | first tempo on the second move, and then white gets the first
       | tempo on remaining moves, and black's chances are improved.
       | 
       | I wonder what it would be like to continue the pattern? it would
       | drastically alter the game as there would be many more
       | opportunities to take pieces, but if it could be grokked it might
       | be fun.
       | 
       | all the variants that breath a little new life into the game can
       | be fun for semi serious players, I find.
        
       | wpasc wrote:
       | To me it seems as if this paper's conclusion is hurt by its data
       | selection (of openings). It uses Stockfish and examines openings
       | like the Ruy Lopez and Queen's Gambit to evaluate the game. But
       | using this new gameplay style, presumably new openings would
       | emerge as predominant openings with the current very played (at a
       | high level) openings potentially falling out of favor.
       | 
       | Many of the famous openings that are still used by top players
       | were elaborated and built over centuries. Stockfish is pretty
       | incredible but it can't solve chess (yet). Meaning, that if you
       | only examine the current most popular openings you can only draw
       | a conclusion based on those start points but you have potentially
       | omitted what could be new ones. Potentially, with this move
       | ordering there may be an opening for white or for black that is
       | extremely imbalanced, but the move ordering to get there is
       | currently beyond stockfish's depth from the start position (or
       | any starting positions they tried). Unless I misunderstood their
       | methods.
       | 
       | Still pretty interesting IMO
        
         | mquander wrote:
         | I think maybe you misunderstood their methods? They explicitly
         | discuss the most obvious "novel" openings that wouldn't
         | transpose to traditional openings, like 1. e4 d5/dxe4 2.
         | Nc3/Nxe4, or 1. d4 c5/cxd4 2. c3/cxd4.
        
         | bonzini wrote:
         | Yeah, against e4 why would black play anything but d5 followed
         | immediately by dxe4? That would basically turn 1. e4 into the
         | Englund gambit (an awful opening starting with 1. d4 e5 2.
         | dxe5) with reversed colors, giving a clear advantage for black.
         | The next two moves for white would let him equalize, but still
         | the Ruy Lopez is unlikely to occur.
        
           | waterhouse wrote:
           | After "e4 d5 dxe4", White could play "Bb5+ Bxe8", capturing
           | the king. This new game is very, very different from chess.
        
             | bonzini wrote:
             | According to the rules in the paper the first of two moves
             | cannot be a check. The only good followup for white would
             | be Nf3 Nxe4.
        
               | __s wrote:
               | You mean Nc3 Nxe4
        
               | tromp wrote:
               | Can the first of two moves be a checkmate, as in the
               | reverse Fools Mate?
               | 
               | e2-e4, f7-f6, g7-g5, Qd1-h5#
        
       | reedf1 wrote:
       | As a casual chess player I'm not sure more drawish chess is
       | something we want? I know there has been some exploration into a
       | chess variation without castling which apparently can lead to
       | more vibrant aggressive chess due to the king being stuck in the
       | center of the board.
        
         | awb wrote:
         | Some famous GMs agree with you:
         | 
         | > Some players, including world champions such as Jose Raul
         | Capablanca, Emanuel Lasker, and Bobby Fischer, have expressed
         | fears of a "draw death" as chess becomes more deeply analyzed.
         | 
         | > To alleviate this danger, Capablanca and Fischer both
         | proposed chess variants to revitalize the game, while Lasker
         | suggested changing how draws and stalemate are scored.
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_ches...
        
           | AmericanChopper wrote:
           | The 1984 championship, which was played with a first to 6
           | wins format, had to be abandoned due to draws. It started on
           | the 10th of September 1984, and was abandoned on the 15th of
           | February 1985 after 40 draws and only 8 decisive games.
           | 
           | The result was controversial (the championship match would be
           | restarted), and the other alternative formats that have been
           | used are also controversial. Such as the reigning champion
           | retaining the championship if a decisive result isn't
           | produced, and the current format where they play classical
           | games, then rapid games if it's tied, then blitz games if
           | it's still tied, then an "armageddon" game if it's still
           | tied. The most recent championship match was decided by rapid
           | games, which a lot of people basically considered to be a
           | non-result.
        
             | kevinventullo wrote:
             | This has always bothered me about soccer. 90+ minutes of
             | somewhat complex team play, positioning, footwork, and
             | endurance... and at the end of it the winner is decided by
             | penalty kicks, which feel like an entirely different game.
        
               | Tarsul wrote:
               | the problem with soccer is that good ideas to improve the
               | game (e.g. make the time stop like in Basketball: Always
               | when the ball is in play the clock ticks, when the ball
               | is outside stop the clock. This would mean less players
               | on the ground running out the clock with fake injuries)
               | are not implemented due to how the leagues are organized
               | (UEFA/FIFA etc.). Whereas in the NBA every year they
               | change the rules, e.g. the best rule change came a couple
               | years ago where they put the shot clock reset of an
               | offensive rebound to 14 seconds instead of 24 seconds -
               | faster gameplay. Everyone wins.
               | 
               | Would also love different overtime ideas played out in
               | soccer, e.g. put players out of the game. When it's 8 vs
               | 8 maybe that leads to more goals in overtime or
               | something... also, there was a time/place where penalties
               | were shot differently (with running with the ball like in
               | hockey), so there exist opportunities to change but as
               | far as I see it there's an unwillingness.
        
               | WastingMyTime89 wrote:
               | Used to be a coin toss but penalty kicks are nicer to
               | watch. But yes penalties are a completely different game.
               | That's completely assumed however. You can't really
               | expect player to keep going after 120 minutes and you
               | need a way to decide which team goes through.
        
         | gerdesj wrote:
         | To a casual bystander (who at least knows the rules), castling
         | seems a bit arbitrary and so do the other "extras" - en passant
         | et al.
         | 
         | What would happen if chess was reduced to purely "normal" piece
         | moves? What happens if pawns lose their initial two square
         | move? Obviously it would reduce the space of potential games by
         | quite a lot but would it reduce chess to draughts/checkers?
         | 
         | Shall I pick my own stake to be burned at?
        
         | fogof wrote:
         | Here is a link https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.04374 to the paper
         | you are probably talking about. Coming from DeepMind (and with
         | Former world champion Vladimir Kramnik as a coauthor), they
         | studied a bunch of chess variants by training AlphaZero to play
         | on them. In addition to no-castling, they also studied variants
         | where pawns can always move two steps forward, and where it's
         | possible to capture your own pieces.
        
       | zone411 wrote:
       | At high levels of play and in computer-vs-computer games, the
       | problem is too many draws. This paper's idea would exacerbate
       | this problem. If you want a fairer outcome, just do what's done
       | already and count one match to be two games, one with white, one
       | with black, and five possible outcomes.
       | 
       | One interesting variant that I would love to see tried is no-
       | black castling (or no black-short-castling) chess. Draws would
       | count as wins for black (called Armageddon scoring). You could
       | still play two games (one per side) to get the most fair outcome.
       | This starting position should still allow a large variety of
       | openings and it would always be balanced on the edge without the
       | large dead zone of draws.
       | 
       | Chess960 is also a pretty good solution that reduces the value of
       | memorizing openings.
        
       | andy_ppp wrote:
       | I've been saying for some time the first mover advantage in
       | football penalty shootouts should be removed by doing a Team
       | A/Team B B-A A-B etc. as they do in tennis tiebreaks. I'm not
       | sure if Chess would ever make such a change.
        
         | FinanceAnon wrote:
         | That would be a fairer format, but I've read that the football
         | governing bodies aren't introducing it as it would be more
         | confusing for people.
        
           | gerdesj wrote:
           | The football (soccer) offside rule is often held up as an
           | example of complication, so I doubt a reordering of penalty
           | kicks will be too hard to follow.
           | 
           | Rugby union has several different offside rules - well one
           | rule but it is quite involved. Also they are laws!
           | https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/10
        
           | andy_ppp wrote:
           | Haha, I mean I follow football closely and last season with
           | VAR it's been almost impossible to under the rules the Refs
           | are enforcing.
        
         | Someone wrote:
         | FIFA experimented with that and rejected it.
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shoot-
         | out_(association...?
         | 
         |  _"As part of a trial to reduce a potential first-mover
         | advantage, the IFAB sanctioned in March 2017 to test a
         | different sequence of taking penalties, known as "ABBA", that
         | mirrors the serving sequence in a tennis tiebreak (team A kicks
         | first, team B kicks second)
         | 
         | [...]
         | 
         | During the IFAB's 133rd Annual Business Meeting in Glasgow,
         | Scotland on 22 November 2018, it was agreed that due to the
         | lack of strong support mainly because of its complexity, the
         | ABBA option would no longer be used in future competitions."_
         | 
         | I wouldn't know whether that decision was the best possible,
         | but guess that the popularity of football makes them more
         | resisting to change than other sports ("Never change a winning
         | team")
        
       | dominicjj wrote:
       | As a chess variant fan, this is a cool idea that has a lot of
       | potential. I would like to see it extended to include say, the
       | first ten moves. Black may announce a double move any time during
       | the first ten moves after which white gets his double move and
       | then play continues with single alternating moves as usual, with
       | the sole restriction that mate may not be delivered by a double
       | move.
        
       | sobriquet9 wrote:
       | Why not let black choose color after first move of white?
        
         | seoaeu wrote:
         | Seems like that would just result in a lookup table of the
         | twenty moves for white and whether you should swap for them
        
       | OscarCunningham wrote:
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thue%E2%80%93Morse_sequence
       | 
       | > In mathematics, the Thue-Morse sequence is the binary sequence
       | obtained by starting with 0 and successively appending the
       | Boolean complement of the sequence obtained thus far. The first
       | few steps of this procedure yield the strings 0 then 01, 0110,
       | 01101001, 0110100110010110, and so on, which are prefixes of the
       | Thue-Morse sequence. The full sequence begins
       | 01101001100101101001011001101001....
        
         | sobriquet9 wrote:
         | That's not what the paper proposes, though. And doing that
         | would invalidate a lot of chess tactics that rely on
         | alternating moves.
        
       | fsiefken wrote:
       | Another way of improving chess would be kasparov10 or a once per
       | year chess960, chess480 starting position.
       | https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-problem-with-chess960
        
       | User23 wrote:
       | One of the most amusing Chess variants I learned as a kid is the
       | one where white gets the full complement of pieces, and black
       | gets only a king, with the proviso that black gets two
       | consecutive moves and can move through check on the first move.
       | This means that black can capture two pieces in a single turn.
       | While white still wins with optimal play, less experienced
       | players playing white will get absolutely wrecked.
        
       | ogogmad wrote:
       | What about a pie-slicing approach? White makes the first move,
       | and black decides whether he wants to switch places.
        
       | ydnaclementine wrote:
       | For comparison, there's a lot of different ways to make chess
       | games more even between differently skilled players through chess
       | handicaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_(chess)#Main
       | 
       | Paul Morphy (one of the greats) commonly played mortals a rook or
       | more down
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-08-08 23:00 UTC)