The horde chess variant is an asymmetric game. It means that white and black have different armies and goals. I'm seeing people here aborting games when they got randomly assigned black pawns. So they can artificially boost their glitko by playing always white.
For those who concern unreliable glitko values I propose two solutions.
One, the simplest, is to let players lose glitko points also when aborting games.
The other is to keep two glitko values separated for white and black.
For those who do not concern, relax and enjoy playing.
That doesn't really sound agreeable, especially for a 'fun' variant like Horde. The last thing players want is to be gaining points over what are, in effect, resignations on the first move.
I have a much different idea which actually requires gameplay to take place.
Namely, a stalemate (only when it is black that cannot move) results in black victory. I think this additional win condition for black only (black may still cause stalemate on white and draw) could help balance out the game.
ChessWhiz has already expressed interest in balancing the game. I'm interested in developing an AI. I'm sure he'll take your advice under consideration...
I don't enjoy hordes because i think the odds are inequals as white have a significant advantage, i would even say that this is a "stupid" variant. But i'm okay with it on lichess because some people enjoy it.
If you don't like it, just don't play it and stop complaining.
me i would like it if i could know some taktics
"I have a much different idea which actually requires gameplay to take place.
Namely, a stalemate (only when it is black that cannot move) results in black victory"
That makes sense.
I have another suggestion to make, given the "asymmetric" aspect of the game, as someone put it. How silly would it be to offer "return only" match-ups, meaning that starting a game would involve a return game *after which only* points would be given (if any)?
Not that I care about ratings so much myself, but as was said it sucks to have games being aborted only because the opponent had to play black.
It is already a stalemate if black cannot move.
Yes Dionysus_God. But it results in a draw. I'm saying it should result in a black victory.
So if white lets black get in a position where black pieces may no longer be moved, white loses.
I feel like a child...
You had to repeat that three times. Good morning from the United States!
I'm no expert at horde chess, but I played Dunsany's variant which is exceptionally similar, except there are four less pawns. It is harder, but the variant I played doesn't allow white's pawns to advance two squares, only one, even if it was their first move.
As I said, I'm no expert but I think Dunsany's and Horde have massive similarities. So, with that in mind, basic theory could be as follows:
White
i) Winning the center is a lost cause. Instead, use the center to force your opponent to over extend, and create pawn chains that you can sacrifice a bishop or knight in to make the chain's base unprotected.
ii) Defence of the center is an utmost priority, but this shouldn't be the battleground.
iii) Going in from the sides and edges is far superior. The rook files are particularly weak (which is why white can start with 1.h4 or 1.a4 and have a reasonable position).
iv) It is best not to use knights or bishops until either all of your pawns have been eliminated, or the defence is holding and relatively static.
v) Sacrifices are necessary in order to allow your Queen to the back rank.
vi) Separating the pawn mass into two smaller hordes makes it more manageable.
I'm still working on the theory for black.
