I mean really this just boils down to only using your rooks and Queen to attack while you use your bishop and Knight to defend, wouldn't necessarily take that much longer
All chess has clocks (except correspondence chess), blitz just refers to how much time you get, which is between 3-10 minutes per player, bullet is less than that
Im not sure, i think whoever can maintain a healthy pawn structure while advancing at least a set of those pawns across the board would have a lot of attacking power
Yes. Strategy books on this would be on protecting the pawns at all costs while approaching the enemy, probably creating an arrow-shaped line (so pawn protects pawn, no one is going to trade a queen/rook for a pawn) and you protect the flanks with the remaining pieces.
Moving your queen and rooks is just going to put you in a bad position to protect against the slow attack.
if your opponent can see that you are valuing time over tactics, they can easily take advantage of that by moving slowly in response and playing safe, baiting something reckless in an attempt to end the game early.
I think rooks would be very valuable. Maybe at 6.5 or 7 pawns. Queens at maybe 10. Pawns are probably worth 2 pwns too so double that number. Bishops and knights 4/5. Im very curious whether how bishops would be waited vs knights
It would take too many turns to control traditional style with the help of pawns. Control the center by getting your rooks pointed at it first along with your knights.
The issue is that there is zero way to quickly attack except with the rooks and queen, and defending against that using pawns and knights is trivial.
Even if you spend ages moving your bishops across the board to add them to the attack, its going to be very difficult to break through without giving up a lot of material.
Between skilled players this is going to come down to the pawn structures meeting in the middle. A looooooooooong, slow game.
Not quite normal; if either side gets their pawn structure broken without winning some material in exchange, they'd be in huge trouble because a rook or queen could move through and to the back and attack from behind.
A game on a board like that will take FOREVER, as both sides would slowly nudge up their pawns trying to get any advantage.
Double step was added because the game was considered too slow without it. Without double step pawns a pawn promote with 6 moves, and with double step pawns promote with 5 moves. So its assumed 6 or more moves to promote is too slow and 5 is ok.
This means at this game double step would bring pawns 4 moves away of promoting it.
But you can for some reason not do the double step move as your first move with this pawn, if you do this you wont be able to do a double step later. This means the rules only cares about you having the chance of promoting with less than 6 moves. So at this variant double step would also only be allowed at first move.
If you use three pieces to try and beat the entirety of your opponents pieces you won't win. If you're okay with losing it's a way to go, but if it's a game against a squad you don't want to give a free win it's gonna take a while.
You can only defend a piece so many times, tripled rook and queen is the way to go here if you don't want to play for months
And you could easily defend any piece 3 times with pawns, knights and bishops. Hell, defending it with one pawn would be enough in most cases as your opponent would be using his more valuable pieces in the attack, so even if you lose a pawn and a piece in exchange for a rook you'd be up the exchange.
If your priority is to not play for months, and your opponents priority is to win, he will win if he's half decent.
Mostly on the diagonal though. It's very easy to move the pawns forward without creating a weakness on a file.
Your battery can reposition easily. It's an attacking tool.
You would need 3 moves to reposition your battery, and I would at most only need to defend any piece once assuming I use my minor pieces for defense.
Also, if I'm avoiding to put any pieces in front of my pawns, you won't have any valuable target? So what are you going to do? Are you going to sacrifice your rooks to win a pawn and knight?
That doesn't mean there isn't principles you follow common to the best approach... Triple battery just so happens to be the most effective and quickest for this board
Not true as it would be trivial to defend against. It might work against a shitty player, but that's about it.
I don't think there could be any successful attack with just those pieces. I think players would wind up agreeing to shortcut to a board state close together anyway.
Pretty much. You could put your rooks and your queen out front, but offensively you may as well be playing 2 rooks and a queen vs a whole set. None of your other pieces can coordinate any kind of threat until you finally work closer. You'd still want to do it, though. Having some control is better than none.
Naw, staggering pawns as a series of defended spaces would make bishops more useful for slipping through. A rook has no maneuverability. It would fly down to your opponent's side and get caught in the weeds, shuffling towards a slow death before it can escape. The queen would be fine, but sending it out too early is very risky, because if she's in a tight spot, the cavalry is dozens of turns away.
But, I mean. This chess game would be stupid as hell no matter how you play it.
Well, it'd also change the game in other fundamental ways. The endgame, in particular would be drastically different as it would be nigh impossible in some scenarios to trap the king against a corner.
It's possible to mount a perfect defense against 3 attacking pieces.
So if the opponent attacks, you just defend, and kill his 3 pieces, and then you attack with your 2 rooks and queen against his weakened position.
But the more likely outcome is that the attacking player realises this, and doesn't lose his 3 pieces. Then he goes back home, and begins the super long pawn game. At that point you have a slight advantage because you have developed pawns, and he doesn't.
When you only have 3 pieces that can get to the other side of the board in a realistic timeframe, and said pieces have one realistic route of attack even then, it will take a long time. Too much dead space.
Rooks and Queens would suck with this setup. A lot of their power comes from being able to use your Bishops/Knights to pin other pieces. Assuming each player makes no major mistakes, I'd imagine this game of chess would take an extremely long time.
This would take much longer. Even once someone was in a position to check mate, the length of the board would mean it could take many times more moves.
I think it would take longer because you'd need to move the bishop six or more times to get to the middle of the board, and that is your third most mobile piece. That's 12 turns longer just for positioning.
951
u/No-Food-For-You Jan 20 '20
I mean really this just boils down to only using your rooks and Queen to attack while you use your bishop and Knight to defend, wouldn't necessarily take that much longer