Consider chess on a large square board. Pawns are lined up near the middle of the board, separated by 4 ranks as in orthodox chess. Immediately behind the pawns are the pieces of unspecified types. Behind that is a large initially empty "back court".
A square board (in contrast to Capablanca's 10x8 board) preserves the particular geometry of corresponding corners: for example, rook pawns racing to promotion on opposite sides: the first pawn to promote to queen immediately attacks the promotion square of the other.
Initially placing the pieces quite forward instead of the back two ranks preserves the feeling of rapid engagement from orthodox chess. The back court suggests a battlefield strategy of breaking through enemy lines.
The original inspiration was the long battle fronts of World War I. Consider a huge square board with two large armies lined up almost toe to toe along an extremely long front stretching across the entire board.
We lose the feeling of a king remaining protected in the corner by a back rank and a shield of pawns.
Should pawns be permitted to move backwards to allow the formation of salients?
No comments :
Post a Comment