Comments by GaryK.Gifford
Makruk (Thai chess). Rules and information. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Very good. Now the brain doesn't have to make Bishop to Khon conversions. Many thanks.
Any solutions? Thanks.
Makruk (Thai chess). Rules and information. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have never played Rococo, but in looking over the rules page it does appear interesting and challenging.
I do disagree with you when you state, '5 or 10 CVs deserving own tournament or even entire website. Rococo would probably be the only one developed under CVPage auspices worthy of those entitlements.'
I disagree because game 'likes and dislikes' are highly a matter of opinion and preference. Fergus's Mortal Kombat Shogi, for example, in my opinion, is an excellent game that seems to be a natural evolution of Shogi and easily deserves its own tournament and website... but, that likely may not be the opinion of many. There are a lot of games here that I believe are great, Templar Chess, Maxima, Modern Shatranj, to list just 3 examples. And I could list many more, but, my list would just be my opinion.
I do agree that it would be nice to see a Rococo tournament.
Again congratulations on your Rococo standing.
King's Guard Chess. Pawns move like kings and only Pawns may capture. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Great job!
Sissa. Move exists of moving a number of squares as rook and an equal number of squares as bishop.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Catapults of Troy. Large variant with a river, catapults, archers, and trojan horses! (8x11, Cells: 88) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I guess it is a sad day, that is to see the CV site posting political opinions (reference 2 comments down). What next?
Single Combat Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]P.S. - Arimaa has a nice web-site devoted to it (even has an animated tutorial with music); and has World Championships for humans, and another World Championship for computers (thus encouraging programmers to create a winner). I can see where this game would be difficult to program, after all, do the human programmers even know what is the best strategy/tactic in a given position?
Anyway, time is on the side of the computers.
Assuming a computer is in good working order and that it has a program for the game in question, then if it cannot play the game well, it is only because it is lacking something in its code. With refined codes near optimization - the programs will defeat the humans. If a human cannot accept that, then he (or she) can simply play other humans to have a fair brain-to-brain playing field.
I bet if you offered a $20,000 reward we'd see many programs coming to meet the poetic challenge within a matter of months. You can read about computer generated writing here:
http://www.evolutionzone.com/kulturezone/c-g.writing/index_body.html
Anyway, I believe that computers are up to such a poetic task... it just takes a motivated programmer.
Back to CVs: Chess is a great game. And just because computers can play it far better than most, are we to discard it? I don't think so; not as long as humans vs. humans and enjoy the game while doing so. The same goes with other variants.
As for the poetry, just because computers don't write that style certainly doesn't motivate me to do so.
From what I have seen in regard to both variants and programmers, it seems logical to conclude that any game a human mind can play, a program can be written for. The program may be flawed, but the bugs can be worked out.
In my opinion, designers need not worry about computers. If you make a great game, likely someone will get a computer to play it. That is not to say all great games end up having associated programs... but they could.
And today's top programs, as would be expected, have high national bridge rankings. In 2005 and 2006 a Dutch bridge magazine (IMP) discussed matches between five-time computer bridge world champion Jack and 7 top Dutch pairs (including the European champions of the time). The program defeated three out of the seven pairs (including the European champions). Overall, the program lost by a small margin (359 versus 385 imps).
I believe that is correct [that is what programs like Fritz and Chess Master seem to do... evaluating the two configurations and giving a score for the deviation] but also I would say, evaluate the pieces within the given position. The values are relative and change with every move.
The lowly pawn about to queen is a fine example. The Knight that attacks 8 spaces compared to one that attacks 4 is another, as is the 'bad' [blockaded] Bishop.
Another concept is that of brain power. For example, the late Bobby Fischer's Knights would be much more powerful than mine... not in potential, but in reality of games played. Pieces have potential, but the amount of creative power behind them is an important factor.
The point here is that someone can say Chess is to Earth as Tzaar is to Ceres... but these associations are clearly arguable.
Many of today's CVs begin with Chess and vary from it. But, I do not think this is (was) the case with Tzaar.
Of course, one can keep varying pieces, boards and rules to the extreme... and by doing so end up with something that no one would recognize as having come from chess. In this manner, for example, an artist could start with a drawing of a rabbit and create a horrific beast, by increasing the size, replacing fur with scales, replacing ears with bat ears, fluffy tail with long reptilian tail... etc... when the artist is done we have nothing that would be considered as a rabbit variant (though it is). Only by means of such an analogy could I see Tzarr as a chess variant.
But does it matter? And would I object to it to being added at CV, for example? No, I would not object. But, like Go, I would consider it to be an allowed exception due to its strategic nature.
Hole Chess. Variant on a board of 44 squares with two holes that pieces can be dragged into. (7x10, Cells: 44) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]That being said, the only clue in the rules is that there is mention that a King can move into check, and that a King could even move next to another King (but would then be captured). If a King can move into check, of course, it stands to reason that he could stay in check.
I would really like to update the rules to make 'captured king' the ONLY winning condition. That would simplify things.
Nuclear Chess. When pieces take, the square becomes impassable and all surrounding pieces disappear. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]http://www.angelfire.com/pq/YAHOSHUAH/nuclear.html
And had a fun quick 4 games. I think the applet might not be very strong... but you get a good idea of the explosive and addictive nature of this game.
Chigorin Chess. White has knights instead of bishops and a chancellor for his queen; black has bishops instead of knights. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]That may often seem like the case, but it is often not the case (at least not in FIDE chess). There are many end-games, for example, when one player has a Bishop of color opposite to that upon which his opponent's pawns rest. And, the other player has a Knight which can attack that player's pawns. I have won many such end-games. In fact, there are end-game books which clearly point out the scenarios in which knights end up being decisively better than Bishops.
Such pawns are hazardous to Pawn Shields which are very important in FIDE type chess variants. They are also hazardous in regard to 'outposts' such as the famous 'Knight Outpost.' Perhaps that is why Navia Dratp only gave two of these specialized pawns to each side?
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Anyway, that aside, for a CV event it would likely be best to take one who appears to be the best at a given game and have them play in the event. Certain games are not easy for me at all. Alice Chess is one example. Joe Joyce's very large games would be another. For me to attempt to play those games against a large group (or even an individual) would likely prove embarrassing.
As for needing to be a GM, I'd have to agree with George Duke that it is not that important in long duration events where there is a lot of time to analyze. Purdy, the former world champion postal chess player makes that point clear in his writings. In fact, when he began postal play he was losing postal games to a much weaker player; then he realized that deep correspondence analysis was much different than that seen quickly over-the-board.
When one individual plays a large group of people [where each member submits a move each turn - there is a resulting bell curve with middle-of-the road moves being played by the group.
With advisers suggesting moves we have a different scenario entirely. For instance, with three advisers, each is likely to continually submit very good moves. In that scenario the group has a relatively good chance of beating the individual.