I feel that it is necessary to share some thoughts on classification of setups with my associates. As in classic chess, I think it is suitable to classify them according to the positions of the pawns.
For a start, let's divide all the setup schemes into 3 categories:
- Offensive scheme, if there are pawns or other pieces on the 4th rank.
- Neutral scheme, if there are pieces up to the third rank.
- Defensive scheme otherwise.
If we classify them like this, the classic scheme would be considered defensive and not the best, by the way. For example, I would never use this scheme in the Battle Chess, this leads to a high probability of defeat. Look at the statistics of using classic scheme
! This is why considering the modern Battle Chess rules one should never use the classic stance. Neutral scheme is only good with opponents who are not experienced enough. With experience players only active offensive setup scheme will do.
I have a methodology of creating strong setup schemes, which I wouldn't like to share until the Battle on the Ice tournament ends, but I am ready to reveal it later.
Further classification depends on the presence of other pieces on corresponding ranks. For instance, if there are other pieces on the fourth rank we consider it a risky offensive scheme, if there are only pawns, it is just offensive. Then we can classify it according to the pawns at a4, b4, c4, d4 etc. I won't say which is better or worse, because I don't want to be said promoting theory everybody lived pretty well without. But I have to disappoint the people who think that they will be great Battle Chess players without knowing its theory. It won't do: to win, one should know theory better than others, including the setup methodology.
I also have an interesting suggestion which, I think, requires the discussion with everyone participating. It concerns the color of pieces to play with. I think it is evident that in the classic chess the color of the pieces cannot be defined by a computer. Or, to be exact, the computer can define it only in the first game of the tournament, and then it should alternate - black, white, black again and so on. In the classic chess final, I got three games with black pieces and one with white, which proved to be decisive for me. By the way, I was playing with the winner of the Battle Chess tournament (unbound), who got the 'wrong' color even more often than me. If the color was always alternating, I think the result might have been different.
And now my suggestion which contradicts the existing Battle Chess rules. I think it will be appropriate to alternate colors not only in the classic chess, but in Battle Chess as well. The approach should be the same as in classic chess. If the first game is played with white pieces, than the next one should be played with black and vice versa. If you've got the white pieces, you know you will be the first to make a move, so be aggressive in the setup. If you've got the black ones, be so kind to make a defensive stance.
I like chess because they do not depend on chance, coincidence, dice, whatever. However, I tried few games with exotic dice chess, and I recommend playing once for those who didn't. The rules are as follows. You need a common chessboard and one dice with one to six dots. You make moves in turns, throwing the dice. If you got 1, you can move only pawns, 2 stands for king, 3 means knight, 4 - bishop, 5 - rook, and 6 - queen. If you cannot move the figure shown by the dice, you miss your turn. It happened, I needed only one move to checkmate the opponent, but could not, because I had got a wrong number on the dice. This is not chess, this is lottery.
I wouldn't like the situation when the strongest player is determined by chance, and the first move often defines who wins. If everybody knows whose move is first, the player with the black pieces won't behave too daringly, hoping for the first move.