I just enjoy antichess a lot, and there are so many players that feel the same and play this variant because of its joy.
About being rated, it brings more excitement to it. Plus it encourages players to put more effort and see their improvement process.
We are not in Olympics guys, we are here to have fun. And we are not computers so e3 or any other opening is not 100% win because in each part of anti you might make a mistake (no matter being white or black) so please let this variant be the way it is :)
I have a suggestion. It would be so great if you do a survey on this case. Ask as many anti players as there are. Especially continual players.
***** You will be surprised *****
:) :) :)
cat-person, its impossible to read lines in short time controls tho :)
Interesting topic, I like the idea of the pie rule and even 960 antichess would be amazing, but I think there should be some limits, I don't like the idea that a new player won't be able to experience a win or a loss from an e3 opening, maybe you could apply this rule only to experienced players? I.e. people who have a score of 1900 or above that.
@AM-VeriitasFor a correspondence game it will be very easy. Even in real-time games..people can look up the book using a good data structure and search on a computer (such as ctrl+F).
This does not constitute "using computer chess assistance", right?
I'll address 'This does not constitute "using computer chess assistance", right?'.
Quoting from the ToS:
1. Cheating. This comes in various forms. Cheating is anything that gives you an unfair advantage over a human player, and includes opening books, computer engines, and having a friend help you. You may use these for training, or against Stockfish. This is to keep the game fair. A game of chess is you vs. them, not Rybka at 3000 rating vs. them.
"people can look up the book using a good data structure and search on a computer"
That's cheating. Because you're not playing by yourself, and therefore gaining an unfair advantage. If you memorize the whole book and play by memory that's OK, but I highly doubt 1. that can be true, or 2. you can justify yourself when you're marked.
cat_person cheating is possible in any variant, whatever the method used
anyway, we anti players like to play 1 or 2 min time controls mostly impossible to read from watkins list and playing because its dependent on ur opponents moves, and there are simply too many variations to search through them in 2 mins or even in 5
nicely put Unihedron
@UnihedronIt is clear from Q&A that using an opening book (not a computer) in correspondence games is not cheating. Nor do I believe using a computer to search through an opening book constitutes cheating in correspondence games since the only thing a computer does is to look up the book for you, what you can do yourself.
What if this opening book consists of. . the solution of a game?
reading from a book is like reading from your clever classmate in class during an exam
its cheating
http://en.lichess.org/qa/258/all-about-cheating-questions-and-answersQuote:
3. Is it cheating if I use an opening book for correspondence games?
A: You may use an *opening book* for rated and/or unrated correspondence games. You can use a *book* and not a computer. Please let your opponent know that you are using a book - it's courteous.
