Answers.Body: <p><strong>Play Chess Variants</strong></p>
  
  <p>Capablanca suggested to add to new pieces, a Bishop-Knight compound and a Rook-Knight-compound, to the setup and enlarge the board size to 10 files and 8 rows. Computer experiments suggest that Capablanca Chess and some variations of it (putting the new pieces on different files than Capablanca) are less drawish than Classical Chess, see <a href="https://www.chessvariants.com/index/listcomments.php?id=23842" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this comment on Schoolbook on chessvariants.org</a>)</p>
  
  <p>If you want a balanced and very decisive Chess Variant, try Shogi.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-11-30T15:45:42.027Z
Answers.Text: And Shogi also has many [variants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shogi_variant), including an old variant with **402 pieces per player**: [Taikyoku shogi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taikyoku_shogi) :-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tsundoku
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-11-30T16:05:52.963Z
Answers.Text: @ChristopheStrobbe: I am aware of that, but in my answer I am referring to standard Shogi as played today (with pieces in hand and drops).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sir Cornflakes
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-11-30T10:35:17.020Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-12-17T19:31:34.560Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-12-17T19:31:34.560Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sir Cornflakes
Answers.Body: <p>Mindset of many players is way bigger problem than computer influence in my opinion. Watch engine/corr games, it's hell fight on whole board, crazy tense positions all the time... When there are two fighters, you can make good game by playing good moves and then I see no big problem to make a draw when position is exhausted. But when white says I'm 100 rating less and plays d4 Bf4 c3 e3 just to make safe and easy position in hope for a draw, it is bad for chess and don't blame computers for that. Rating system and human mind is the problem. If people played 50% as fighting chess as pc/corr players, no one would ever say the draws are boring and that chess isn't interesting any more.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-11-30T09:27:54.533Z
Answers.Text: Thanks, I hadn't looked at engine/corr games. Perhaps the rating system/human mind can be a reason, but on the other hand you had the same rating system/minds say 20 years ago and I don't remember all that many d4 Bf4 c3 e3 -like games. I feel that this is due to the fact that openings were not completely analyzed then and you could still find novelties.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-11-29T23:40:46.077Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-11-29T23:40:46.077Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: hoacin
Body: <p>Chess at the highest level has changed a lot perhaps helped by computers, so that nowadays we have:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>black often playing for a draw</li>
  <li>GM analyzing some opening lines all the way to the endgame</li>
  <li>opponents blitzing out 30 moves of theory</li>
  <li>some openings considered to be drawish</li>
  <li>games ending more often than not in draws</li>
  <li>GM playing obscure openings like the London system, etc, not with the aim to gain an opening advantage, but with the aim of keeping enough pieces on the board and to achieve less analyzed positions.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>, and other, similar factors which make for less interesting (to watch) games. I was wondering, what proposals there are to lessen the influence of computer analysis on human games and to focus more on the work done at the board instead of at home? A few I am aware of:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>chess960 (Fischer Random)</li>
  <li>reduced time control</li>
  <li>Sofia rules</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>What else is there?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-11-29T22:06:32.907Z
Comments.Text: All those things existed before computers.
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-11-29T22:15:13.423Z
Comments.Text: To some extent yes, but I am not so much insisting on the computer part anyway. Will edit the question to clarify what I mean.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-11-30T10:11:02.953Z
Comments.Text: More money, of course
Comments.UserDisplayName: prusswan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-11-30T14:22:32.697Z
Comments.Text: I don't see a reason for closing this question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Sir Cornflakes
Tags: <analysis><computer-chess>
Title: Make chess great again
ThreadText: # Make chess great again
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-11-29)
  
  Chess at the highest level has changed a lot perhaps helped by computers, so that nowadays we have:
  
  * black often playing for a draw
  * GM analyzing some opening lines all the way to the endgame
  * opponents blitzing out 30 moves of theory
  * some openings considered to be drawish
  * games ending more often than not in draws
  * GM playing obscure openings like the London system, etc, not with the aim to gain an opening advantage, but with the aim of keeping enough pieces on the board and to achieve less analyzed positions.
  
  , and other, similar factors which make for less interesting (to watch) games. I was wondering, what proposals there are to lessen the influence of computer analysis on human games and to focus more on the work done at the board instead of at home? A few I am aware of:
  
  * chess960 (Fischer Random)
  * reduced time control
  * Sofia rules
  
  What else is there?
  
  **Tags:** analysis, computer-chess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: All those things existed before computers.  
  > **username_0**: To some extent yes, but I am not so much insisting on the computer part anyway. Will edit the question to clarify what I mean.  
  > **username_2**: More money, of course  
  > **username_3**: I don't see a reason for closing this question.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2016-11-30. Score: 3
  
  **Play Chess Variants**
  
  Capablanca suggested to add to new pieces, a Bishop-Knight compound and a Rook-Knight-compound, to the setup and enlarge the board size to 10 files and 8 rows. Computer experiments suggest that Capablanca Chess and some variations of it (putting the new pieces on different files than Capablanca) are less drawish than Classical Chess, see [this comment on Schoolbook on chessvariants.org](https://www.chessvariants.com/index/listcomments.php?id=23842))
  
  If you want a balanced and very decisive Chess Variant, try Shogi.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: And Shogi also has many [variants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shogi_variant), including an old variant with **402 pieces per player**: [Taikyoku shogi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taikyoku_shogi) :-)  
  > **username_3**: @ChristopheStrobbe: I am aware of that, but in my answer I am referring to standard Shogi as played today (with pieces in hand and drops).  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2016-11-29. Score: 2
  
  Mindset of many players is way bigger problem than computer influence in my opinion. Watch engine/corr games, it's hell fight on whole board, crazy tense positions all the time... When there are two fighters, you can make good game by playing good moves and then I see no big problem to make a draw when position is exhausted. But when white says I'm 100 rating less and plays d4 Bf4 c3 e3 just to make safe and easy position in hope for a draw, it is bad for chess and don't blame computers for that. Rating system and human mind is the problem. If people played 50% as fighting chess as pc/corr players, no one would ever say the draws are boring and that chess isn't interesting any more.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks, I hadn't looked at engine/corr games. Perhaps the rating system/human mind can be a reason, but on the other hand you had the same rating system/minds say 20 years ago and I don't remember all that many d4 Bf4 c3 e3 -like games. I feel that this is due to the fact that openings were not completely analyzed then and you could still find novelties.  
  
  ---
  
  