[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by George Duke
Home page of The Chess Variant Pages. Homepage of The Chess Variant Pages.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Novo Chess. War game chess variant from the Netherlands, 1937. (12x8, Cells: 96) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In 1937 Novo Chess became the first design to utilize all four modern fundamental game pieces Rook, Knight, Bishop and Falcon. On its ninety-six(96) squares (8x12), Novo's fourteen (14)piece types, each within certain special features, correspond to these more familiar game pieces: General,General Staff = King; Mil. Eng. Unit, Red Cross, Artillery, Tank = Rook; Airship, Bicycle Unit(up to 2 sqs)= Bishop; Ship, Submarine = Queen; Airplane = Knight; Motor Unit = Falcon; Infantry = Pawn; [Spy: all seven possible]. Great write-up of a game that actually achieved some popularity for a time.
Quintessential chess. Large chess variants, with some pieces moving with a sequence of knight moves in a zigzag line. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I rated Quintessential Chess as excellent in my group's voting toward finalists in 84-space contest. Jorg Knappen's previous article 'Nachtmahr' establishes Quintessence as probably the best of nightrider species. (The camel square being also next logical one after rook-knight-bishop coverage) Bishop-like pieces (Janus, Dragon Horse) are correct complements to challenging Quintessence maneuvers; only Leeloo can move rookwise. Seven piece types make long-term strategy manageable not whimsical. Pawn's bockspringen likely being new idea, Squirrel/Centurion completes the mix so as to cover all pawns initially. Great game.
Complete Permutation Chess. Game with all possible combinations of Falcon, Rook, Bishop and Knight on the back row. (16x8, Cells: 128) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]With reference to games patent coverage, 8x8 board size is not reserved in the Falcon Chess patent claims, so variant designers are free to use Falcon on the standard small board. Even in 8x10 or 10x10 there is no infringement with unusual piece mixes and Falcon. As ex., Beastmaster Chess' unifying concept of leaping pieces might be interesting combined with Falcon, Scorpion and Dragon on large boards 10-square or 12-square. George William Duke
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The edge squares are essential for all the pieces since each can be swapped there, or end there in capturing, if only from another edge square. The Long Leaper is a more natural piece than say a Cannon, and in Rococo exceeded in value by two other pieces. My estimates: Immobilizer 10, Advancer 8, LL 7, Swapper 5, Chameleon 4, Withdrawer 3, Cannon Pawn 2. A Triangulator, as described, or Coordinator for that matter would not fit in well with this mix of pieces. CVP has about 2000 games the last time I checked, somewhat fewer than David Pritchard's Encyclopedia. Of course, there is substantial overlap, such as Ultima.
Pocket Polypiece Chess 43. Game with off-board pocket where all pieces of a type change when one piece of a type is moved normally. (7x6, Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Excellent for Jacks & Witches, having played one of the Courier J&W games by the same inventor. I tried Polypiece 43 too, and I think lack of clarity, the lately popular criterion for CVP's ratings, applies. However, Mark Thompson suggests in 'Defining the Abstract' that Clarity trades off with Depth, and PP43 is deep for under 64 squares, I would say; and its originality is high. The other tension Thompson sees is between Drama and Decisiveness, exchanging or played off one against the other to great extent; these third and fourth criteria for a well-designed game would come into play at the 73(72+Pocket) squares, well worth trying. Of course, Polypiece inventions go back to Ralph Betza (as all wisdom does), and Betza says in Polyp. article that there are 'hundreds of thousands of variants,' yet all Polypiece at root, meaning not just pieces but games. So, it can help to have standards besides popularity and polls. I prefer Cannon/Canon's flip at option in Jacks & Witches (and Ch. Larger Bd.), because clarity is not a problem where other pieces are not flipping, and J&W shows drama, decisiveness, and depth too.
Slide-shuffle. Variation of Shuffle Chess with special castling. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A serious, reasonable suggestion in the randomizing back rank theme for Orthodox Chess. However-- allowing for some license to re-direct the subject matter to CVP entries-- Fischer-random, Shuffle-, or Slide-shuffle as methods for determining initial set-ups, can be adapted to most (90%+) of the 2000 chess variations listed in CVP. It would not be applicable to only one. And each starting array, being able to generate its own data base of specific games, could stand as a unique Game in itself. (Similar to Gothic Chess' considered switch of two pieces warranting its patents) Taking the mentioned 2880 starting positions as near the average, or rounding to 3000, there are now 6 million distinct variants available. Insofar as sheer numbers are the usual goal here, Ralph Betza's Polypiece concept of fluctuating piece powers generates at the very least 1000 cases per chess variant. Overlaying these makes 6 billion separate Sets of Rules. Further, coordinate pieces, hardly used at all to date beyond the time-worn King-Coordinator rank-file standard, could easily contribute another 10*3 factor: 6+ trillion game-play methods-- each capable of having own actual scores. If Orthodox Chess is up to 3 or 4 million of those, then such unique sets of rules (6x10*12), as attainable methods of play (the coequality of all forms ever being sacrosanct), may someday translate into near 25 quintillion games of Chess. [Or, supported by proposed novelties, factor in comparable quantities, mostly on order of 10*3, for Pawns, King moves, Castling rules, time controls, move-turn order, immobilization and reduction, and any twenty(20) other important parameters; then the Googol is in reach: a Googol chess variants and still more games...]
I do not think Michael Howe's comment entails 'sillyness' (sic), as he puts it. That is in fact what Howe offers the chess-playing public in Nova, up to 3x10*16 (quadrillions) versions of chess, none more recommended than another. No doubt there are many interesting,excellent games in there in Nova's programming enterprise. In contrasting approach, Grand, Omega, Gothic, Falcon, naming a few convenient examples, each seriously offer one well-considered variant. Intermediately, this Slide-Shuffle proposes 2880 unique set-ups--inevitably each one eventually developing its own theory-- as solution to the computer and opening theory problems facing Orthodox. However, such randomizing flies in the face of centuries of tradition of equal and constantly-initial-positioned forces.
Deployment. The initial setup of the pieces is open but hidden from the other player. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A method of randomizing the back row on the (no longer?) sacrosanct 64 squares easily relates to Slide-Shuffle, also posted this week as solution to the Opening Theory, Draw, and Computer problems confronting Orthodox Chess. Suppose this Deployment only specially requires Bishops on opposite colour, as Slide-Shuffle; then each side has the 2880 possible arrays of Sl.Sh.: Deployment's not requiring mirror image here means (2880x2880) 8294400 possible initial set-ups, and opening theory is done away with. Except for Chess-Unequal-Armies games, a break from mirror-image starting array ordinarily entails switch of just two pieces, usually King and Queen. Random Chess, even Fischer's, is not new idea, going back 200 yrs. now; all these are copycats of Aaron Alexandre, author of 'Encyclopedie des Echecs'. Today Chaos Chess goes even step further in allowing deployment anywhere on board, so long as no checks present.
Gridlock. Large, wargame inspired variant. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]When using 'a Thief in the Knight', does it transfer the Field of Influence on all levels, or only take pieces out of Medusa's range? Is Armour pushed through Wall or Jump Gate? Thirdly, can Tonk's Chamber be pivoted without flanking Crystal?
Cagliostro's Chess. Variant on 12 by 8 board with combination pieces. (12x8, Cells: 96) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Re Chas. Gilman's comment, Cagliostro's is fairly interesting mix of standard compound pieces. When there becomes a predominant mainstream replacement for 64-sq. Orthodox--versus CVP's Googol (10^100) and more possibilities [See recent comments under random chesses, Deployment and Slide Shuffle]--most likely it will have time-honoured, paired R, B, and N, as Orthodox, and such as Capablanca's, Grand, Omega, Falcon and Gothic, on expanded board. Here in Cagliostro's, the idea extends the pairing to Archbishop (B, N) and includes one General (=Amazon = R,N,B). Its fully twelve files, however, as realistic sequel and serious study, may belong to distant future, despite precedent in regional, long-lived Courier Chess.
Rules of Chess FAQ. Frequently asked chess questions.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Of course if free castling is stipulated (as commonly before 100 yrs. ago), King can move one, two or three squares and Rook over to the adjacent square in a castle. Other than castling, in Orthodox Chess King moves its one square. But this is the Chess Variant Page, and the King movement rules are different in, I would guess, half or even one thousand(1000) of the 1600 or 1800 chess-type games herein.
Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A general criticism of Fugue is the high number of piece types (nine) for its sixty-four squares, ratio 9/64. A much-commented game lately is Maxima with ratio piece types to squares 9/76, still (too) high, compared to Orthodox (Mad-Queen, FIDE) 6/64, RNBKQP. (Somewhat afield, at one time on CVP there were discussions of initial piece density where Orthodox shows 50%, as Fugue.) As further ex., in 84-square contest judging, my main critique of Tamerspiel is this same Piece-type Density, 20/84 there, twenty different types of pieces, confusing strategy. There is a point at which game piece differentiation distracts and detracts, players having to dwell on interpretations of rules before even considering actual moves; any chess-like game on 64 sqs. with say 16 different ways of moving surely fails. At some point, criteria like Drama, Decisiveness, Clarity and Depth, as in Mark Thompson's 'Defining the Abstract', need be used more systemically and justified than 'variantists' do today. Games developers justify choices with only 'I like this' or 'That works' without explanation. On what basis? By what other criteria than the five mentioned above?--I have five more to name for measure in another comment. Now Fugue is neat adaptation to 64-sqs.,worthy of its 'Excellents', retaining Cannon Pawns, Imm. and Swapper, the crux of Rococo, but the nine game piece forms may confound tactics, sort of leveling play where often one move is about good as another.
RLavieri cites '23/47' as if some irrelevant, random number out of the blue. Far from it. Actually, recognizing that more than any other number, 23 squares precisely are reachable by Orthodox Queen unobstructed on 64-square board [Or better, 22.8=23 is the average for Q, varying among 21,23,25,27]; and finding that 47 spaces exactly are reached by Winged Amazon [Q+N+Falcon] on average from the twelve centermost squares[((51x4)+(45x8))/12]-- this 23/47, in fact, by chance expresses important measure of relative strengths of two basic compounds, whilst Falcon-Amazon situates centrally on 64 squares, as good strategy dictates. Immediately, particular ratio's relevance to 80- and 100-square boards remains obscure.
Roberto: In a way this topic starts with Robert Abbott's 1980's article 'What's Wrong with Ultima.' Eventually, tone of CVP becomes, what is right with Rococo?--Ultima offshoot. Now theme is: what is right and what is wrong with Fugue? I consider myself Rococo playing expert from present-Courier games, nothing wrong with Rococo as it is. Based on knowledge 2000 Encyclopedia CV games and more or less 2000 CVP games and 200 games patents more or less, I see at least one suspect feature in Fugue, high piece-type density, not having played it. Maybe standards or principles, Depth, Clarity, Piece-type Density, help evaluate games, because there is this prospect (simply using Fugue as available example): Vary the Archer-Bowman ten ways (ranges), vary the Shield ten ways (different piece combinations not shielded etc.), vary the Pawns ten ways (make one or two Pawns unique piece, for ten piece types altogether, etc.). Those options alone make 10x10x10 = 1000 new games, 1000 more sets of rules, more or less. A better way: a priori evaluative criteria. As far as subjectivity in Arts, Paracelsus says, 'Resolute imagination is the beginning of all magical operations. Because men do not perfectly believe and imagine, the result is that Arts are uncertain when they might be wholly certain.'
Magna Carta Chess. Black has the FIDE array, White has a Marshal and an Archbishop instead of a Queen and King. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]One of first Chess-Unequal-Armies games is described by Martin Gardner in Scientific American column in mid-20th century. It has Maharajah (same as Amazon) alone versus standard side of sixteen pieces. Then come Ralph Betza´s CUA games. Here is a logical CUA try with standard compounds; its creativity lies in having, in effect, two Kings per side: a K-Q pair as such vs. Ma-C pair as such, their different movements the 'Unequality,' not so mind-boggling as when all pieces unequal. Worthwhile elementary idea.
Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]At request here is a Poor--because CVP has no 'Fair' or 'Average',my real estimation, so to balance previous 'Good'. Game was just backdrop for brief exchange about whether there can be absolute standards to judge games, not methods to create sets of rules. I shall certainly use other pages to comment further on the topic of interest should RLavieri respond, because Fugue itself is irrelevant to the subject raised, and to avoid hypersensitivity. I submit the criterion Piece-type Density, when high, can be overcome, depending on the game. I have argued that Jacks and Witches' 9/84, nine pieces on 84 squares, works well, though exceeding (admittedly arbitrary) 10%, perhaps partly because Jack is in hand. Out of courtesy, (the developer seems to have guessed) I overstated regard for present game when it is really typically Average convolution, benefiting in ratings from the collaborative effort that went into decision of Bowman's power, sort of replay of the 2003 Chess-form by committee.
With respect to Shogi and such cases, I think of promotion pieces as counting 1/2, so Shogi charts at 11/81. Not regarding this 13% as an outlier, what factor(s) makes 0.13+ work in Shogi? Answer: the weaker, Pawnlike character of most pieces, also quantifiable. (Piece-type Density, only one convenient measureable factor, falls off in effectiveness much below 64 squares, certainly by Tori Shogi's 49.) With standards like 'simplicity' and 'elegance,' can they ever be quantified? I think so. Another criterion is Average Moves per recorded game. I submit there is an optimum that players prefer, about 30 or 35, lower than most chesslike games deliver. With the prospect of variants of variants, and thousands of game-rules sets, numerical relationships help evaluate, and some even fail by the numbers.
Define an 'Event', generally applicable, as either a Capture or a Check. An interesting game, one likely to have a high baseline for all four Depth-Drama-Decisiveness-Clarity, should have event frequency 33-50% per paired move. In other words, by move 30 say, there should ordinarily be 10 or 15 captures or checks, either way B-W and W-B.
Gridlock. Large, wargame inspired variant. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Re reference to Gridlock under Game Design: Gridlock is a clever hoax, not intended to be comprehensible only played
To go with Depth-Clarity-Decisive-Drama, the first-order generalities, there are now numeric Piece-type Density, Game Length(# moves), and Event Frequency [(Checks + Captures)/#Moves]. [Cited by Michael Nelson from Ralph Betza's constructs:] Power Density makes four quantifiable factors so far to evaluate a given set of game rules, or any of millions. Power Density, not even requiring database of games played, makes ideal a priori evaluative criterion. PD trades off with PTD: other things being equal, a lower PD tolerates a higher PTD. Larry Smith's Gradations in piece powers are measureable, rigorous as any other way, by, with n the number of piece types and PV piece value: [PV1/PV2 + PV1/PV3...+ PV1/PVn + PV2/PV3...+PV2/PVn...+PV(n-1)/PVn]/ ((n!/(n-2)!)/2) --now five measureable quantities, three without any records of play needed at all--absolute standards if one will.
Michael Howe's All-Rooks' 1/64 is beaten by Craig Daniels' Battle Chieftain's 1/84. There is a chess game in EnclCV, not in CVP, with pieces on every square to start, but it may have only ten piece types; so the upper limit for Piece-type Density is one(1.0)
Subject: Game Length:(#M)= Z(Ptd)/(Pd)G; see below. Ralph Betza frequently submits games-variants not yet played. Randomly under 'C', under RB: Captain Spalding 'However, my impression is that the experience of playing the game will not be very Chesslike at all.' Castlingmost 'It will probably be fun to play OOmost Chess a time or two.' Chatter Chess 'Therefore, I would expect the game to be quite enjoyable.' Chess with Mixed Pawns 'Although I haven't examined it yet, I suspect that it will be a very interesting game.' In fact, I would say descriptions of majority of Betza's 150(?) games give impression of no test by across-the-board opponent. Roberto Lavieri says today, 'All of us are mortal people,' about avoiding Tai Shogi on its 25x25 and Taikuyoku 36x36. Now I go so far as to say only a favored sample of us will live 33,000 days.(approx.) Take that optimistic subset. Even if one starts playing Chess at age 3, as super-Grandmasters are wont to do, that leaves 30,000 day/nights. Now a good variant surely warrants 10 days; think of that as 3 games played a day for a total of 30 games over 10 days, or 4 serious games for a total of 40, or as one will... But 2000 variants more or less list on CVP and another 2000 such in Pritchard, and 4000 variants already exceed the allotment. (4000x10=40,000 days, longer than humans can be expected to live.) Therefore, it can help to have criteria, other than subjective or self-promotional, to evaluate CVs,even without playing them. And why a formula too to estimate Game Length benefits. The included variables are already spelled out in comments. Where #M is game length in number of moves, Pd Power Density, Ptd Piece-type Density, Z Board size in squares, G Smith's Piece Gradient, (#M) = (Z(Ptd))/((Pd)G) , first approximation showing correlations.
On the contrary, Hetacomb proves effectiveness of relational measures, of which there will be many more. If Hetacomb is 64 squares, its two piece types make PTD of 2/64, so low that it tolerates a very high Power Density, other things equal. While true that PD is useless alone, as evaluative systems develop (necessary for sheer number of alternatives), PD stands as important measure subsuming extensive ideas of Ralph Betza and others on piece values (mobility, forwardness).
A Comment says that comparing Games is like apples and oranges. The analogy speaks for itself: we know that biochemically, Apples and Oranges (trees) are mostly alike sharing 95%+ of their 30,000 (60,000?) genes, partly-sequenced basis to compare. So, Chess Variants compare strict equality or not in board size, pieces, and Power Density, Piece-type density. piece Gradient, Event Frequency, if one cares to try other than entirely subjective approach, and also not to dwell on the extreme values where theory less effective. Clarity and Depth alone seem too general unless something measures Clarity-Depth, besides opinion poll. After all topic of interest is Game Design not Preferences.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.