"In contrast to atomic chess or horde, 3+ chess seems much more like a serious variant to me."
Yes, Karpov was quite good at 3-checks.
Yes, Karpov was quite good at 3-checks.
#11 Did he play 3+? ;o. Any links to his games?
#all thanks everyone for pm'ing me with help offers and your best games! Keep it up
#all thanks everyone for pm'ing me with help offers and your best games! Keep it up
It's a rumor, I apologize for spreading it.
You can have your opinion about atomic, but one thing is for certain: other variants are much like normal chess. Even horde follows normal chess rules, just the setup of pieces is different. Mate may be defined in a different way in 3+ and KOTH but it is still conventional chess with different goals.
In atomic the 'laws of motion' if you like are different. Something like when you are get used to the Newtonian laws of motion and all of a sudden you have to deal with relativisctic effects. It is a whole new world and for some it is difficult to make the shift. I have seen extremely strong standard chess players who could not do it.
In atomic the 'laws of motion' if you like are different. Something like when you are get used to the Newtonian laws of motion and all of a sudden you have to deal with relativisctic effects. It is a whole new world and for some it is difficult to make the shift. I have seen extremely strong standard chess players who could not do it.
Here my opinion on the theme, beeing probably No.2 on this site in 3-check (rating 2340). And in beforehand, I played Orange Space a few times and was helpless against him, so I wouldn't dare to compare me with him. Still I would claim to love and know enough about 3-check.
I like to play my own game and my own thoughts. I tried horde, atomic and antichess. The problem was always, it is much more pure learing by mind than playing itself. Don't get me wrong, I don't think these are "bad" chess variants and I'm not pissed that i'm always losing; I just have learned enough theory for the normal chess and that suffices for me. And actually even in these variants, from a decent level you need much more than theory knowledge to beat the other, like knowing motifs, having experience, etc. But unfortunatly all games (on lichess) are just short time, so that it is basicly really jsut "who learned the theory better" which is sad in my opinion.
On 3+ and KOTH (I will put them in the same kategory) it is much more "real" chess. The later is a more strategically enhanced because it is just like the normal chess with a higher value of the centre. You need to understand "space control" much more (when can you do that), you have to calculate the kingsmarch in every kind of position, and there are many strange arising zugzwangs. I don't talk about stuff like "1.e4 2.Ke2" but rather I play KID as white, should I close the centre or play it open? Black plays his usual stuff, but can sacrifice always anything on d4, since after exd4 i maybe can't potect Kg7-f6-e5 with a win. It is really a great expansion.
On 3 check- Me, aswell as Orange Space, do never sacrifice everything in hope to win before move 20. Everyone who tried that against me (like sac a queen and a piece for 2 checks) just got to exchange all the other pieces and end up in a boring endgame without his queen. Strangely enough the value of 1 check depends on the stage of the game, if you get to the endgame often the first check is not worth a pawn any more (yes it happend I got into a real endgame like BvN with just 1v0 checks) Even if you do have to calculate for a few moves (can i deliver all 3?), you don't need to calculate everything. I just trust my feeling if I can guard my kings from the incoming threats. All in one it's very exiting and you don't need to learn technical sutff (rook endgames, weak holes, pawn formations,...) to be able to play this well. So it's great!
And for the openings stuff for you other guys- Shouldn't you be happy there is no theory is 3+? Otherwise there would be again 1000+ guys who just learned the theory and beat you up without even loving the variation. I happen to develop my own one, whaz you should do to. Just analyse a bit at home and come up with crazy ideas.
Mine are so far with white 1.e4 and then rather go for c3+d4 (instead of Nc3), sommething like e4-e5 and attacking the king. With black on 1.e4-c5, then mostly Nc6, e6, Nge7 and a6 if there is Bb5. I also experimented with g7-g6 (to keep d6 coverer up) but it weakend to lot other things. So just play explore and enjoy :)
I like to play my own game and my own thoughts. I tried horde, atomic and antichess. The problem was always, it is much more pure learing by mind than playing itself. Don't get me wrong, I don't think these are "bad" chess variants and I'm not pissed that i'm always losing; I just have learned enough theory for the normal chess and that suffices for me. And actually even in these variants, from a decent level you need much more than theory knowledge to beat the other, like knowing motifs, having experience, etc. But unfortunatly all games (on lichess) are just short time, so that it is basicly really jsut "who learned the theory better" which is sad in my opinion.
On 3+ and KOTH (I will put them in the same kategory) it is much more "real" chess. The later is a more strategically enhanced because it is just like the normal chess with a higher value of the centre. You need to understand "space control" much more (when can you do that), you have to calculate the kingsmarch in every kind of position, and there are many strange arising zugzwangs. I don't talk about stuff like "1.e4 2.Ke2" but rather I play KID as white, should I close the centre or play it open? Black plays his usual stuff, but can sacrifice always anything on d4, since after exd4 i maybe can't potect Kg7-f6-e5 with a win. It is really a great expansion.
On 3 check- Me, aswell as Orange Space, do never sacrifice everything in hope to win before move 20. Everyone who tried that against me (like sac a queen and a piece for 2 checks) just got to exchange all the other pieces and end up in a boring endgame without his queen. Strangely enough the value of 1 check depends on the stage of the game, if you get to the endgame often the first check is not worth a pawn any more (yes it happend I got into a real endgame like BvN with just 1v0 checks) Even if you do have to calculate for a few moves (can i deliver all 3?), you don't need to calculate everything. I just trust my feeling if I can guard my kings from the incoming threats. All in one it's very exiting and you don't need to learn technical sutff (rook endgames, weak holes, pawn formations,...) to be able to play this well. So it's great!
And for the openings stuff for you other guys- Shouldn't you be happy there is no theory is 3+? Otherwise there would be again 1000+ guys who just learned the theory and beat you up without even loving the variation. I happen to develop my own one, whaz you should do to. Just analyse a bit at home and come up with crazy ideas.
Mine are so far with white 1.e4 and then rather go for c3+d4 (instead of Nc3), sommething like e4-e5 and attacking the king. With black on 1.e4-c5, then mostly Nc6, e6, Nge7 and a6 if there is Bb5. I also experimented with g7-g6 (to keep d6 coverer up) but it weakend to lot other things. So just play explore and enjoy :)
@ToLazy Ironically, most of my games end in me saccing all my pieces in less than 20 moves. Also, there is a ton of theory behind 3+, but so far nothing has been set in stone. Openings matter a lot, and I think that 1. e4 with perfect play should always be a win for white. The best way to describe 3+ is that it's a hyper-offensive chess game with a huge emphasis on piece activity, space, and initiative.
to say e4 wins by force is fascinating. I would love Orangespacedrink to write a book tittled "my 100 most instructive 3 check games"
Also if lichess can put together a opening book for all variants that would a invaluable resource.
Also if lichess can put together a opening book for all variants that would a invaluable resource.
@thegreatpretender I am working on some kind of opening book myself! This will take a while though.
If you are interested in a GUI which supports building an opening book, I'm developing one in Java.
You can annotate moves in it and the annotated moves become color coded and ordered according to their quality. If you have access to a 3+ UCI engine, it also lets you evaluate every single move in a given position and the evaluations are stored and become part of the book. Of course transpositions are handled correctly.
All you need to run it is the latest version of Java installed on your computer.
github.com/javachessgui/javachessgui2
You can annotate moves in it and the annotated moves become color coded and ordered according to their quality. If you have access to a 3+ UCI engine, it also lets you evaluate every single move in a given position and the evaluations are stored and become part of the book. Of course transpositions are handled correctly.
All you need to run it is the latest version of Java installed on your computer.
github.com/javachessgui/javachessgui2
i use quite old java because i had too many problems with new ones and unfortunately the program doesnt work for me.
do you know any alternatives? i heard thad scid can handle three check but i had problems with configuring it, so i dont know if its true
sakram when your website will become public?
do you know any alternatives? i heard thad scid can handle three check but i had problems with configuring it, so i dont know if its true
sakram when your website will become public?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.