[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by MatsWinther
Michael, you don't need to bother about such copyrights. Nobody has the right to copyright the properties of chess that have existed for thousands of years. If I design a TV, with an inbuilt digital camera, and cellular phone, then I can't copyright that, simply because of insufficient uniqueness. It's just a juxtaposition of already invented items. When it comes to chess, it has such a strong public domain status, like all ancient games, so in this case it's even more obvious that it can't be copyrighted. Anybody can exploit my Mammoth Chess anyway they want. (I uploaded a bugfixed version today). If it becomes popular then they might want to fabricate Mammuth piece sets and sell. I gladly accept that.
Mark, copyright issues involve games, too. Take a look at the copyright babble at the Rubik's cube site.
When it comes to patents, have a look here. Copyrights are international under the Bern Convention, but patents are strictly national in force. Despite attempts, the terms of international treaties have never been successfully negotiated. For instance, this means that a working software program (other than one copyrighted by the inventor) which plays a particular board game carrying a current US Patent can be developed, freely distributed and used by people in all of the other 200 or so nations of the world legally and without restriction. Just don't violate any applicable copyright (or trademark) which may also exist. This may mean that the original name of the game cannot be safely used.
So patents are no problem when it comes to games, if the game is patented abroad. The only problem is the trademark. But the only thing one needs to do is to rename the game. When it comes to chess variants one needn't bother. I think it's ridiculous to claim copyright for the rules of a chess variant. The copyright is valid, of course, for anything that one writes about the variant, i.e., an article about it, piece images, etc. But one cannot claim copyright for the rules. How would it be if philosophers claimed copyright for their philosophical ideas, saying that nobody else has the right to think in this particular way?
Mats
When it comes to patents, have a look here. Copyrights are international under the Bern Convention, but patents are strictly national in force. Despite attempts, the terms of international treaties have never been successfully negotiated. For instance, this means that a working software program (other than one copyrighted by the inventor) which plays a particular board game carrying a current US Patent can be developed, freely distributed and used by people in all of the other 200 or so nations of the world legally and without restriction. Just don't violate any applicable copyright (or trademark) which may also exist. This may mean that the original name of the game cannot be safely used.
So patents are no problem when it comes to games, if the game is patented abroad. The only problem is the trademark. But the only thing one needs to do is to rename the game. When it comes to chess variants one needn't bother. I think it's ridiculous to claim copyright for the rules of a chess variant. The copyright is valid, of course, for anything that one writes about the variant, i.e., an article about it, piece images, etc. But one cannot claim copyright for the rules. How would it be if philosophers claimed copyright for their philosophical ideas, saying that nobody else has the right to think in this particular way?
Mats
Negligent of me, but this game wasn't listed among the big-board variants, so I had no knowledge about it when I named my game Mammoth Chess. But since the inventor has withdrawn his creation I think I can appropriate the name.
The question is how people experience the dropping phase. Is it tedious due to the large board? Would players prefer a standard setup? I think I will experiment with a standard setup because the Mammoth is well suited for this environment of board size and piece types. I am sceptical of the extra pieces in Grand Chess, that combine long range pieces with short range knight moves. By the way, the Mammoth (Squire) deserves a place in the Piecencyclopedia.
Mats
The question is how people experience the dropping phase. Is it tedious due to the large board? Would players prefer a standard setup? I think I will experiment with a standard setup because the Mammoth is well suited for this environment of board size and piece types. I am sceptical of the extra pieces in Grand Chess, that combine long range pieces with short range knight moves. By the way, the Mammoth (Squire) deserves a place in the Piecencyclopedia.
Mats
It's true that this is a fine opportunity to be creative, to give away for free, and feel altruistic. I have implemented a new big-board chess, Mastodon Chess, featuring the Mammoth (but here it is called Mastodon to add to the confusion. I found one reference to 'Mastodon' on the Chess Variant pages, referring to a quite odd piece, not very useful. It is not a listed piece so I employ the name Mastodon, too). Anyway, I really believe in this Mammoth piece. I think its future is bright.
Castling in Chess 960. New castling rules for Fischer Random Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Fischer Random is a lost cause anyway. It's quite good for training games, but it won't supersede regular chess. Chess players aren't fond of it. I actually asked Seirawan once, and he rejected it. Chess players want to be in control, but in FR they are always faced with unknown territory. In some of the initial positions white cannot secure an advantage. And in certain cases black's position is not tenable. To be able to study a standard opening position is a necessary prerequisite for chessplayers. It contributes to the vitality and depth of a game if it can be studied in advance. It's more fun to play also, because you can adopt your favourite attacks and defenses. In this way Fischer Random goes against the instincts of chessplayers.
But clearly, Fide chess is approaching a crisis. It could soon be renamed 'Opening Study Chess'. It's becoming ridiculous. I think there are two ways of meeting this challenge. (1) Follow Capablanca's proposal and increase the board size, or (2) introduce a form of drop-chess along Burmesian lines, as my own proposal Swedish Chess. It looks promising, but I don't don't know whether it speaks to the instincts of chess players. Nor do I know if it's complex enough, i.e., so that a multitude of deep strategies are possible.
Chess commentators have been ridiculing Capablanca for his big board proposal, and even argued that it was an expression of megalomania. But Capa was right. It's only that his proposal came too early, prior to 20th century's immense development in opening play. But now chess is approaching a crisis again. The big board alternative is underestimated because people think that its complexity is beyond human capability. I think this is a misunderstanding. This form of complexity is something which a human brain is very apt to handle. In regular chess a 'simple' rook ending could be immensely complicated, putting great demands on both understanding and calculus, whereas a complex middle game position could be much more easy to handle. This is a paradox in chess. In complicated positions with many pieces the vast majority of continuations are simply impracticable. A rook ending contain much fewer possibilities, but a much greater percentage of practicable continuations. In middle games there are many uncritical positions, which means that there are many playable alternatives. You could almost choose a move by random. This paradox, that it is often easier to play complex positions, makes the big board alternatives wholly playable, at least some of them. To many orthodox chessplayers such a game as Renniassance Chess, for instance, is unthinkable. It must be a joke. Nobody can control the complexity of this game. But thanks to this paradox of complex positions certain big board variants are probably quite manageable.
I don't think it's worth it to waste more time and energy on Fischer Random, as such. A better alternative is simply to pick good and interesting positions from the array of positions in FR and adopt them as new additional opening setups, like I did in my own proposal Chess-B. To chessplayers, this is much more fun , because then one can study and discuss this particular FR position.
Mats
But clearly, Fide chess is approaching a crisis. It could soon be renamed 'Opening Study Chess'. It's becoming ridiculous. I think there are two ways of meeting this challenge. (1) Follow Capablanca's proposal and increase the board size, or (2) introduce a form of drop-chess along Burmesian lines, as my own proposal Swedish Chess. It looks promising, but I don't don't know whether it speaks to the instincts of chess players. Nor do I know if it's complex enough, i.e., so that a multitude of deep strategies are possible.
Chess commentators have been ridiculing Capablanca for his big board proposal, and even argued that it was an expression of megalomania. But Capa was right. It's only that his proposal came too early, prior to 20th century's immense development in opening play. But now chess is approaching a crisis again. The big board alternative is underestimated because people think that its complexity is beyond human capability. I think this is a misunderstanding. This form of complexity is something which a human brain is very apt to handle. In regular chess a 'simple' rook ending could be immensely complicated, putting great demands on both understanding and calculus, whereas a complex middle game position could be much more easy to handle. This is a paradox in chess. In complicated positions with many pieces the vast majority of continuations are simply impracticable. A rook ending contain much fewer possibilities, but a much greater percentage of practicable continuations. In middle games there are many uncritical positions, which means that there are many playable alternatives. You could almost choose a move by random. This paradox, that it is often easier to play complex positions, makes the big board alternatives wholly playable, at least some of them. To many orthodox chessplayers such a game as Renniassance Chess, for instance, is unthinkable. It must be a joke. Nobody can control the complexity of this game. But thanks to this paradox of complex positions certain big board variants are probably quite manageable.
I don't think it's worth it to waste more time and energy on Fischer Random, as such. A better alternative is simply to pick good and interesting positions from the array of positions in FR and adopt them as new additional opening setups, like I did in my own proposal Chess-B. To chessplayers, this is much more fun , because then one can study and discuss this particular FR position.
Mats
Adrian, to unleash their creativity amateurs cannot go on studying openings using a chess database, because then creativity and fun is thwarted. I knew an ambitious amateur (around Elo 2170) who devoted years and years to perfecting his opening repertoire. But, unlike grandmasters, he lacked the capacity to creatively improve the variants, and, by this monotonous activity, he managed to deaden his natural passion for the game. And then it became obvious that he couldn't play those variants because his opponents would prepare against his variations using their own databases. An ambitious amateur cannot afford keeping alternative opening systems, it's too much work involved. On the other hand, amateurs can seldom play small openings systems like Réti, because they lack the capacity to make the most of those small positional advantages that can be utilized in the endgame.
In his upcoming series Kasparov will discuss the 'opening revolution', which had its beginnings in the seventies. For the ambitious amateur, the present development in chess, the advanced level of opening science, is injurious to creativity and phantasy. In Rubinstein's and Lasker's time grandmasters could still play the exchange variation in the French with a good deal of success. But what's the point in feeding 25 moves in the Sicilian Dragon, against another ambitious amateur, and then shake hands since a theoretical drawn position is reached? I see amateurs do this. In orthodox chess you are cooped up in opening lines which you don't really like. You are forced to play against your own nature because there are no good strategical alternatives. Everything else is drawish. This is due to the advancement of opening science. I don't think Fide-chess should vanish, it's just that it's high time that we think about alternatives.
That's why I think that such initiatives like the Circular Chess World Championship are praiseworthy, because it speaks to our phantasy and creativity.
Mats
In his upcoming series Kasparov will discuss the 'opening revolution', which had its beginnings in the seventies. For the ambitious amateur, the present development in chess, the advanced level of opening science, is injurious to creativity and phantasy. In Rubinstein's and Lasker's time grandmasters could still play the exchange variation in the French with a good deal of success. But what's the point in feeding 25 moves in the Sicilian Dragon, against another ambitious amateur, and then shake hands since a theoretical drawn position is reached? I see amateurs do this. In orthodox chess you are cooped up in opening lines which you don't really like. You are forced to play against your own nature because there are no good strategical alternatives. Everything else is drawish. This is due to the advancement of opening science. I don't think Fide-chess should vanish, it's just that it's high time that we think about alternatives.
That's why I think that such initiatives like the Circular Chess World Championship are praiseworthy, because it speaks to our phantasy and creativity.
Mats
Michael, those grandmasters get paid for playing FRC. Those who aren't, the bulk of chessplayers, 99.9%, are not particularly interested in FRC. What matters is what amateurs think. But I would gladly play FRC, too, if I got paid.
Gary, of course, grandmasters play other games, not the least backgammon. But this is not the issue. The question is whether we can find a powerful enough candidate to supersede chess. We sure don't wish it to be backgammon.
Another candidate with a potential for superseding Fide-chess is the type of CV:s that employ undefined or potential pieces, such as Bario, and my own variant Barion. I have improved the rules for Barion greatly and uploaded a new version today.
Potential pieces, or 'Quantums', or whatever you prefer to call them, is an area that could be researched more.
Mats
Another candidate with a potential for superseding Fide-chess is the type of CV:s that employ undefined or potential pieces, such as Bario, and my own variant Barion. I have improved the rules for Barion greatly and uploaded a new version today.
Potential pieces, or 'Quantums', or whatever you prefer to call them, is an area that could be researched more.
Mats
I already uploaded a new bugfixed version of my Barion. It plays curiously, but it's worthwhile to study the concept of potential pieces.
Gary, If this had been correct that chessplayers are enjoying all kinds of chess variants then everything would be ok. Truth is that hardly anybody knows what Omega Chess is. And this is what we are trying to remedy here by discussing which type of chess variant could appeal to the average player. Fide-chess is approaching a crisis. The game is becoming too well-researched. In my country 50% of the players have been lost in 20 years, for a number of reasons. And they don't turn to Makruk or Omega Chess.
I have tested Omega Chess. As usual the board graphics is bad, so I created a new grapics which can be downloaded here (zipped).
So how about Omega Chess? My first reaction is that it's somewhat slow. (But perhaps that good?) Secondly, there are four light piece-types (bishop, knight, champion, wizard) that have the same value and are worth less than the rook. How does this affect play? Won't the game be centered around these pieces, that is, won't the majority of the moves be made by those pieces?
Playing against the zrf I see that the engine hops around with these pieces, avoiding moving the pawns. Is there any idea to expand one's territory by advancing the pawns, or could one just as well go on hopping with the light pieces? Does anyone have any experience of this game? I don't trust grandmaster opinions, because they think that backgammon is a good game, despite the fact that it's immensely boring.
So how about Omega Chess? My first reaction is that it's somewhat slow. (But perhaps that good?) Secondly, there are four light piece-types (bishop, knight, champion, wizard) that have the same value and are worth less than the rook. How does this affect play? Won't the game be centered around these pieces, that is, won't the majority of the moves be made by those pieces?
Playing against the zrf I see that the engine hops around with these pieces, avoiding moving the pawns. Is there any idea to expand one's territory by advancing the pawns, or could one just as well go on hopping with the light pieces? Does anyone have any experience of this game? I don't trust grandmaster opinions, because they think that backgammon is a good game, despite the fact that it's immensely boring.
Michael, I don't write off grandmaster's view for so little, but I tried to make a point. A technically proficient person will take a liking to games where this technical skill comes to expression. Have a look at the Omega Chess site where there are some Javascripts of Omega chess games. As I predicted, this game is quite technical. There is a lot of hopping around with the light pieces. This suits the grandmasters very well. But how fun is it for amateurs that will notoriously commit blunders within 20 moves? It is a fun and interesting chess variant, but I don't believe it's 'The Next Evolution in Chess' as they claim.
Evidently, a grandmaster will like the game because he can master the complicated tactics. But an amateur would like to be able to survive the middlegame. I contend that the next evolution in chess must be a variant with a better balance between strategy and tactics.
I think this discussion could bring us somewhere as long as we tolerate each other's views.
Evidently, a grandmaster will like the game because he can master the complicated tactics. But an amateur would like to be able to survive the middlegame. I contend that the next evolution in chess must be a variant with a better balance between strategy and tactics.
I think this discussion could bring us somewhere as long as we tolerate each other's views.
Gary, thanks for helping me make my point. You mention the Grand Prix attack and Morra gambit. But these are completely dead openings on grandmaster level. Even on an average tournament level you can hardly play them anymore, because the average amateur knows the remedy. It is very frustrating for the white player. More and more openings become dead like this.
Gary, the Berlin defense has never been declared dead. The only problem is that it's designed to achieve a draw, which was what Kramnik achieved. But black-players often want to play for a win. That's why Berlin was almost forgotten. If it's true that Berlin is such a good defense, then this is a fine example of how far chess science has advanced. An average player can study the Berlin defense and become practically invincible. Certainly, this is not good for chess.
Facts are that many chess commentators became worried during the Kramnik-Kasparov match. With the Berlin defense, they saw a return to drawish chess, and to openings that were certain draws, especially with the aid of modern databases. I haven't declared chess dead. I'm just saying that it's approaching a crisis.
Facts are that many chess commentators became worried during the Kramnik-Kasparov match. With the Berlin defense, they saw a return to drawish chess, and to openings that were certain draws, especially with the aid of modern databases. I haven't declared chess dead. I'm just saying that it's approaching a crisis.
Gary, you are a nitpicker of indistinctness in expressions, and I cannot relate to your irritation. No, on amateur level we would not see a lot of Berlin defense played because it tends to result in draws. Strong players want to be able to win against weaker players, so they play the Sicilian. How could a practically invincible Berlin defense be so damaging on grandmaster level? It's because 50% of the games are opened with 1.e4. It is the best move. Earlier, when theory was not so well developed, we had no way of knowing this. You are curious about my style? Some of my own games are published in ChessBase's collections.
As an ambitious CV developer I would like to hear some judgements on big-board variants, i.e. which ones you prefer and why. For instance, how about Omega Chess? (If you want a better graphics, you can download it here (zipped)).
And how about Grand Chess, which is rather popular? (There is also a zrf of this CV, as a variant in 'Fairy Chess'on the Zillions CD).
The reason why I implemented my own big-board chess, Mastodon Chess (updated yesterday), was that I wanted a variant where tactics was toned town. I fear that one tends to develop variants that suit one's own preferences too much.
Castling in Chess 960. New castling rules for Fischer Random Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]What I say about my 'Swedish Chess' is this (2006-04-19) 'It looks promising, but I don't know whether it speaks to the instincts of chess players. Nor do I know if it's complex enough, i.e., so that a multitude of deep strategies are possible.'
So I don't claim it's the 'Perfect chess variant'. That was a slogan I invented beside the link to the article about it. Everybody knows what a commercial slogan is and people don't take them seriously. And I do certainly have the right to claim that Backgammon is boring.
I think the last comments are a depressing sight. They are evidence of a lack of intelligence. When I make a joke and say that nobody has the right to use my newly invented piece, and that legal measures will be taken, and put the smiley beside ;-) then I get scolded for that, too.
Why don't you guys try to understand what people are saying before starting to scold them. Soon everybody is going to be pissed in this place.
(I used the name Z-pente because I was worried that the name Pente was a trademark, that's all. I immediately make clear on my homepage that 'this is the same as Pente'. But please forget about my non-chess variants. But thanks anyway for your comments on my games.)
So I don't claim it's the 'Perfect chess variant'. That was a slogan I invented beside the link to the article about it. Everybody knows what a commercial slogan is and people don't take them seriously. And I do certainly have the right to claim that Backgammon is boring.
I think the last comments are a depressing sight. They are evidence of a lack of intelligence. When I make a joke and say that nobody has the right to use my newly invented piece, and that legal measures will be taken, and put the smiley beside ;-) then I get scolded for that, too.
Why don't you guys try to understand what people are saying before starting to scold them. Soon everybody is going to be pissed in this place.
(I used the name Z-pente because I was worried that the name Pente was a trademark, that's all. I immediately make clear on my homepage that 'this is the same as Pente'. But please forget about my non-chess variants. But thanks anyway for your comments on my games.)
Michael, obviously you don't understand how impertinent you are, thinking that you are the right person to stand in judgement about me and my conduct. You make a lot of insinuations about me and my contributions, and you say, 'Be careful how you say things, and be careful that you have evidence for your statements.' How can you make such statements? Who do you think you are? Nor can I understand how you can build a judgement of so many of my games in so short time. It appears superhuman. It would probably take a months time to arrive at a good judgement on Mastodon Chess.
Andreas, thanks for this information. What surprises me is that there exist no zrf of these two variants although they are easy to implement. Mats
Derek, thanks for those links, I will try it out. But meanwhile I had already created a zrf for 'Teutonic Chess' and 'Embassy Chess'. If you want to try Gothic Chess you only need to change positions between Chancellor and Archbishop in the initial position of Teutonic Chess (right-click). It can be downloaded
here. (zipped). Maybe those pieces invented by Capa are usable, after all.
Mats
Mats
I realized today that Mr Duniho implemented Embassy Chess already (Jan 2006), and other large board variants in LargeChess. But in his Embassy Chess there is a bug where the king only jumps two steps when castling on the queen's wing (should be three steps). I've reported it to him.
(However, my implementation has an advantage, namely that the engine more readily castles, thanks to tweaking, but I will not publish this zrf on this site because it is redundant.)
(However, my implementation has an advantage, namely that the engine more readily castles, thanks to tweaking, but I will not publish this zrf on this site because it is redundant.)
Can't get SMIRF to work because there is a dll missing.
Anyway, it's possible to get Zillions to play well too, if one applies some tweaking so that it moves the centre pawns in the opening instead of hopping about with the light pieces, and also, to persuade it to castle. I've made those tweakings today in the 8x10 variants, downloadable here. Maybe I'll publish this after all, because it plays somewhat better than earlier publications.
I am thinking of implementing Hans Åberg's Capablanca variant, too, because it implies an improvement of the castle rules.
Anyway, it's possible to get Zillions to play well too, if one applies some tweaking so that it moves the centre pawns in the opening instead of hopping about with the light pieces, and also, to persuade it to castle. I've made those tweakings today in the 8x10 variants, downloadable here. Maybe I'll publish this after all, because it plays somewhat better than earlier publications.
I am thinking of implementing Hans Åberg's Capablanca variant, too, because it implies an improvement of the castle rules.
I've continued experimenting with the Mastodont (Mammoth, Squire). I am fond of this piece because it is so natural (there exist many 'madcap' chess pieces that are fun but not quite natural). It is a natural extension of the regular pieces as it complements the knight's moves, while its added capability of the king's moves makes it capable, like the knight, of reaching all the squares of the board (unlike the other complement of the knight, namely the Alibaba. What's more, at least on the 10x10 board it seems like an exact counterpart of the rook in strength. This is very good as it allows for the positional stratagem of exchanging pieces (and not only to tactically conquer them.) Moreover, a Mastodon, together with a King, can give mate to a lonely King. It has the minimum strength for this quite important capability.
I found a piece setup on the 8x10 board that seems to function well with the Mastodon piece: Mastodon Chess (8x10) (zrf).
(By the way, I wonder how people evaluate the strenght of pieces. I see that they value them as '8.9', etc.)
Mats
I found a piece setup on the 8x10 board that seems to function well with the Mastodon piece: Mastodon Chess (8x10) (zrf).
(By the way, I wonder how people evaluate the strenght of pieces. I see that they value them as '8.9', etc.)
Mats
>This is currently the strongest program available that is free and
>fully-functional for playing ALL Capablanca chess variants.
You must be pulling my leg. SMIRF immediately loses piece always, and I cannot set playing time to higher values.
>fully-functional for playing ALL Capablanca chess variants.
You must be pulling my leg. SMIRF immediately loses piece always, and I cannot set playing time to higher values.
Adrian, probably the right place to post your question is
http://zillionsofgames.com/discus/
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.