I played meta chess with my little brother

[trenton]

I watched part of Leo's video on going meta.  In the video he mentioned meta chess.  This is a game in which you get to change the rules during the game.  Charlie never had as much fun as I did with chess because I won many tournaments and he did not stand a chance against me.  In meta chess we were now in equal footing.

Some of the rule changes included:

Black moves first

the fourth and fifth ranks are lava and any piece that touches it will die.

The board wraps around itself on the a and h files.

Bishops can jump.  (This one is broken)

Pawns can capture backwards.

Bishops have a sniper rifle.

Rooks have machine guns

Knights have double range (This one is broken)

Captured pieces join your side

At any point in the match someone could say "it is now regular chess"

Sometimes he won.  Sometimes I won.  Charlie learned more about chess this way and he had a lot more fun than usual.  I can share the final game here.

https://lichess.org/analysis/8/4k3/8/6q1/6N1/6P1/PKP5/8_w_-_-_0_1

In this position Charlie thought the position was hopeless because knights move like queens and queens move like knights.  I told Charlie that he could change the rules one more time.  I told him that if this were regular chess then black is completely winning.  Charlie thought that he was terrible at regular chess so I told him that he should try to check mate me from this position with no more rule changes.

Along the way I taught him some basic tactical tricks white could try to win the black queen.  In my attempt to make a fortress, I eventually pushed the pawn to a5 with the knight on b3 protecting it.  Charlie thought he had to stop the pawn, so I taught him about initiative.  His queen can attack my king and pawns faster than I can promote.  After this my position crumbled leaving me with a knight against a queen.  I did enforce the touch move rule as if we were in a tournament.  I did this because I wanted Charlie to earn it and make more fun that way.

Eventually Charlie landed check mate.  We shook hands and we both had fun.  At this point I showed off various stalemate tricks I tried in the hopeless endgame.  Charlie learned more about real chess strategy this way.  When Charlie is done with exams I can train him for chess club next year.  He is more enthusiastic about learning chess now and is a little more confident in himself.

Thanks for the idea Leo.  I can watch the other half of the episode tomorrow.

[Jacob Morres]

im confused, what was the lesson?

[integral]

Chess.com has meta chess

Click custom and choose rules, or pick a preset. 

 

[trenton]

@Jacob Morres the first lesson was basic strategy and endgame tactics in standard chess.  We arrived at a playable normal chess position through meta chess.  By using different variants of chess my brother became more interested in learning standard chess.  He became a more confident player in the process.

There is also the meta game in which we were not playing to win.  We were playing to have fun.  This is why we avoided making rules that would make the game broken.  I can introduce him to other variants as he learns more about chess.  One idea I have is the rancor variant in which the rancor from star wars return of the Jedi is standing in the center of the board.  The game becomes boring when other players are outclassed.

I hope this clarifies some of the lessons.

[Leo Gura]

@trenton Nice! Good to see someone taking action.

If you want a good way to handicap yourself in chess games, make sure you play Fischer Random Chess:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess

Basically any chess game that is not Fischer Random Chess is bullshit and not true chess -- since mostly it tests your memorization of opening moves. Which a monkey could do if trained enough hours.

Fischer Random Chess is where a real man proves himself.

P.S. The best way to win at Meta Chess is to stab your opponent in the heart with a knife. If he's a true meta thinker he will appreciate the irony. Gotta think outside the box

[mmKay]

@Leo Gura thats too obvious of a move. You may consider kidnaping his loved ones and backmailing him before the game.  Make sure to send him a short video on snapchat so he sees it and cant be replayed! 

Remembers me of this gem : 

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by mmKay

[trenton]

@Leo Gura I like the idea of Fischer random.  This would eliminate all opening theory and leave me only with strategy.  Some of my best chess games came from going into unfamiliar territory.  Lichess.org has chess 960, another name for Fischer random.  In the past I tried blindfold chess, and unbalanced time controls to handicap myself.  This did not work.

I think I will try a few games like that.

[trenton]

1 minute ago, mmKay said:

@Leo Gura thats too obvious of a move. You may consider kidnaping his loved ones and backmailing him before the game.  Make sure to send him a short video on snapchat so he sees it and cant be replayed! 

In this case my opponent is my brother.  His loved ones are my loved ones.  This strategy would only work if he had a wife and kids. 

"Resign the chess game of you want to see your daughter in one piece"

 there have seriously been people murdered over chess games before.  One man cut open his opponent's body and ate his internal organs.

The first man to stab his chess opponent in the heart was in 1251.

"Newton was executed on May 24, 2007 by lethal injection on Ohio. He was the first murderer executed for killing someone over a chess game.

In 2003, Simon Andrews of Falls Township, Pennsylvania, stabbed to death Jerry Kowalski during a chess game. Authorities said that Andrews was disturbed by Kowalski’s constant talking during their chess games. Andrews then pulled a knife from under a sofa-bed mattress and stabbed the unlucky Kowalski in the neck, who bled to death. Andrews was sentenced from 15 to 30 years in state prison."

 This is from a forum I found.

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/died-playing-chess#:~:text=Newton was executed on May 24%2C 2007 by,by Kowalski’s constant talking during their chess games.

 

[Epikur]

@trenton


This goes a bit into the direction of James Altucher with his "idea sex".
 

 

 

[mmKay]

@trenton jesus I guess this video doesnt apply here

 

[bobsyourdad]

@Leo Gura

It’s a common misconception that classical chess is about memorization. Unless you’re a computer, there’s no way in hell you can get good by just remembering opening lines.The only people that really benefit from opening theory are the very elite. Even then it’s almost all about skill.

[Leo Gura]

@bobsyourdad That's not how pro chess works.

[lmfao]

22 minutes ago, bobsyourdad said:

 

It’s a common misconception that classical chess is about memorization. Unless you’re a computer, there’s no way in hell you can get good by just remembering opening lines.The only people that really benefit from opening theory are the very elite. Even then it’s almost all about skill.

For context I'm not great at chess. But I don't think it's only the elite who "significantly" benefit from opening theory. I see openings being important at my low level. 

Opening lines is extremely important is my impression. It all goes together.

Trying to draw the lines between skill and memorisation is a silly task to try and do precisely, outside of the rough idea we have of that difference. Separating "latent ability" from what you've memorised isn't easy to precisely do, but we know there's a difference. Although it gets grey and is a fucking mess (aren't the more able also able to memorise more? How are we to make any distinctions ultimately?)

But all that hog wash of that words aside, I have the general feeling memory plays a very important role for playing chess. Extremely important. But perhaps you can choose to describe the mechanics and meaning of "memory" however you want.

You can make distinctions between different kinds of learning/understanding, different kinds of memory, if you're able to do that. I don't have enough tangible grounded experience to be able to make those. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by lmfao

[something_else]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@bobsyourdad That's not how pro chess works.

@Leo Gura It's a huge part, but there are more possible chess games than atoms in the material universe, and that figure was a napkin math estimate. No one actually really knows even roughly how many possible games there are.

So yea, raw memorisation is essential at the start and middle of pro games sure, but at some point in the game the players have gotta start using human heuristics to narrow the search.

By the time an endgame is reached memorisation can't be a factor unless it's the memorisation of an algorithm or set of principles.

Also, what happens if your opponent plays a completely unexpected move? Even after a few moves, there are more positions than you could feasibly memorise in a lifetime, at that point the heuristics and principles are required too.

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, something_else said:

raw memorisation is essential at the start and middle of pro games sure

And that is what makes classical chess inferior.

The essence of chess is pure strategy and wit. In the ideal chess game no move is made from memory or prior calculation. The ideal chess game would wipe your memory of all prior chess games between games.

People are sheep and they just play whatever games they are given without every thinking deeply about how to improve the game and accentuate its essence. Classical chess is not as great as it could be. The game could be made way more interesting if people were less dogmatic about it.

Even in chess, lack of openmindedness is a problem.

[Peter-Andre]

@Leo Gura You might be interested in a game called "Really Bad Chess". The rules are basically the same as in regular chess, but the big difference is that players are given a random set of chess pieces each round, so you are forced to improvise a lot more and come up with unique strategies for each match. It's a lot of fun.

[bobsyourdad]

@Leo Gura I think you’re greatly exaggerating the importance of the opening in classical. Games quickly spiral into unknown positions. The role of memory in classical is very similar to 960. This is why a strong classical player will be as good at 960. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by bobsyourdad

[something_else]

@Leo Gura

That's a cool idea actually, and I agree with its inferiority when it comes to measuring someone's in the moment wit for sure.

Along with Fischer chess, another cool variation I saw recently which works around the same concept was Fog of War chess, where you can only see your opponents pieces that are in the line of sight of your own pieces.

https://www.chess.com/terms/fog-of-war-chess

Similar idea to Fischer chess where you can't reliably prepare, but rather than initial randomness you have partial observability, it really fucks with your mind and leaves a whole shit ton of room for creative strategies.

I would also say that the preparation component of classical chess still has merit, surely planning counters to your opponents preferences is an important part of strategic thinking, even if that works out as raw memorisation in this case.

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, something_else said:

surely planning counters to your opponents preferences is an important part of strategic thinking

If it's so important, let it be done in-game.

Spending months memorizing the best counter-moves does not impress or excite me. A monkey can do that.

[trenton]

@Leo Gura I can tell you all about ideology in chess.  When you start to analyze the environment it is not surprising that chess is riddled with ideology and dogma.

For now I can tell you that I love Fischer random.  It takes out months of opening preparation.  My most enjoyable chess games arise from New positions with a unique way of thinking.  Chess gets very repetitive after you study a year long course on one opening.

Later I can expand on ideology, ego, survival, and pride in chess.