Well it depends on what you mean by 'faster'. If two players of reasonable skill went up against each other, I would say that there are more options and possibilities due to the bigger board.

It is hard to define faster or slower, but if you are talking about pawns being promoted into Pieces, then it is a lot harder to keep track of everything going around the [larger] board.

I would say the game would seem faster if an expert was taking apart a beginner, but then that happens in chess too.

So no I wouldn't say that Gothic is faster than regular. Maybe more complicated, but certainly not faster [as a rule] because chess isn't about speed and we cannot define a short checkmate as being better than a prolonged checkmate.

When I say "faster" I am talking about two things: obviously, the fewer the moves in a game, the faster it looks (recorded) on paper, and since most game lists do not include a time value for each move, that duration of the game is somewhat nebulous. Correspondence chess may have a different look to the moves, but I think it would take an eye with much experience or else some great talent to tell whether a given move list came from correspondence play, which takes many days between each move, or speed chess, which can consist of two or three moves per second. Even so, lightening chess played by great masters likely exhibits more profundity than correspondence chess played by amateurs.

Secondly, there is a tempo aspect to chess which is inherent in the moves regardless of the time it actually took to play them. When one side achieves checkmate by force, it is in fact necessary that the offensive pieces by virtue of their aggression, have the initiative, for without it, they would not be able to press the defense into a losing position. This initiative has a curious aspect in that it can be entirely gained or entirely lost again, in one move. The frequency with which this occurs is another way to say the game is moving "faster" or "slower".

In my own limited experience with gothic chess, it seems to me that tempos get trumped by opposing tempos, leaving layers of latent action which has not been seen in chess, as far as I can tell. This complexity carries a sort of speed of its own which appears to make the game end in fewer moves, if I am not mistaken.

Perhaps someone with better information can answer these questions. I have not made a very exhaustive study of chess theory and practice, but I am amused by the similarities and differences between the two games.

Someone brought up the concept of "distant opposition," maybe on IYT, and I do not know what that is, so I feel ignorant. It has to do with controlling the right and the left sides of the board from afar by placement of the King on the square which affords his potential movement the greatest effectiveness. If I could learn the basics of that theory, it may help me to find the answers I seek here, and then again, maybe not.

I was trying to identify in my mind the causes of gothic's speed, and in order to understand what is really happening here, I thought that separating the power of the pieces from the size of the boards would effect a clearer comprehension of what elements contribute to gothic's observed faster pace. I do not know if such knowledge would be useful, practically speaking, it's just this compulsion I have of wanting to penetrate the essence of a thing: in chess, it has been a journey of several decades for me, and now in gothic, I am facing the possibility that I may not live long enough to find the answers I seek.

And in the greater picture, as far as this discussion goes, the world may not last long enough for ANY of us to get all the answers we hope to find! /Fx/

:-) Well, Felix, I must say that now I feel a bit silly for taking such a mathematical/scientific approach to your question since it appears that what you really meant by "speed" refers to the "feel of the game", a feature which can't be quantified. It seemed like you were taking the scientific approach by asking about the effect of the 10x8 board after removing the Gothic pieces, so that's what my reply addressed. Oh well, we both appear to agree that Gothic Chess is a richer, more complex, and "faster" game than regular chess. :-) BTW, see
http://math.uww.edu/~mcfarlat/177endg2.htm
for a brief description of opposition. For a more complete discussion of the fundamentals of King and Pawn endgames, see
http://www.chesscafe.com/heisman/heisman.htm
Note that everything said about King and Pawn endgames carries over to Gothic Chess.

juangrande: Do you know Professor McFarland at the Univ. of Wisconsin-Whitewater? The web pages he has are stimulating. I have taken some of them to use as wallpaper for my daughter's computer in hopes that she looks for colleges using such information. Thank you for the tip!

Well, I am still following the thread, although you guys have lost me with all that technical gobbledygook. Maybe I should go get some coffee first :)

Better make that strong coffee ... and black ... and add some chocolate to help stimulate the brain ... it'a a little beyond me too :)

65th and Whisperz, it is not my intention to overwhelm you with esoteric nonsense. The terms we are using have specific significance, and this discussion is of genuine interest to me. Please do not think anybody is attempting to pull a fast one here, but if you decide this is too exhausting to follow, perhaps you would do well to go back (when you have had some rest-- a luxury for some these days!) and simply look for the word or words which appear mysterious, and look them up in a good dictionary. I am not kidding. You may well be amazed at how much less stressful it is to correct misconceived notions which begin in one word. I look forward to reading the links that Juangrande provided on the Opposition and on King and Pawn endings. These are two subjects regarding which I am quite pleased to find, there are real people who are willing to think about them, for I have never met such a person in real life. While there are books written, most chess players regard these topics as too boring to bother with. I believe that their frustration (perceived as "boredom") is due to not understanding the principles at work in these concepts, which is the root cause of their boredom, for once they're understood, a player suddenly finds he has a new appetite for studying King and Pawn endings (or Rook and Pawn endings, or Bishop and Knight vs. King endings, etc.) and he has a change of heart. On the internet, I have run into people who have experienced this change, and they are happier chess players as a result! If I can help people find happiness, that is its own reward.

These concepts are not for everyone, however, and a good chess player need not feel left out or inadequate for not caring to study these rare endings. Not everyone is interested in helpmate compositions, for instance. I am one of those. But I do not therefore think that someone who does appreciate them is somehow less of a chessplayer. In fact, if I ever meet someone who is a fan of helpmates, I look forward to asking them: what makes them think that way? Maybe I just have not had the right explanation.

In any event, I am glad you are participating in the discussion, for your disquiet is duly noted, and I will please try to be more discreet with my ramblings, so as not to appear presumptuous.

Eschew obfuscation! /Fx/