Apparently 1. d3 is a forced loss
Anti-chess opening theory is crazy.
Anti-chess opening theory is crazy.
Since so many of the moves in anti-chess are forced, computer analysis has managed to solve a good many of the openings. According to Wikipedia, 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.d3, 1.Nf3, 1.Nc3, 1.f4, 1.h4, 1.b4 and 1.h3 all are forced loss!
^ wow thats unbelievable
Black has a great disadvantage in antichess! White can always force Black to lose while Black cannot do that!
"Since so many of the moves in anti-chess are forced, computer analysis has managed to solve a good many of the openings. According to Wikipedia, 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.d3, 1.Nf3, 1.Nc3, 1.f4, 1.h4, 1.b4 and 1.h3 all are forced loss!"
As far as I know, they are a "forced loss" only because of checkmate. Some variations of antichess allow check/checkmate.
In the variation that lichess uses, there is no check or checkmate.
As far as I know, they are a "forced loss" only because of checkmate. Some variations of antichess allow check/checkmate.
In the variation that lichess uses, there is no check or checkmate.
The most complete opening book I could find for this new Chess Variation.
http://catalin.francu.com/nilatac/book.php
http://catalin.francu.com/nilatac/book.php
no, e4/d4/d3/nf3/nc3/f4/h4b4 are _not_ a forced loss because of checkmate, they are a forced loss in the very same anti-chess we have
http://ticc.uvt.nl/icga/games/losingchess/
http://ticc.uvt.nl/icga/games/losingchess/
What is interesting in the Nilatac book presented by LM F_D89, is that the lines are completely counter intuitive and optimal moves seem to come from thin air. With normal chess openings you can more or less make an argument for common openings from first principles, but I wonder how optimal anti chess openings can be argued for and from what principles.
Four opening first moves: These are not superior moves in a classical chess game, but are in anti-chess.
These four moves are actual mediocre to poor moves in a classical game, but are great for anti-chess games. That is something to think about.
1. Na3 This move does not control the center directly.
1. Nh3 This move does not control the center directly.
1. b3 This is a mediocre move that can serve to control the center passively.
1. e3 This is a decent passive move for white.
A principle appears from all of this:
In the opening, the pieces control the center passively, not actively.
Have you noticed that most anti-chess moves are practicing tactical sacrifices and tactical attractions? At least that is the way it looks to me.
These four moves are actual mediocre to poor moves in a classical game, but are great for anti-chess games. That is something to think about.
1. Na3 This move does not control the center directly.
1. Nh3 This move does not control the center directly.
1. b3 This is a mediocre move that can serve to control the center passively.
1. e3 This is a decent passive move for white.
A principle appears from all of this:
In the opening, the pieces control the center passively, not actively.
Have you noticed that most anti-chess moves are practicing tactical sacrifices and tactical attractions? At least that is the way it looks to me.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.