Fun Chess.

I have made changes to my current WIP and it was similar to your idea:

-Instead of using pure strategy dictated by the cards themselves, I decided to use dice to allow players to gamble with their luck.

In my mind, it's a better mechanic because it is somewhat unpredictable - and sometimes you can WIN BIG! I think it will add to the overall *depth* of the game.

You can use a quantum analogy and diversify the amount of luck or the impact of the randomness on the game.

"Quantum mechanic" example: forcing a amount of moves and the direction move, by example, draw a dice of 8 sides and move a piece one square to someone of the 8 possible directions if possible, and after move the piece normally. If direction is occupied then choose (by will, for example) any of the others. Another crazy idea: the amont of draws of the dice (2 draw, 2 squares moves from the, in first place, chosen position) is proportional to the amount of "power" of the piece (queen is the more powerfull piece, for example).

Well, the example isnt appropiate for chess, but surely we can create something more proper.

Another idea about control the amount of luck for a game is a "call for randomness" where all players, in the turn of the call, must play with a random variable on their moves.

This will probably come off as a trite response, but... Chess is already fun.
I think your efforts may be better spent on creating something new.

Found a cool variant called Cheops, where basic chess fundamentals are changed for a dual winning condition. quite interesting.

http://cheops.cheopsguild.com/

Indeed, a worthy goal in its own right.

However, I doubt that any chess variant will ever replace the current game in popularity. Serious chess players will never play it because it isn't "real chess", and the rest of the world will never play it because it looks too much like chess.

Regards,
kos

Chess has definitely become an abstract game - I would argue that this rubicon was crossed when the modern form was born, in which the strength of the queen and bishops was vastly increased. Before that the piece classes represented an ancient army: infantry, cavalry, elephants and chariots(or boats), but by the renaissance this was already more than 1000 years out of date militarily speaking. Now few things in human society are static, and tournament chess rules are still constantly being fine-tuned, so I wouldn't personally rule out the possibility of any major changes in the rules in future , but I certainly don't really expect my suggested variation (or anyone else's in particular) to be "the next one". There have been countless fairy-chess rulesets (some quite good in my opinion) suggested over the centuries, and most are still very obscure, or completely forgotten: Courier-chess, anyone? My idea about random turn-order was actually inspired by a claim of someone that chess was a game of chance based on the idea that white had a statistically significant advantage through playing first (and varying turn order is a widely used modern mechanic, hehe).

I think (as several famous 20th century grandmasters apparently thought) that chess will eventually (probably soon) suffer death-by-analysis (especially with computer-assistance), although it will probably be played informally for many years after being solved due to the complexity and sheer size of the complete game-tree (far simpler games have been solved by computer or even by hand, but endure in casual play). I can imagine, however, that this might actually be enough to drive a modification to the rules on the top level, to avoid the mental equivalent of widespread doping in other sports. Also, despite the fact that top chess players today have all spent years studying theory (they have to to reach the top), some of them will actually embrace a major rule change as a new challenge. As an aside, although I understand why many people dislike the "excessive bookishness" or study required for top-level play, having been shown some of the thought-processes of a good chess-player who has put in the hours, I can say that it does not in any way remove the strategy from the game; it merely allows them to strategise more moves ahead more easily ('on a higher level' if you like). But I personally lack the patience or motivation to study chess theory quite that diligently.

Regarding the other chess variants which have become mainstream in their respective cultures (and as far as I know they are still very widely played), I find it interesting to compare them and the cultures which they originate from: the highly restrictive movement rules, lack of pawn promotion and over-powered cannons of Xiang-Chi seems to me to reflect the ordered, stratified chinese empire, while tubulent feudal Japan with its periods of civil war and violent political intrigues gave birth to Shogi, where every piece can be promoted, and captured pieces change sides and fight against their former owner. I'd like to know what parallels a person from a non-european culture would see in our version of chess. Perhaps as our culture continues to change, our variant of chess will also be further modified to mirror some aspects of it and the conflicts in our world. Or maybe (given the dubious current assumptions that all future wars will be against terrorists) Hneftafl or fox-and-geese will get a second chance and chess will fade into obscurity.

Anyway, sorry for the long pontification