[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by RichardHutnik
Seirawan Chess
. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Pardon the plug Mr. Duke, but I want to say your Falcon is welcome in IAGO Chess, if you want to play around with it there.
I just want to add here that the rules for IAGO Chess are up on the web: http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess You could definitely do a V-Class (or X-Class to start) version of IAGO Chess using a 10x10 or a 12x12 board, with all the multiple short range pieces, and then use gating and drop, or just one, or limit drop to the start of the game to certain square, and then roll in other possible pieces. Shoot, if you don't want to do any drops or gating in your variant, don't. Just turn off these options in the B-Class rules. You can even change how they work if you like. Gating and drops are suggested though. The B-Class (Basic) and C-Class (Classic) versions start with an 8x8 board, and just the Capablanca pieces, for convention purposes, and ability to have readily available equipment. This isn't to say that IAGO Chess is just limited there. It is just, we need to do something to at least get Capablanca pieces available for people to be able to acquire and use.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I believe I have found another game that uses gating for getting pieces on the board. The game is Bosworth. Please comment: http://www.otb-games.com/bosworth/rules.html This doesn't appear to be a new concept. Only this case, it is required every turn.
Seirawan Chess. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Bosworth
. Commercial multiplayer chess variant for two to four players using cards as pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hey Gary, can you get this in the Wiki definitions, if possible? Also, please change D. Anyhow, I think I have found gating dating back to a game in the late 1990s on here that uses Gating in the Seirawan chess way. That game is Bosworth: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/external.php?itemid=Bosworth The only difference between Bosworth compared Seirawan and IAGO Chess, is that you had to gate a piece in every turn you had one in reserve. That is it. So, in this regard, there isn't really much new under the sun.
European Chess. A multiplayer, different armies form of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Interesting. This may be the Cosmic Encounters of chess. Worth considering and checking out. I am curious how the sides may end up being balanced though.
Ahh, that explains it. I didn't read through to the end. It is worth checking out sometime. I wonder if someone could do a 2 player version also. Wait, IAGO Chess could accommodate that :-). In regards to the Turks using gating, it does look at least like it is a drop. If it involves placing a piece in a space just vacated by another piece, that would be gating. Gating is a move connected to another piece, as I see it. Castling and pawn promotion would be varieties.
Gary, I would change the wording of the gating definition to be something like: Gating - 1. v. A specialized version of a drop, where a piece or pawn [usually in reserve, a pocket piece] is place on a square, usually vacant, as designated by the rules for that specific game which involve at least one other pieces on the board. A gated piece, for example, could possibly enter a game by one or more of the following methods as designated by the rules: (a) the starting space of a piece or pawn that just moved; (b) a space which was just vacated by a pawn or piece (not necessarily the starting space), (c) a vacant space which is under the influence of a pawn or piece (a projected gated piece); (d) replacing a piece currently on the board that reaches a one space of a set of spaces (promotion); (e) the teleporting of a piece on a board to another square on the board (example: castling). Gating is normally considered an exclusive move type, but may be combined with another move type, if the rules permit. Typically only one of these methods would be expected to exist in a given game which deploys gating. What differentiates gating from being a drop, is that gating is governed one or more pieces on the board. Without this relationship to a piece or pieces on the board, the move would be a regular drop, as is seen in Bughouse or Shogi.
Charles, thank you for your message.
To have a game be able to go from A-Class into either X-Class or V-Class there is only two things that need to be done:
1. Make sure your game equipment matches up with your rules, and rules match up for equipment. In other words, you want to do promotion, make sure you have the pieces to cover it. Don't have as standard chess does where people need to flip a rook to be a queen, and the rules say nothing on this.
2. Look over the B-Class rules. State which ones you are not going to use, or change, and which you are going to keep. In other words, are you using drops and gating, or just one, or none? If one or the other, are they being redefined? Also, if you are going to mix gating with other moves, or drops, please state that also. It is best to have this in one section of the rules, but isn't that critical also. Just the first immutable rule needs to be done here.
Do these two things, and the game goes into X-Class, and then eventually be a V-Class, once it is shown to be a solid variant. You can even keep your board for the X-Class or V-Class. I would say also, make sure that your game will be ok. The object of the framework is to provide a way to add new pieces later, and be able to catergorize what kind of game it is. All your other rules also would fit in.
If the chessvariant gets integrated more into IAGO and the IAGO World Tour, a lot of the thumbs up designers will end up becoming V-Class rules, rather than X-Class. There isn't much difference here, except one is shown to be established, and the other is experimental.
Please let me know if this cleared up. In one sense, IAGO Chess doesn't say a lot. In another it can be restrictive. Also, I should add that the whole framework needs to be tested out by the community and games played in it. It is up for modifications. What was listed is the starting point of a discussion. I am sure it is going to need a bunch of rewording to, and things crystalize and likely fixing some typos.
What I want people to see is IAGO Chess is meant for a way for people to get integrated into the chess world better, not some sort of thing that keeps you out. It does provide a structure in order to help, but allows freedom to deviate, and gives you a place to land when you do, and still be accepted. It is meant to add greater granularity between the variant and regular gaming worlds, to facilitate growth.
Again, thanks for the message. Oh yes, and review the rules on the site again here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste
To have a game be able to go from A-Class into either X-Class or V-Class there is only two things that need to be done:
1. Make sure your game equipment matches up with your rules, and rules match up for equipment. In other words, you want to do promotion, make sure you have the pieces to cover it. Don't have as standard chess does where people need to flip a rook to be a queen, and the rules say nothing on this.
2. Look over the B-Class rules. State which ones you are not going to use, or change, and which you are going to keep. In other words, are you using drops and gating, or just one, or none? If one or the other, are they being redefined? Also, if you are going to mix gating with other moves, or drops, please state that also. It is best to have this in one section of the rules, but isn't that critical also. Just the first immutable rule needs to be done here.
Do these two things, and the game goes into X-Class, and then eventually be a V-Class, once it is shown to be a solid variant. You can even keep your board for the X-Class or V-Class. I would say also, make sure that your game will be ok. The object of the framework is to provide a way to add new pieces later, and be able to catergorize what kind of game it is. All your other rules also would fit in.
If the chessvariant gets integrated more into IAGO and the IAGO World Tour, a lot of the thumbs up designers will end up becoming V-Class rules, rather than X-Class. There isn't much difference here, except one is shown to be established, and the other is experimental.
Please let me know if this cleared up. In one sense, IAGO Chess doesn't say a lot. In another it can be restrictive. Also, I should add that the whole framework needs to be tested out by the community and games played in it. It is up for modifications. What was listed is the starting point of a discussion. I am sure it is going to need a bunch of rewording to, and things crystalize and likely fixing some typos.
What I want people to see is IAGO Chess is meant for a way for people to get integrated into the chess world better, not some sort of thing that keeps you out. It does provide a structure in order to help, but allows freedom to deviate, and gives you a place to land when you do, and still be accepted. It is meant to add greater granularity between the variant and regular gaming worlds, to facilitate growth.
Again, thanks for the message. Oh yes, and review the rules on the site again here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste
Seirawan Chess. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The Seirawan pieces are available there. But if the Seirawan camp is going to forbid variants done off their games, then the variant community won't be able to use them. That is one of the reasons for IAGO Chess.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I noticed that the original rules for gating were wrong. They have been changed: (a) Gating: These pieces may enter the game via gating (piece in reserve comes in and takes start space of piece that started in back row, as that piece vacates its start space). [Mutable] Gating is NOT meant as a way to swap pieces out. It is meant as a way to enter a new piece into the start space of a piece as that piece vacates it. By the way, I have been comments IAGO Chess is not original, does what has been tried before, is to restrictive, and also too ambitious. I was also told I needed to do more of a 'baby step' before attempting this. Please understand that this is meant as a framework for future work, and I am open to suggestions people would have for it. It is also meant as a way for IAGO to classify chess variants so we can have different champions over the games. In other words here, it is meant as an incremental solution to the needs of IAGO and the chess variant community. I suggest people to PLEASE input here with your ideas. Don't just blow this off as nothing special. But, that is your choice in the matter. I will add that I am trying to get a Zillions adaptation done.
Seirawan Chess. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]One can view the B-Class version of IAGO Chess as an attempt to have an 'open-source' variant of Seirawan Chess, using the more traditional pieces, and also framing the rules so they are more variant friendly. The fullness of the rules is a framework for integrated variants into IAGO also, so that is a plus. There is only one new rule added that is more of a statement of what variants should be, make sure your pieces and rules mix. In other words, don't do like standard chess that can theoretically allow people to have 8 queens, but only provide one with the game. And do regular chess rules say anything about flipping a rook to give you another queen? At this point, I am not worried about Seirawan Chess. I will be going with IAGO Chess. If Seirawan Chess people happen to want to do anything with IAGO, they are free to get involved.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hello George. Thank you for the comments. I would to comment on what you wrote: 1. I am sure drops, in all their glory, are not new, even drops into a zone. I do like the term 'back-rank gating' to describe how Seirawan and IAGO Chess do it. Seirawan is an optional version twist of what is actually in the commercial Chess variant Bosworth. What is done here with IAGO Chess is try to have the rules acknowledge this, and have a default position of providing a restricted version of drops and gating. I will say it is NOT new. It is just done there, with B-Class IAGO Chess as a way to acclimate people to it. On this, it should be noted that B-Class isn't the only version, and it is NOT meant to say that one can't use a larger board. It is just the natural next step off standard chess, that makes for a readily available board, and the need to just add two new pieces (I would go with the Empress/Amazon) as a third, to cover the M-Class version. This is meant as a STARTING point. Let me add here regarding what the back-rank gating and drops in IAGO Chess provides (Seirawan, at this point, appears to be a strictly as is, and not to be changed): A. It allows for players to experiment with new pieces. B. It allows a handicapping system currently missing from chess. By using this version of gating, one could then mix up the reserves what pieces can come into the game. You don't change your default position on the board, BUT you are able to change it in the reserve. C. Rules governing how drops and gating in IAGO Ches can be modified per each variant in it. Some could get rid of both. Others can use one or the other. And other rules can even change how either or both work, making gating or drops restricted to a single space, or having gating tied to a piece in particular, that acts as a transport vehicle. 2. In regards to switching, which recently popped up in Reformed Chess with pawns, I am fully in favor of it as a Mutator that can be used in V-Class (or possibly M-Class). It is a great thing to add to mix things up. I don't believe it should be codified though. I also believe you can play a version of chess where it may or may not be in the game.
If any novices want to be paired with a designer, feel free to get paired with IAGO Chess and play out the B-Class. I would love to hear feedback. As soon as I can get a thing or two tweaked in a Zillions adaptation, it should be good to go. I do want to get the recycling working correctly on it, before it is up. As is a guideline for B-Class and greater (outside of V and X Classes) the piece mix and the rules need to match up.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A sample game of IAGO Chess run with Zillions playing both sides. This game didn't use the drop feature of IAGO Chess. Feel free to review any who have Capablanca chess sets. I will look to get a version up in Zillions once I am comfortable with it (I need to tweak the promotion rules for the pawns). It is close, but I wanted to get this up now for people to see how a sample game goes. And yes, Zillions does it usual Knight happy opening. However, this doesn't always happen. I will be posting in another post my experience watching Zillions play a bunch of times. 1. Knight b1 - c3 1. Black's Turn: Knight g8 - f6 2. Knight g1 - f3 = Knight 2. Black's Turn: Pawn e7 - e6 3. Pawn d2 - d4 3. Black's Turn: Knight b8 - c6 4. Bishop c1 - f4 = Bishop 4. Black's Turn: Bishop f8 - d6 (Gate in Archbishop to f8) 5. Knight f3 - e5 5. Black's Turn: Knight f6 - d5 6. Knight c3 x d5 6. Black's Turn: Pawn e6 x d5 7. Rook h1 - g1 (Gate in Archbishop to h1) 7. Black's Turn: Pawn g7 - g5 8. Bishop f4 - g3 8. Black's Turn: Rook h8 - g8 9. Pawn e2 - e3 9. Black's Turn: Queen d8 - f6 10. Rook a1 - b1 10. Black's Turn: Rook a8 - b8 (Gate in Chancellor to a8) 11. Queen d1 - d2 = Queen (Gate in Chancellor to d1) 11. Black's Turn: Chancellor a8 - b6 12. Knight e5 x c6 12. Black's Turn: Pawn d7 x c6 13. Bishop f1 - d3 13. Black's Turn: Bishop c8 - g4 14. Pawn f2 - f3 14. Black's Turn: Bishop g4 - f5 15. Bishop g3 x d6 15. Black's Turn: Archbishop f8 x d6 16. Bishop d3 x f5 16. Black's Turn: Queen f6 x f5 17. Archbishop h1 - g3 17. Black's Turn: Archbishop d6 x g3 18. Pawn h2 x g3 18. Black's Turn: Chancellor b6 - c4 19. Chancellor d1 - c3 19. Black's Turn: Pawn b7 - b5 20. Pawn g3 - g4 20. Black's Turn: Queen f5 - e6 21. Queen d2 - d3 21. Black's Turn: Chancellor c4 x c3 22. Pawn b2 x c3 22. Black's Turn: Queen e6 - h6 23. Pawn a2 - a4 23. Black's Turn: Pawn a7 - a6 24. Pawn e3 - e4 24. Black's Turn: Pawn d5 x e4 25. Queen d3 x e4 25. Black's Turn: King e8 - f8 26. Pawn a4 x b5 26. Black's Turn: Pawn a6 x b5 27. King e1 - f1 27. Black's Turn: Rook b8 - e8 28. Queen e4 - f5 28. Black's Turn: Rook g8 - g6 29. Pawn c3 - c4 29. Black's Turn: Rook g6 - d6 30. King f1 - f2 30. Black's Turn: Pawn b5 x c4 31. Rook g1 - h1 31. Black's Turn: Queen h6 - g7 32. Pawn c2 - c3 32. Black's Turn: King f8 - g8 33. Queen f5 - c5 33. Black's Turn: Queen g7 - g6 34. Rook b1 - b2 34. Black's Turn: Queen g6 - d3 35. Queen c5 x g5 35. Black's Turn: Rook d6 - g6 36. Queen g5 - h4 36. Black's Turn: Pawn h7 - h6 37. Rook h1 - e1 37. Black's Turn: Rook e8 x e1 38. Rook b2 - b8 38. Black's Turn: King g8 - h7 39. King f2 x e1 39. Black's Turn: Queen d3 - e3 40. King e1 - f1 40. Black's Turn: Rook g6 - e6 41. Rook b8 - b1 41. Black's Turn: Queen e3 - d3 42. King f1 - g1 42. Black's Turn: Queen d3 x b1 43. King g1 - h2 43. Black's Turn: Queen b1 - a1 44. Queen h4 - h5 44. Black's Turn: King h7 - g8 45. Queen h5 - h4 45. Black's Turn: Queen a1 x c3 46. Queen h4 - d8 46. Black's Turn: King g8 - g7 47. Queen d8 - b8 47. Black's Turn: Queen c3 x d4 48. Queen b8 x c7 48. Black's Turn: Pawn c4 - c3 49. Pawn f3 - f4 49. Black's Turn: Pawn c3 - c2 50. Pawn f4 - f5 50. Black's Turn: Queen d4 - g1 51. King h2 x g1 51. Black's Turn: Pawn c2 - c1 = Chancellor (Promotion) 52. King g1 - h2 52. Black's Turn: Chancellor c1 - f1 53. King h2 - h3 53. Black's Turn: Rook e6 - e3 54. Pawn g2 - g3 54. Black's Turn: Chancellor f1 - f2 55. King h3 - h4 55. Black's Turn: Chancellor f2 - h1 (BLACK CHECKMATE AND WIN)
My experiences running IAGO Chess (near B-Class, without the recycling pawn promotion) a bunch of times on Zillions, to give a general feel how play lines up: 1. The non-static opening makes the game feel like it starts out in mid-game providing players a lot of different ways the game can go. It is real hard to say that there is opening lines. The way IAGO Chess works, with both the gatings and drops, is you can have a game where one of the Capablanca pieces (Chancellor, Archbishop) can remain off board until even mid to late game. Yes, it FEELS like regular chess when you start, but then the game can take a bunch of unexpected turns, which makes it good, in my opinion. 3. Yes, the board is a bit more congested, but you still can engage in positional play. Some games have a much more open board, others tighter. There is still a lot of tactical play. Range of pieces drop a bit perhaps, but then this congestion balances the new power in the game. What I will say is that it is more like the midgame lasts longers because more pieces are on the board. Because the power pieces gate into the back row, the back row will be a bit more full. The power pieces don't come out until they are justified to do so. 3. I have seen times where the game is slow plotting, and then everything breaks loose as the pawn structures begin to get blown away. The end game will often end up with very out of balance positions and one or more rook level or higher pieces floating around. More of the pieces also mean your pawn structure will tend to be protected more, creating stronger lines. I will say a byproduct is the end game usually has more pawns in it, with holes in the line. 4. My biased verdict on it is that I believe this works as a solid chess variant, and robust enough for people to make needed tweaks. Of course, it is my game, but it has held up. I would suggest people get ahold of the Zillions adaptation once it is out, and try it themselves, and see what they think. Even if you don't play the AI, do watch some games. It should hopefully be out in a week or two. All goes well that is. If it goes real well, B, C and a version of M-Class (two variants of M-Class that is), should be available. In this the Empress/Amazon will be added into the mix.
By the way, for those who want to fiddle around with Capablanca pieces on an 8x8 board at this moment, feel free to check out this Zillions adaptation of different ideas throughout the years (IAGO Standard Fantasy Chess, aka Capablanca 64): http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/76178?do=show;id=1492
Seirawan Chess. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have to say that most recent correspondence with the Seirawan Chess people has resulted in a permanent tabling of IAGO having anything to do with the Seirawan Chess, until things are said to be different.
What they have done with checkers professionally is use a 3-Move randomized opening. They are also experimenting with randomly removing one of the checkers at the start also, in addition to the 3-Move randomized opening. So, in a nutshell, they are going the Chess960 route with checkers to keep it mixed up. I believe another approach possible with checkers is gating in different checkers from different version of checkers (aka, IAGO/Seirawan Chess). You could have a reserve of say Turkish or Polish checkers, and then drop into a standard checker game. Players decide when to enter them. By properly valuing the pieces, one could use the system as a form of handicapping, but you also can do a random balanced shuffling of which additional pieces enter the game. This methodology will lead to the development of very sound principles that can be taught, but not specific lines of play.
My hope is the Chess Variant community can coordinate their efforts to be able to pick stuff out that works, but also operate in a framework where the chaos is still essential. I would like to also see a World Champion at chess variants, so it would generate needed publicity. I know this desire has been labeled as 'unwanted, unneeded and impertnent' by some, but I would disagree. As of now Chess Variants are seen as nothing but gimmicks that people play on the side as distractions, not something that is also serious an essential to the growth of chess, and the family of chess games.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is a sample game run by Zillions against itself at C-Class IAGO Chess. C-Class allows players to place Chancellor, Archbishop or Queen in the Queen space before game begins. This starts off C-Class with 9 starting configurations before the players begin the game. In this, it is Chancellor against Chancellor. One configuration I have seen pop up off and on is White Chancellor vs Black Archbishop start. My take is the Archbishop provides a strong defensive configuration. I have found running it a bunch of times that within 2-3 turns, the opening book explodes in a wide range of possibilities. The game (jump to the end to see whether white or black wins): Turn 1, Initial Placement 1. (Place Reserve Chancellor onto d1) 1. (Place Reserve Black Chancellor onto d8) Turn 2 and on, movement. 2. Knight b1 - c3 = Knight 2. Black Pawn d7 - d6 3. Pawn e2 - e4 3. Black Knight g8 - f6 4. Knight g1 - f3 = Knight 4. Black Knight b8 - d7 (Gate in Reserve Black Queen onto b8) 5. Pawn d2 - d4 5. Black Knight d7 - b6 6. Bishop f1 - d3 6. Black Bishop c8 - g4 7. O-O 7. Black Pawn e7 - e5 8. Bishop c1 - e3 8. Black Pawn c7 - c6 9. Bishop d3 - e2 9. Black Bishop f8 - e7 10. King g1 - h1 10. Black Bishop g4 x f3 11. Pawn g2 x f3 11. Black Queen b8 - c8 12. Pawn a2 - a4 12. Black Queen c8 - h3 13. Rook f1 - g1 13. Black Pawn e5 x d4 14. Bishop e3 x d4 14. Black Rook h8 - g8 15. Rook g1 - g3 15. Black Queen h3 - e6 16. Pawn a4 - a5 16. Black Knight b6 - d7 17. Bishop d4 - e3 17. Black Knight f6 - h5 18. Rook g3 - g1 18. Black Queen e6 - f6 19. Pawn a5 - a6 19. Black Pawn b7 - b5 20. Rook g1 - g5 20. Black Pawn g7 - g6 21. Pawn h2 - h4 21. Black Knight d7 - e5 22. Chancellor d1 - g1 22. Black Knight h5 - f4 23. Bishop e3 x f4 23. Black Queen f6 x f4 24. Chancellor g1 - h3 24. Black Chancellor d8 - e6 25. Rook a1 - g1 = Rook 25. Black Bishop e7 x g5 26. Pawn h4 x g5 26. Black Pawn f7 - f6 27. Pawn g5 x f6 27. Black Chancellor e6 x f6 28. Rook g1 - g3 28. Black Queen f4 - c1 29. Bishop e2 - d1 29. Black Chancellor f6 - f7 30. Chancellor h3 - g1 30. Black Queen c1 x b2 31. Knight c3 - e2 31. Black Rook a8 - b8 32. Chancellor g1 - e1 32. Black Queen b2 - a1 33. Pawn f3 - f4 33. Black Knight e5 - c4 34. Rook g3 - d3 34. Black Knight c4 - b2 35. Rook d3 - d2 35. Black Pawn b5 - b4 36. King h1 - h2 36. Black Chancellor f7 - h6 37. King h2 - g2 37. Black Chancellor h6 - g4 38. King g2 - f1 38. Black Queen a1 x a6 39. Chancellor e1 - f3 39. Black Knight b2 x d1 40. Rook d2 x d1 40. Black Rook g8 - f8 41. (Drop Reserve Queen onto a1) 41. Black Queen a6 x a1 42. Rook d1 x a1 42. Black Rook b8 - b7 43. Chancellor f3 - d4 43. Black Chancellor g4 - h2 44. King f1 - g1 44. Black Chancellor h2 - h3 45. King g1 - g2 45. Black Chancellor h3 - h4 46. King g2 - g1 46. bKing e8 - d7 47. Rook a1 - a6 47. Black Chancellor h4 - g4 48. King g1 - f1 48. Black Rook f8 - c8 49. Chancellor d4 - d3 49. Black Rook c8 - c7 50. Pawn e4 - e5 50. Black Pawn d6 - d5 51. Knight e2 - d4 51. bKing d7 - e8 52. Rook a6 x c6 52. Black Pawn a7 - a5 53. Chancellor d3 - c5 53. Black Rook c7 x c6 54. Chancellor c5 x c6 54. Black Rook b7 - e7 55. Chancellor c6 - c8 55. Black King e8 - f7 56. Pawn e5 - e6 56. Black King f7 - g7 57. Chancellor c8 x e7 57. Black King g7 - h8 58. Knight d4 - c6 58. Black Chancellor g4 - f6 59. (Drop Reserve Archbishop onto a1) 59. Black Pawn d5 - d4 60. Archbishop a1 x d4 60. (Drop Black Archbishop onto g8) 61. Chancellor e7 - f7 61. Black Archbishop g8 x f7 62. Archbishop d4 x f6 (White Checkmate win)
Anyone up for promoting this to be part of the IAGO World Tour? I could get it on the 2008 IAGO World Tour calendar: www.IAGOWorldTour.com, and please have some indication it is part of the Tour on a page for the PotLuck event. We can name it after a sponsor or the Chess Variants site itself, to get it a bit of publicity. Can we be assured that there will be at least two people entered into it, excluding the organizer or whomever is running it Also, will this wrap up before November? If so, I would be interested in having it. It may go full year long though.
Beyond Chess (tm). Commercial variant with dynamic board. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I look forward to trying it again sometime. I had a good time also with it. I believe the game can also act as a Mutator of a sort for a lot of square space chess variants. IAGO Chess would also map to it well, for example.
Ok, you can finalize the details, and get this nailed down. Then decide whether or not it will be on. We can actually add it to the IAGO World Tour after it starts, it will just be late getting on. If it feels like it is done before November, that is good. Having it go into 2009 would be an issue though :-). Anyhow, I will let you finish up the details. All that is needed is that the event produces a winner, then I would need to know the number of players total (don't need report that anywhere else except in the Tour grand total), and also who won (their name) and their City and Country (possibly also State if in USA). Having a nickname is also cool, and can be added. Like saying 'Donut Donut' is the winner, but need the name :-). I would say nicknames are even encouraged for marketing purposes. A user name can serve as a nickname here.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Note that I changed the documentation to differentiate the specific game rules in the IAGO Chess System from the IAGO Chess System itself as a framework to manage change and the varieties of chess.
As of this point, the name of the pieces have been changed. The Archbishop is now a Cardinal and the Chancellor is a Marshall. The Empress piece is called an Amazon, but may get chanced back to Empress. The use of Cardinal and Marshall allows flexibility in the naming of the Amazon/Empress piece, as per the community collectively agreeing to it.
I believe the framework of chess can be addressed now so that we never turn chess into a solved game. I personally believe there is part of the answer in a game like Seirawan Chess, or a pocket version with reserves, but I don't think they alone have the answer. It also doesn't address the framework issue either that gets chess stuck, and all the classic abstract strategy game (stuck here means set on a path to being 'solved', without a way to adjust before it does). My take on Godel's Incompleteness Theorm is that you don't solve the systemic issues with a certain set of rules by creating more rules of the same type. If it is show, for example with chess, that a set configuration of chess pieces on the board eventually produces something that is solved, then changing the configuration of the pieces on the board alone doesn't resolve it either (one time, fixed). You can change the their starting position (aka Chess960/Pick your Army/MetaChess or the V and X versions of IAGO Chess), the layout of the board at start (and also changing it during play, aka Beyond Chess), or when the pieces enter the game (IAGO/Seirawan/Pocket Knight/Pocket Mutant), and help to push things out further. If you build into the framework by which you can do all of the above, you buy more time. What regular chess has now is not a way to make chess get 'unstuck', allowing it to adjust over time. I suggest all of the above be considered and integrated, and the players settled on what works best. Eventually even this mix of everything leads to a 'stuck' position as the playing community may figure out what is optimal. By then, some other people will need to come up with another layer of rules to insure things are unstuck. I can't say this for certain, but I do know unsticking chess by doing all of the above should likely buy chess another 1000 years, using all of the above methods described. The key to having it get unstuck is to have it done in a way that it is evolutionary, so the playing community can migrate over time and get used to the changes. Also added to the mix are 'mutators' which are meta-changes to how the game works that get added during play. PlunderChess, for example, is built on a mutator that is active from the start, pieces fusing together. Even these added can have an impact, and force people to think more creatively, relying on principles. These changes act as weather, and another key element to getting chess unstuck (and other abstract strategy games for that matter). All these elements help to battle to keep a game from getting stuck, without the use of random element, or hidden information, which is the standard method used to unstick a game. Like, the case of backgammon, luck prevents it from getting stuck for a long time. Stratego uses hidden information, and the bluff element causes players to play other players. In this you need to know your opponent more than the environment. Because of this, a game like poker can be played even 1000 years from now, because you play the players, and luck also offsets (hidden information+luck). Magic: The Gathering, and also Cosmic Encounter also relate to this, which has in its makeup things that continue to change the rules. I believe such mutators can be applied to a game like chess, but not in such a chaotic manner. In other words, you can have a game that is a pure abstract strategy game, but where the rules do change during the course of a game, if the players control when the rules come into effect and the potential rules are fully known by all players in the game. Please feel free to comment here.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Singh, I will add your comment to the Unsticking Chess thread and reply there, regarding the paradigm. As far as The IAGO Chess System goes, may I suggest people give it thought as being one of the pieces to the new paradigm, and happen to come up with their own suggestions, modifications of what the IAGO Chess System says, or point out the flaws? At least discuss this. On this, I welcome people to comment about the different aspects of it. These being: 1. The classification system for types of chess. 2. The use of drops and gating to get new pieces on the board, and setting up the board to start. 3. The basic rules on how it uses drops and gating, and how the C-Class transforms to the C-Class, then to the M-Class, and and then is able to produce a V-Class version/variant of the M-Class rules. I welcome feedback, people to adopt, reject, debate, etc... I will say, however, my wish is that people not ignore this completely.
In another thread, Singh wrote: Not a member, so responding to 'Unsticking Chess' here. Regarding: 'doing all of the above should likely buy chess another 1000 years' In my opinion, not even close. As soon as someone designs a computer smart enough to improve itself, processing power explodes exponentially. The future is going to be way, way different than anything we can imagine using the current paradigm. ----------------------------------------------------- This is why I was starting a discussion on what that paradigm can be. I personally believe that the open-source method would lend well towards this, via community consensus. This could start with the chess variant crowd, and them coordinating. I am offer people a chance to discuss the IAGO Chess System as a starting point, from the drops and gating, to the classification system, to the attempt to get Capablanca pieces onto an 8x8 board. This could perhaps lead to a new paradigm. I would rather this be an opening for a discussion, rather than saying it is merely beyond what we can imagine, so why bother. Finally, I would say that all this is for more than just 'oh it lies beyond the computer'. It is for the purpose of serving the fullness of the chess community.
je ju, when you happened to finalize this, please make sure we have a web page people can land on to learn about the tournament, and have it link back to the IAGO World Tour site.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Singh, can I give you the perspective that the IAGO Chess System comes from? It is a framework for an attempt to integrate variants into an association that promotes abstract strategy games, and insure that the play doesn't deadend so chess that is played is stuck in the margins. It is meant as a practical solution, not as some, 'WOW that blows me away as new'. It isn't meant to blow anyone away, but work. That is its intent. Anyhow, if your view is one of that it will happen, and we can't do anything about it, so don't try, then that doesn't fit anywhere into the IAGO Chess discussion. What I will say is that, in order for what you suggest to happen, it has to get there incrementally, and in a framework that will allow it. A sudden jump isn't going to happen. People won't jump all at once to something new, and abandon what they know. It will have to happen in an evolutionary manner. If you care to explain how FIDE Chess framework would enable that, please state how. If you actually have any ideas to explain how it can come about, please state them. If you just know this, but can't state, then I would say to feel free to be a player in what develops, as a recipient, and leave it sat that.
Joe, I think you are fairly close. What IAGO/IAGO World Tour is trying to do is have abstract strategy games, as a collective whole, go through what poker has become, so we have a large-scale version of the poker craze, or what was seen in the 1970s with Chess. But it will pick up variants along the way. The point is to create an environment favorable for growth. This is also meant to coordinate with large scale abstract strategy games associations that are covering games with tens of millions of players worldwide to. As for what IAGO Chess is (aka, the IAGO Chess System) is maybe it is best to think of it as 'Chess in IAGO' rather than 'IAGO Chess'. It is meant as a way for IAGO to integrate variants and coordinate them playing together, to actually be an extension and support for the Chess Variants site. IAGO World Tour Enterprises (this is the business name for the IAGO World Tour) will be looking to promote the chess variants site, its tournaments, and so on. For this, the IAGO Chess System is meant to facilitate that in multiple ways, including having a version of Capablanca Chess on an 8x8 board that will be designed to integrate the world of Chess Variant pieces into it. The intent of that is for the community to help evolve it. It is meant to mainstream the variants community, by acting as an official body to give them credibility. It is something that my hope would be people give their two cents into to have it go right, not just stay on the sidelines and complain about this and that. And yes, one of the object is to finally get some real pieces for the variant community to have to facilitate their adoption. I would definitely like to have world championships of chess variants in physical locations somewhere, and having the real pieces helps. Getting an IAGO Store for sale would help also. But, of course, there will need to be a community that gets behind all this. Production runs of pieces will cost thousands of dollars to get going. As for why it is needed, please look around now and ask yourself if you are honestly happy with the state of things. Do you like things being small time and not able to acquire game equipment anywhere? Do you like actually having to make up game boards on the fly? And if you try to show them to people who don't play chess variants, do they actually want to play your game?
Gating has been added to the Wiki site: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/pcp-tg:gating Please feel free to comment.
Insane. Pieces change to random type when they move. With program playing this variant.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]May I suggest a variation in Insane, which is Insane Pocket? What you do with Insane Pocket is whenever a start piece moves out, you put a random piece where the piece prior left. You could also use this to not only randomize and handicap by limiting what pieces each player gets. For example, the stronger player doesn't have a queen pieces to draw from, etc... Doing this gets at the same idea, but also teaches the less experience player the idea of pawn structure.
Sorry, I misread the rules. I thought you were randomly changing the pawns in front of the pieces. Anyhow, just thinking about this. It does look a bit like you are using a form of gating.
Here is a practical way to implement Insane: The idea inspired a bit to come up with a way to make this doable. Perhaps you have players end up having 6 reserve pieces. You can adjust accordingly as to what those pieces are based on the skill of the player. These pieces go on numbers 1-6. As a player moves a piece and it lands, you roll a die. Swap out the piece there with the random one in reserve. It has a similar effect, but also allows you to handicap. You could, for example, give the much weaker player 6 queens. The strong player has none. What I will say is Insane, to me, looks like it uses a form of gating: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/pcp-tg:gating Insane looks like it uses the (d) form of gating. Players could fiddle with this so the desired outcome is more stable, but still has the surprise effect at the end. I will let others think on this a bit. Please comment.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]All goes well, I will be looking to submit a Zillions adaptation (the zip file should contain two adaptions of IAGO Chess) next Friday. I will keep people posted on this. I will also look to do an V-Class/X-Class Zillions version of this that will contain multiple variants off it. One thing I would be interested in playing with is an 8x8 version of Grand Chess, using the basic rules to IAGO Chess. Please send me a message if you would like to get the Zip file early to play around with.
Insane. Pieces change to random type when they move. With program playing this variant.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]One of the issues I have with luck being a balancing mechanism for a weaker player, is if the stronger player has luck breaking their way, the weaker player is a lot worse off.
By the way, for people who want to try Insane Chess with real pieces, may want to consider checking out Steve Jackson's Proteus (I couldn't find it on the chess variant site): http://www.sjgames.com/proteus/ The pieces are dice.
George, I would like to make several comments here: 1. Gating is supposed to be a definition, and a subset of drops. I am sure there are lots of way to do this. The purpose of it is to give people an idea as to how it differs from a standard drop. It also involves the relocating pieces on the board. I am sure that people can come up with more. I believe the key is to have a stable definition, and then list some major examples. I am of the belief it is an important term to consider, debate, and reach an agreement over. The end and final shape isn't as important as what it is. 2. The issue of the 8x8 board is that it is now a convention, and a starting point, for testing, because it is what is readily available, and has an established chess game being played with millions of people play it (that being FIDE Chess). What was suggested is ONE approach to this, as a possible way. And no, I disagree with you on the less than 100 years approach. What is suggested is to use ALL the possible variant conventions as a way to expand chess here. This means reserves, it means mutators, it means different board condition. And with the reserves, it means changing the mix of pieces. It also means more that this. But what does matter is there is a common foundation this is all to fit into. Chess960 isn't going to get stuck in 100 years, why do you think a larger system will? If you suggest that it will get stuck again in 100 years, well then this site is doomed to be stuck within 100 years. As for the IAGO Chess System classes, well it is taking what is seen today as chess and variants, and expanding it, as a way to think about it. You have standard stuff (A-Class). Then it is suggested that there be an evolutionary design, that has a B-Class migration to it. C and M Class represent the slower fixed one, and the M-Class as the version where a chess game can migrate to. In the B-Class I am proposing that the piece mix map to the rules (so we don't have an 8 pawn promote to queens problem, which breaks when you add any more pieces). Then with the variants, I propose that you have a V-Class for accepted variants that work, along with mutators, and pieces. And an X-Class where things can be experimented with. This is meant as a starting point of discussion. 3. Anything that is a set of rules is axiomatic, as the definition of axiomatic is rules. So game rules would apply also. What Godel's incompleteness theorem says that no system of rules can be both complete and non-contradictory. In other words, every set of rules will end up producing more rules. In other words, rules keep evolving. This is valid here. And if you think that games have nothing to do with math, I am sure that the game theory people will be surprised. And Combinatorial Game Theorists (this is the foundation abstract strategy games are built on) would be shocked.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I happened to update the terms and conditions for use. Please provide feedback here. My attempt is to make this as flexible as possible for people, while preventing the effort to use this to fragment, and not create a center point of focus, which is essential to its success.
Also the B-Class and C-Class were fixed.
On the chessvariants wiki, I started a top regarding an Open-Source Chess of Tomorrow project. If you would like to discuss this and have actual input into what this might be please visit the Wiki discussion page: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested - Rich
Feudal. Chesslike game of wellknown game company.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I remember playing this as a straight up chess variant, where you moved one piece per turn, and it worked pretty well.
Giant Chess. 16x16 board with the same pieces as Turkish Chess, but also the "Dev" piece which takes up four squares. (16x16, Cells: 256) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I am wondering if something could be added in order to allow the mobilization of more than one piece during a turn. Perhaps have a commander unit that mobilizes a bunch of pieces that are near it, like Joe Joyce uses in his Chieftain Chess: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSchieftainchess
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is now on Boardgame Geek: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/35433
I would like to run this concept as part of the Chess of Tomorrow project. Someone in discussing the future of chess, brought up Calvinball. The posted a link to one set of rules: http://www.bartel.org/calvinball/ There is one permanent rule they have for Calvinball on that page. That rule is this one: You may not play the Calvinball the same way twice. So the basic framework for the ultimate chess variant would be, can you have a chess playing framework that would enable a person to NEVER play chess the same way twice (by the exact same set of rules). A softer version of this challenge would be that a person would play both side (black and white) each once, before moving on to a set of rules. A Calvinball tournament would consist of this rules though. Please feel free to discuss this hear, or if you want it to add to the Chess of Tomorrow project, post in here: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested#post-139883
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The whole 'Calvinball Chess' question is one that raises the natural boundaries of chess variants. Is the number of variants to a game finite (bounded) or infinite (unbounded). If it is finite, unless you add luck element to it, then all variants naturally are solvable. However, if it is infinite, then that game is not solvable. Well, perhaps someone can find an underlying core direction that will universally say one side or another is solved or not. The point is that it is a THEORETICAL question asked. It, by itself, isn't the best form of chess. But it is meant to be a test for whether or not variants themselves are deadend. By the way, as far as a 'sense of accomplishment' goes, it is a game. You defeat your opponent. If you end up the top dog by being the best player, and being champion, that is the sense of accomplishment. One can get a sense of accomplishment from mastering an OPPONENT over mastering a particular set of RULES. Can I add here that when it comes to war (this is what chess is an abstracted model of), that no battle ever fought is the same? It is 'Heraclitian' in that the conditions to start the battle are never the same, and they change in the battle, independent of what the troops do. Yet, great generals are able to be evaluated.
George, I think you are getting at the scope of what I am thinking about regarding Calvinball Chess. Of course, this is an extreme expression of the scope of the chess here, in that someone would NEVER play with the same set of rules twice (this includes the use of mutators). But that is meant as a way to see the theoretical bounds. Actually, what I am looking at with the 'Chess of Tomorrow' project is to bring all these methods together, coordinate and so on, and have a way for them to come into practice, so best of breed rises up. This would be a Superset of what IAGO Chess System (which is a Superset of IAGO Chess, the game). And in this, I would propose it as part of the solution, with the community and people involved modifying what is needed. The answer should be from practical experience, not ego or anything else. Of course, in all this, and mutators, a way that the rules can be varied further is by a timing element involving the introduction of when mutators would come into play, and also when new pieces enter the board. Even changing the turn order by a few moves, delaying or requiring, results in a different game. The Calvinball angle adds a timing mechanism that effect when rules come into play. And in all this, would be a general study of chess strategy, finding what the universal principles are, and their exceptions. By the way George, you come down on the side that Calvinball is theoretically possible, in that a game can have an infinite number of variants for it?
Giant Chess. 16x16 board with the same pieces as Turkish Chess, but also the "Dev" piece which takes up four squares. (16x16, Cells: 256) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]When you are looking at that many pieces, my take is being able to move more than one piece per turn is a must. One could even mix this up a bit by having commander pieces that, if capture, reduce the amount of moves you get per turn by one. So, if you have 4 moves per turn, if you capture on, the number of moves is reduced to 3, etc... These commanders could actually replace the King piece. I am borrowing a bit from Chieftain Chess here, but so be it. It is just an idea. I actually dabbled with this concept awhile back with Conquest, in a variant where you only moved so many pieces per turn, and had number of moves reduced with each section of the enemy fort that was captured.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George, do you mean the simple fact that you can have an infinite number of boards for chess is proof of this? Aka, a board can theoretically by infinite size? Ok, let's say we limit the board, for discussion sake to an 8x8 board (standard chess size). Can such a game using an 8x8 board (standard chess, not movable tiles) be infinite in the number of variations? At this point also, I would then like to ask, what fixed set of rules would be needed to still identify the game as chess, and allow for infinite variations? Hey, here is a good question to ponder regarding this: What rules are by their nature unbounded that they cause a game to have infinite variety of rules associated with them? One could argue that board size is one. But what other ones?
There is a separate entry, on here, that looks at the way can be unbounded, and could produce an infinite number of variants, based on a change in how he rules are set up. I will have to ask whether or not turn-order is finite or infinite. It might be show that a player moving N moves in a row, could always win a game. This would then put a natural boundary, and would not be infinite.
You can find that thread here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=UnboundChessList
This then points to the Chess of Tomorrow Project Wiki site entry here:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested#post-140383
So, the idea of this part of the Chess of Tomorrow Project is to look at what elements of chess would be able to produce a Calvinball (never play with the same rules twice) Chess, verses being finite.
I welcome any other people to contribute here to input into this and see what may or may not fit. The Wikidot entry would be appropriate place to go.
This list is an attempt to come up with different aspects to the rules of chess that could produce an unlimited (unbounded) number of variants based upon changing the parameters around this rule type. Please suggest more if you can, or critique. I will look to update this as time goes on. I see this so far: 1. Board size and shape. A board can theoretically be infinite in size. Because of this, it can theoretically take on an infinite number of shapes (shapes representing the number of spaces it has, and where they are located). 2. The number of players (and also number of teams). 3. Time control: Amount of time each player has to play. 4. Play to points in a chess tournament: Players can play to an infinite number of points. Probably unbounded (no sure): * Turn order and sequence of play. This is based off the way progression works. There may be a limit to how many times a player can move in a row, given a minimum number of pieces, which the victory conditions can always be met. In light of this, this may not be infinite. Some that I am uncertain about: * The number of unique pieces. Is there an infinite number of ways a piece can act on a chessboard? * Number of pieces on a board and their mix. If a board is finite size, then this should mean there can only be so many piece combinations on a board, right? * Reserve pool mix. It is theoretically possible that you can have an infinitely large reserve of pieces that can be dropped in from every turn, but I would argue there is the possibility for a board to get clogged up with so many pieces, that it isn't infinite. Even shuffling the reserve doesn't resolve. * Adding new rule types. Are there really an unlimited number of different rule types that can be added to chess, that make it unlimited. What I don't see as unlimited: * Shuffles. Unless you have a theoretical unlimited number of pieces on an infinitely wide board, it doesn't look infinite to me. * Piece names and look. This doesn't functionally change how a game is played. * Board colors. Unless the rules governing pieces is governed by color of the board, this is irrelevant to how the game is played. * Space shape. I would argue there is only a finite number of ways that spaces can be fit together that they would fit together. Now, the combination of these pieces definitely could potentially fit under the unlimited category. Please reply with others and comment. You can also go to the Chess of Tomorrow Project Thread to discuss this more there: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested#post-140383
Interesting articles there. They still run into the exact same issues variants run into, they are considered abnormal freaks people are wary of.
There is also Many Rules chess (Someone suggested this be checked out): http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/manyrules.html All this I see as part of the Chess of Tomorrow project that can be worked on. Good to know what can be bounded verses unbounded and so on.
Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The next challenge, get this up to be infinite. You could also go with drops and gating that even add more pieces to it, and change when they come in, and create a reserve. One could also go with the idea of mutators that enter the game at different times. Did we even begin to discuss the board that it could be played on? We could even vary the boards here. So, he idea is mutators, shuffle, drops and gating, different pieces, etc... to end up with a different game. So, what else can be added to make it infinite? I believe to have this, is that ONE element that is infinite get added to the mix. This should be a practical element that can be implemented. May I suggest people also take this discussion to the Chess of Tomorrow project Wiki discussion to discuss going infinite? http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested This would fit under the Calvinball/Hericlitian Chess idea that it is possible for humanity, given endless time, to never play chess with the same rules twice.
My take on Beyond Chess, if players at the start of the game are able to follow those rules, and they aren't stopped, then doesn't that represent merely one rule in effect? This means the rules itself are still bound, with Beyond Chess merely adding one new rule. Yes, this rule adds a lot of depth to the game, but it is still one rule. Difference would be the slide before you move, slide after you move, transport tile elsewhere, having tiles disappear, etc... Different starting configurations would each be considered a different rule. But the sliding a tile after a move, to me, looks like a mutator, and thus one rule. Now, let's say you start restricting when this sliding can take effect, and to what degree, that that would add more rules. The idea here isn't just asking if the decision tree can be unlimited, but the RULES governing the decision tree is unlimited.
Please let me know what the final page will be that I can point the Tour calendar to regarding it?
Ok now here. There will ONLY be a photo if someone takes a snapshot of the winner. As far as prizes go, you guys need to get me something a film studio would want to film. I need wacky nicknames (or at least something with a pasty name twice :-)). We have a Double Donut. Anyone else want to be DanishDanish (please, I hope no offense here. I already ticked off several chess grandmasters)? I also need some sort of page to point this two. I will get something up on BoardGameGeek also, once we are set, but please get me a page now with the info for it. If it is this thread, let me know. I would personally rather have a page with just the event info, and no information on how many are participating. Every event on the Tour schedule should look alike in this regard. Just my 2 cents...
Please give a bit of thought to what you want for user names or nicknames. In event we ever get anything on TV, they will be having these nicknames in with your name, like 'Devilfish', 'Jesus', and 'The Poker Brat'. Of course, not everyone needs them, but think how you want yourself to come off. I will say the nicknames are not mandatory, but could be useful.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I am under the impression that Chess operated under a ban by the Catholic Church, because they likely found people spending far too much time playing it, and was picking up a gambling angle (the use of dice in some versions, and also probably betting). The Church likely judged that chess was an unproductive use of time, and banned it. As for the war analogy, this is my take, but you did happen to find the ruling class using it to train in strategy and movement. You can also argue that perhaps it was a divination device for kings to determine outcome of battles (aka a wargame). This then also might be another call for the ban by the Catholic Church regarding chess.
Skirmish Chess. Tony Paletta Modest proposal as separate link for discussion. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have been playing around with this in Zillions, adding Capablanca pieces and found it is a very interesting design. I am planning on having this game modified to the IAGO Chess System framework, complete with Capablanca pieces in it, in the next few weeks. I am doing this entry separately to discuss it, as I happened to also stumble across it while working on an attempt to port Grand Chess to an 8x8 board.
Want to have a streamlined (less kludgy) version of chess with enough depth to it that you won't get bored as you teach newbies? You want to have it so that they are also open to variants? A newbie should be able to get going fully in less than 5 minutes. Well, consider Skirmish Chess (this game), with the following changes: When you teach the game, don't teach castling, and en passant is moot here (it doesn't have it). Also pawns only move one way. Also go with capture the enemy king instead of checkmate. Also, limit promotion to the basic set of pieces. You have a decent game that will be able to entertain yourself, and get people playing a form of chess that isn't trivial, and will get them going. I believe this version would appeal to newbies, because it has a lot of action early in it, and a bunch of captures. It should be noted that the changes above were added to Skirmish Chess, for a new variant called 'Near Chess'. It is entered into the CV site and can be found here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSnearchess
The best way to go about this is to have a pass around the list thing to see who would want to go for it, and how many pieces. Then once enough people sign up, take orders. Then they do the run, get the molds made and able to facilitate this. Of course, we are going to need people to commit to this. Don't assume there is some sort of rich uncle of the variant community who is going to do this out of the goodness of their heart. Assume that the community needs to get behind it. On this note, I would like to see people speak up here. Are people willing to get behind this project? Please speak up here. I know I want to get ahold them. I would rather use distinct pieces than go with using PlunderChess, etc... Let's see the benefits of this. You could do variant tournaments at conventions and actually have the real pieces for people to use. Well, that is my take here. Who else would be interested. I can assure you this, if there is enough interest, I do know that the pieces can become reality.
As for myself: Q#1: How many people would actually buy variant pieces, for about $2 - $3 per piece? Q#2: How many pieces would you buy? I would look to get 1 or 2 each of the Capablanca pieces, likely a Cannon, and maybe one of whatever else is available. Q#3: How much would you really spend in that order? I would probably go as high as $50 or so, excluding shipping. Q#4: What pieces would you like to see made? Myself, I would like to see this: 1. The Knight+Rook 2. The Knight+Bishop 3. The Knight+Queen 4. Cannon or Catapult 5. A second type of pawn 6. A Super Knight 7. Chariot (this perhaps could double as the Knight+Rook) I personally would like to see 3D Chinese Chess pieces myself that can double as the variant pieces. What is described above could fit that. That is me perhaps though. Maybe other people have other ideas here, like an Elephant (Afil).
Near Chess. This is a variant of Skirmish Chess designed to be friendlier to newbies. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would like to add that John Kipling Lewis thought of this same variant on Skirmish Chess as I had, so I wanted to give him credit. He is looking to have a version where the board is only 6 rows big, which makes it different than this version. I will let him decide what to call it.
Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hey, let's also go with an 8x8 board, a 8x9 and an 8x10 board. Shoot, you could also go all the way up to 8x14 or 8x16, giving the starting positions a larger back row space (as is seen in Skirmish Chess and Near Chess). You could also push the pieces forward or back more.
The event page: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/cv-potluck-2008 Is now up on the IAGO World Tour schedule: http://www.iagoworldtour.com/ I will also get the games into the officially registered with IAGO list.
Catastrophic 8x8 Chess. Mathematician Missoum gives a new type of chessboard.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I don't get this, and I am pondering CalvinBall at this point.
Matthew, are you capable now of making custom pieces for people? Please feel free to offer your services now to people to do this. Longer term, perhaps a commercial version would be viable. In the mean time, I personally don't have any issues with you doing this. If things, IAGO related work out where we get a supplier, then maybe. But, so long as you can serve the needs of the community, please feel free to consider helping out. Anyone else have objections to what Matthew spoke on? I personally don't at this point. Even if there is mass production of variant pieces, then the community will be wanting more obscure ones. So, at this point, I don't see any issue now. This may change down the road though. By the way, what country are you located?
Near Chess. This is a variant of Skirmish Chess designed to be friendlier to newbies. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anyone here know how to tell the Courier preset the following rules: King capture for win no castling pawn promotion to your captured pieces only I am curious how to have the rule say that so. Any ideas?
Catastrophic 8x8 Chess. Mathematician Missoum gives a new type of chessboard.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Is this actually a game? Looks more like theory to me.
Hey, I believe Stanley Random Chess relates to this question somehow: http://www.chessvariants.org/link2.dir/srchess.html Or maybe a way to phrase this is whether Stanley Random Chess would actually have any Unbound rules to it.
I believe this has to be connected to Stanley Random Chess somehow: http://www.chessvariants.org/link2.dir/srchess.html
Stanley Random Chess . Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Why do I have a feeling this is connected to CalvinBall Chess somehow: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=Calvinball+Chess
Catastrophic 8x8 Chess. Mathematician Missoum gives a new type of chessboard.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think in this is perhaps a way that could be used to demonstrate chess on television, and relative positions. It likely needs to be reworked, and if there is math involved, the variables explained, else this falls into the Stanley Random Chess category, which is closer to the comic strip Calvinball than the theoretical Heraclitian Calvinball I had asked about. Anyone have any ideas on how this could potentially be used to demonstrate positions in chess that are about to collapse and fail? Maybe I can come up with something, or other people have ideas.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]There is a Zillions adaptation of the IAGO Chess game at: http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/17624?do=show;id=1576
Near Chess. This is a variant of Skirmish Chess designed to be friendlier to newbies. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Just to repeat what was added above. There is a Zillions adaptation of Near Chess, with a bunch of variants. The direct link is here: http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/18477?do=show;id=1577
Stanley Random Chess . Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]My take on this, is that Mornington Crescent, and is a bit like Calvinball. I would consider SRC to be the Mornington Crescent of Chess games, a bit of an inside joke actually. I will say that it does serve a useful purpose of showing people who play a game like chess, or even a particularly variant, what their game sounds like to those who don't know about it. So, on this note, we can use this comment here as a note that SRC is very likely a joke. The funny thing is someone I have messaged on BGG said they were responsible for its creation.
Can I again run this by everyone? I know people say they can cut and stick and so on. But if you happen to play someone a game, and they like it, how will they be able to get the equipment to play it by themselves?
Intervention Chess. Members-Only Missing description (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Can I explain another reason why having commercially available variant pieces would help here? Most game purchases are done as gifts, either for birthday or Christmas. In order to facilitate the growth of variants, it is going to be important to allow people to buy the equipment to give other people as a gift. This also would allow the variant community to give someone variant pieces as a gift. Like, let's say you do have a variant, and you know people happened to like a design of yours. If you have pieces and equipment available for sale, you could buy it for them as a gift. Without this, what happens with variants is people find it a one-time novel experience. A one-time novel experience doesn't grow interest in variants. On this note, would people here be willing to buy chess variant pieces for other people, to give as gifts? Shoot, you could even do some custom jobs where you get to name the piece after a person, give it some wacky power that is customized, and particular, as a gag gift. Like the 'Steve' piece. It has the power to move like a Knight (because it has noble intentions) but has the power to freeze other pieces next to it, through the power of 'smalltalk' preventing them from moving. So, these would be gag gift pieces you can give people. I am sure there is a Steve out there somewhere (I don't have anyone in mind by refering it). So, when people play a customized variant chess, they can use their own custom piece instead of the queen, or replacing the king if doing extinction.
Braves' Chess. Solves the problem of draws in chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]My take here on this is as follows: 1. Chess has multiple issues. Draws are one. Another is stale opening lines, that have pushed out innovation further in the game, making it less appealing. 2. I believe we should stop with this proposing that every single proposed rule change be a new version of chess. Can we have a category called 'sub-variant' or something else, for things like Braves' Chess? Such things that Braves Chess attempts to do is important. It needs to be something experimented with as a sub-variant, mutator, or whatever else we want to call it. It is an end-game fix mutation. Maybe call it a patch. 3. I like a bit what is done here, but my take on the end game drawishness would be several things: a. Get rid of draws have a score of 1/2 - 1/2. Have it worth zero points or have it so that it is a 1/2 point score for black, if going to add 1 point minor victory conditions. Have a win worth 2 points (this is 2 points for a win, if the following are done below). b. Get rid of checkmate and replace it with capturing the king. This means no more stalemate. If you do want to play with stalemate and checkmate, then a stalemate is worth 1/2 point for the player who stalemated their opponent. c. Count barring the king as a 1 point victory (1/2 point for draw). In other words, add a minor victory condition. As for the stale opening book, use pocket pieces with a variable mix of pieces (drops and gating to get them on) and shuffles. I believe if you do this, then both the beginning and end game issues with chess will be resolved. You can see these ideas expanded upon here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=19128 By the way, is there any reason why the variant community should NOT consider implementing some standardized anti-draw procedures between all their games? Consider what I stated above, for example. Why not have it so that a variant will NEVER run into draw issues, no matter how much it is played out. Also consider what was stated above also as a standard way to address all these issues to. Such standard way can be deviated from, if shown to be otherwise. But I would suggest people NOT have hubris in believing that a variant is so great, that it will NEVER face draw issues.
Here is my take on stale openings and the issues of draws with chess. 1. Chess has multiple issues. Draws are one. Another is stale opening lines, that have pushed out innovation further in the game, making it less appealing. 2. I believe we should stop with this proposing that every single proposed rule change be a new version of chess. Can we have a category called 'sub-variant' or something else, for things like Braves' Chess? Such things that Braves Chess attempts to do is important. It needs to be something experimented with as a sub-variant, mutator, or whatever else we want to call it. It is an end-game fix mutation. Maybe call it a patch. 3. I like a bit what is done here, but my take on the end game drawishness would be several things (well, besides ending drawishness, at least having a draw still count as something that gets a player some points): a. Get rid of draws have a score of 1/2 - 1/2. Have it worth zero points or have it so that it is a 1/2 point score for black. Have a win worth 2 points (this is 2 points for a win, if the following are done below, otherwise a win is 1 point). Given the below rules, here will be very few games where a situation would arise that a chess match is not advanced. b. Get rid of checkmate and replace it with capturing the king. This means no more stalemate. If you do want to play with stalemate and checkmate, then a stalemate is worth 1 point for the player who stalemated their opponent. c. Count 3 move check repetition as a 1 point (minor) victory for the player who checks their opponent's king 3 times. d. In event of of a 3 move repetition on a rare chance that it is mutual checking back and forth, that would end up counting as a victory for the first player to get the 3 checks in at the same time, and it is worth 1/2 point. e. In the event of a 3 move repetition where neither side checks the other king, the player who goes second to cause a third move repetition would end up losing, awarding their opponent 1/2 points. f. Count barring the king as a 1 point victory. In other words, add multiple levels of victory condition with different points. As for the stale opening book, use pocket pieces that could vary game to game, and they would get on the board by means of drops and gating. Drops could be used before the game in a set up zone, or later in the game into a set-up zone (drops and gating to get them on). Later in the game, both gating and drops could be used. For preset pieces on the board, you would use a shuffle. The default shuffle is the 960 version found in Fisher Random Chess. I believe if you do this, then both the beginning and end game issues with chess will be resolved. Please comment here.
Over 60% of chess tournaments are ending in draws on the highest level. That looks like a problem to me.
Braves' Chess. Solves the problem of draws in chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]One thing I would suggest here is... STOP POSTING AN IDEA OR THREE TOGETHER TO FIX THE STALE OPENING OR DRAWISH ENDGAME AS A NEW GAME (or game variant)! Ok, I said it. If there is one thing, and only one thing that I would ask people to agree to on this subject, is that there come up with two lists: One for how to mix up the openings, and another to reduce draws. Have these as a codified list of some sort (call them mutators). Players playing a variant can agree to which of these can be used between them, and people play them. This goes from shuffles to gating for openings to no more stalemate, barring the king, etc... for the end game. Let people pick and choose from the list and see. Play a LOT of games to see what works, and perhaps come up with a values for the end game conditions to be worth. My take on all this variant talk is there is far too much proposing and not enough testing for what works. So, everyone has what they think is a brilliant idea, and it is tossed into a pile with a bunch of others, not tested to see if it works or not. And then, you have another camp, even among variants people who say everything is just jim dandy, eventhough these things people think are ok with chess now, weren't in there prior to the mad queen. Things I suggested about barring the king, and getting rid of stalemate were actually reverting back to pre-mad queen days. These elements were considered minor victories back then. But, when the mad queen got introduced, everyone thought chess was so fantastic, they decide to go with stalemate and also get rid of barring the king because 'it is not needed' because people saw the firepower and thought that Look at the rules to Shatranj, what chess was before the mad queen, if you don't believe me: http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/shatranj.html # Stalemate counts as a win. # Bare King counts as a win, provided that your King cannot be bared on the very next move. (See below.) Again, if you want to do deal with issues, how about going pre-mad queen chess and bringing things back? For those who suggest what I said is to radical, what can I say here except maybe people have been conditioned by habit. I don't think being conditioned by habit is a think a person who is into variants should use to justify why something is. Such talk is like a local Speed Chess club I know, lamenting that Speed Chess wasn't taken seriously, why they managed to frown upon anything else.
Shatranj. The widely played Arabian predecessor of modern chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would like to comment here that I find it interesting that proposals to add some of the win conditions from Shatranj to regular chess are seen as 'too radical'. Here I mean no stalemate and barring the king. I am curious why anyone would feel that, particularly when they play variants? If these actually reduce the number of draws, why not use it in variants?
Sofia rule, which you wrote of, apparently reduced the number of draws by less than 5%: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4553 My question is, even if the number of draws ends up being 45-50% why is this still acceptable?
I am curious here regarding draws. Should we be viewing the solution to draws to be merely another specific game? Or, can we do something with how game conditions are scored over variants in general (start with a baseline) that would end up address possible draw issues with all them. You can have a default starting place, and variants are free to do this. Perhaps we could end up using a different default position than FIDE chess. How about we look to Shatranj for example, and what it had, and use that as the starting point? Maybe extend it some to account for more modern play. Just an idea here.
Braves' Chess. Solves the problem of draws in chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Ok, looks like we are building up a list of issues chess faces. Let's review thus far: 1. Stale openings 2. Drawishness 3. Computers outthinking humans. How about we also look at other issues relating to this? Like some of these isses: 4. Chess is boring people who don't know it and not getting their interest. It is facing a growth problem, and it doesn't captivate non-chess players. Pretty much the world outside the chess world knows what chess is but doesn't care about it. It faces an issue with getting youths interested, with it using 'education' as a supposed hook to get tax dollars spent on it. Yes, it is pitched as some form of getting smarter, that you want to get your kids into. It isn't a fun thing in its own right, but is something that is supposed to fix schools and improve science scores. Yes, chess has gotten into the 'infotainment' business, because it isn't captivating based on its own merits (had it been done right, it could do that). 5. You can also add to the mix here that chess ends up being people playing the game, rather than playing the player. Well, if they are playing the player, people don't see this. People see chess as something they want to master, rather than a battlefield where they can demonstrate they master their opponent. Games like poker, which get on TV have player vs player to them. Chess is more like player vs board. Only when it was Fischer vs the Russian Chess Machine (Bobby as defender of the free world), did people care outside of chess, and chess popularity exploded, bring a flock of new players to the game. When something gets like this, it generates new players (for example, number of poker players has doubled since the pocket cam entered into poker programming in North America). 6. Can you also add to the mix that no one has figured out how to make chess sustainable on TV either? 7. Political infighting. Can we sum up by just saying that chess in its current state is stale? That is an issue that encompasses a lot, and leads to a lot of political infighting. And those who say, eventhough people still do footraces while there are cars and trains, physical or not, if no one outside of those involved cares or is interested, then what? Sure, a computer can solve Sudoku puzzles faster than a human. Humans still can play it. People like Sudoku, so the whole computer beats humans isn't that important of an issue. It is a state of staleness that produces 60% draws on the highest level and squabbling over a few percentages getting it down (aka, thinking Sofia's rule is the answer, and thinking that your scoring system that rewards players drawing will suddenly cause players not to game it and draw less). It is shooting down just about every idea, and resting on your laurels thinking the next Bobby Fischer will show up to save the day. It is also saying, 'What is wrong with 60% draws? So long as it isn't early offering of draws and they are 'fought out' that is ok'.' In other words, things are the way they are, handed down by the divine, so let's not question it at all. If such is a reason for things being stale, who is each person to question it? It is thinking in the area of intellectual competition, you have no other peers (nevermind that Go and other games will be making inroads, and kids play real-time strategy games). It is then whining you don't get the respect you deserve, because you think your being around so long means you will remain forever. And it is being upset at 'mindless' poker getting the attention and money instead of chess. I would say the issues of chess are just a TAD larger than whether or not there is a draw issue, or the opening book is stale. The variant community could actually help to fix a lot of these issues, if it was allowed into the conversation, and if it believed it could actually help to fix things. The variant community, working towards this end could help to revive chess, in multiple forms, making things exciting again. But, if things are going to be just a bunch of artists on separate islands passing notes in a bottle, then we may not see much going on. Not to say that this is the case, but it is easy to end up keeping to oneself, and one's own ideas. I know this from personal experience. Just my two cents. And if you think it is worth less than that, well that is your choice :-)
Shatranj. The widely played Arabian predecessor of modern chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Can you explain why a single promoted pawn forcing stalemate would be a reason for dropping the Bare King Loss rule? I don't see the connection. An approach I am seeing is you have something like 3 types of win conditions with 3 different scores: 1. Checkmate, resignation = 2 points. 2. Shatranj type minor wins = 1 point. This includes stalemate or baring the king. 3. Positions that are normally considered draws in FIDE or Shatranj = 1/2 point. This would include things like 3 move repetition check, barring a king and then next move having your king barred, and so on. Of course, one player would only get he half point. 4. A genuine draw, based on obscure positions. My proposal to deal with this is to allow one player to pick a color and their opponent only get 1/2 point for the draw, or they can take the 1/2 point for the rare draw and their opponent picks the color. This approach, while a tad more complicated, handles more situation and actually allows room for handicapping. If people want me to post it in greater detail, I can put it up here.
The original chess is Shatranj, and it had multiple victory conditions, including barring the king and stalemate as a win, provided only one side had their king barred. These rules were taken out when people thought the changes made to what we have with regular chess, would mean you would almost never draw. You also didn't have castling, which left the king in the middle of the board, vulnerable to being checkmated. I can also, through my playing with Near Chess, see that when you do what you do with the pawns by giving them extra mobility (2 spaces to start instead of one), it results in pawn structures that remain solid all the way through, which reduces the chances of creating uneven pawn structures that help to cause the endgame generating more pawn promotions. Also this, in addition giving the other pieces more mobility means that you have the firepower pieces getting out in front of the pawns, burning off faster, with less firepower left in the end game to bust up pawn structures more. All this leads to more draws. The end result was it was far less likely to have the draw conditions we have today, which are pushing around 60% on the highest levels of play. I would like to hear someone explain why draw rate of 60% or higher is a good thing, particularly people who are into variants and are willing to adopt whatever rules are needed to make an enjoyable game. I will suggest anyone here to download Near Chess and have the Zillions AI try it and see what happens when you move chess back closer to Shatranj than regular chess. I believe you get a lot less draws.
What I saw in Braves Chess was the need that we come up with something to differentiate a proposed rule fix (that would work with a lot of games) verses a complete stand-alone variant that is a collection of rules. Can we work on a greater category name for Mutators (universal rules changes you can apply to a game to vary things to keep interested) and Fixes, which are used to address possible issues, like excessive amount of draws. Also possibly included would be other categories. If anyone have a good name for the category of mutators and fixes, please speak on it. In the mean time, may I suggest that the following names be used at the end of a game entry to let people know what it is (please suggest better names for these, if you have them): 1. Game or Chess: This is a collection of rules, pieces, playing pieces, win conditions, etc... that work together as a stand-alone system. Something like Different Army Chess or Chinese Chess would count here. Chess960 I would argue is more of a variant actually, and a 960 Shuffle would be a Mutator (see below). 2. Variant: This is a set of specific rules applied to a particular game, as a proposed variant. For example, 'Chess 960 Variant', would be regular chess, with the 960 position shuffled applied to pieces (I.E Fischer Random Chess). There are also other rules applied to make this variant work. In the suggested notation I am recommending here, you would stick Variant at the end. I will let others see the best way to format this. 3. Piece: This is a playing piece that could be used in other games. For example, the Falcon (patented) is a piece that can be used in a lot of games. As a title on here, it would have 'Falcon Piece' as the title. Since it is a piece, this total notates that it is a piece to use. Now, you could then have 'Falcon Chess' which would be a standalone game specifically designed around the Falcon piece. 4. Board/Play Area: This would cover the playing area pieces take place in. An entry 'Byzantine Board' would refer to the board 16x4 round, that Byzantine chess plays on. 'Byzantine Chess' would refer to a game that is based specifically around the board. 5. Mutator: This is a game condition that would work across a lot of games. One could, for example, have a '960 Shuffle Mutator'. This would mean the mutator performs a Chess960 Shuffle. One could view these as a more universal version of a variant, because they work over a wide range of games. I view 'Reformed Chess' as actually being a 'Reformed Pawn Mutator', because the rule could be applied to lots of rules. 6. Fix/Rules Fix/Rule/Rules: This is one or more rules that work together that can be applied to a wide range of games, in order to address certain issues. It is meant to be a steady state Mutator of a sort, used to address draw issues, play balanced, etc... This is also meant to denote that it is stable, and the person proposing it has the intention for it to be a solution, not just something that can used to vary the action of play. In this would be opening issues, midgame, ending, scoring, time-control, etc... This could likely use more granularity to it, so it can apply more. For example, I have an alternate form of scoring for chess uses to address the end-game issue. I would like to have it here and the word 'Rules' at the end looks like it would apply. 7. Theory: This is meant for discussion of general issues in the area of chess and chess variants, where a common underlying theme and structure. The discussion of 'Catastrophic Chess' recently here (whatever it was called), would apply here. The name slips my mind now, but I think people remember that mathematical formula. So, what I am asking for here is perhaps when we do a game entry, we can at least label the ending of the title different, so people know what you are talking about when the see the title. It also frees people from the need to form a complete and totally different game of chess, when all they want is a single piece to experiment with. Also, if anyone knows of other categories here.
Near Chess. This is a variant of Skirmish Chess designed to be friendlier to newbies. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I also uploaded a PDF with the Near Chess rules in English, on the Yahoo CV site. You can also find a version of the rules on the Boardgame Geek site here. The link to the PDF rules is in the description above.
Braves' Chess. Solves the problem of draws in chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]And again it is 'draws are not a problem'. Well, the highest level of chess represents chess played at an optimal level, right? If it is drawing at that level, what impact does it have on the game? I can also break out Connect 4, for example, and among inexperienced players, and even average players, they won't always win if they play in the middle. For them, the game is fine. But if you were to play Connect 4 on the highest level, then what? One player always wins by starting in the middle, so I guess maybe less experienced players should play? Is one also going to slap tournament checkers on the wrist for changing how it does things? I would argue that it is relevant for chess that there is greater granularity in scoring. Shatranj had this granularity in the past. It got taken out under the presumption that the power pieces would make draws far less relevant. Well, on the highest levels, which is normally what draws media attention, there is a high degree of draws. And if people think this isn't a problem, I suggest they take a look at the current state of chess associations. Things are not good. People say it is just politics, but is it?
Anyone have any idea what is going on with Chess in Canada? I happened to find these articles on the Chess Federation of Canada: http://members5.boardhost.com/ChessTalk/msg/1208372663.html http://www.chess.ca/Gls/07-08GL7.pdf Talk of restructuring, and potentially going under, borrowing money from FIDE in order to stay afloat and make their payments to be a member? People are speculating the Chess Federation of Canada may be going under. I am seeing other stories regarding FIDE and the U.S Chess Federation also (although it isn't as bad). If anyone wonders why I am concerned about chess, and believe that even small issues (aka, excessive drawishness on the highest level) are important, it is because of things like this. If a game can't support an organized association for it, it isn't going to be taken seriously.
If you want to liken Chess to Boxing, then if boxing were like chess, if there wasn't a knockout, the boxing match would end in a draw. Do you think this would be good for boxing? Can you name any other sport where this is so and why it is good for tournament play? Please present the case that have 60%+ of all chess matches ending in draws is good for chess as a sport. I would like to see the argument how it fosters growth. I would like to see the appeal to soccer and hockey having draws in them be shown how the Stanley Cup and the World Cup end in draws. Are there ANY other sports which end in draws? How about ones where if the entire thing ends in a draw, the defending champion retains their title. Does ANYTHING else besides Chess have this? Anyhow, if you want to declare a draw as a 'non-checkmate' ending to a chess match, then fine. But explain how having it end in 1/2-1/2 for both players resulting in the chess match not reaching a conclusion (except for the defending champ) actually helps chess grow as a game. I am interested hearing the argument how this actually fosters growth of chess. Not that it is 'well, we have bad leadership in the chess world, which is why it isn't growing'. I am asking if it helps chess grow in any way having the 19th century 1/2 to 1/2 for a draw for both sides.
Braves' Chess. Solves the problem of draws in chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jianying Ji, move the pawns forward one? I stumbled across this when trying to adapt Grand Chess to an 8x8 board. The end result is Near Chess on here. Please do review this. I also take a bunch of things out of normal chess when going this route. The rules are here, if anyone wants to play with them: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSnearchess I will hopefully have a PDF up on Boardgame Geek that will be downloadable. I do find it makes things interesting actually. The position holds its own for the most part against regular chess. I personally believe the issue with draws isn't draws, but how they are scored.
Shatranj Extended Tournament Scoring (S.E.T.S) Rules. An attempt at an improved scoring system for chess tournaments. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]SETS is being proposed as a center point for discussion. The purpose of it isn't to try to ram it down the throats of the chess variants community, but offer it as something that could be considered. It may not be appropriate for all chess variants, and perhaps some rules can be changed. But, it would be suggested that, if the chess variants community will run multi-game Athlon type events, a common scoring system (like SETS) be developed in order to determine who won the tournament. SETS is a starting point for this discussion.
How about having some 'mutator' scoring system or Rules that can be applied on top of just about any group of chess variants, and if the game hardly ever doesn't end in draws, but checkmate, then these extra conditions don't matter. But, if it is more prone to certain conditions, then the scoring system can handle these rare exceptions? It is good to design games that are less drawish and more decisive, but if you have a popular game that is more draw-prone, why not differentiate the quality of the draws and account for them appropriately. In other words, you don't just have set over all conditions that have the same score, but you have more granularity. They do this now in chess anyhow, awarding 1/2 point to each player on a draw, and 1 point for a win. This is two scores. Why do multiple varieties of draws (non-checkmate ends) have to all have the same score? A reason why I am discussing this now is look at normal chess. What you see is that the multiple varieties of draws are all worth the same 1/2 point for BOTH players. Add that to the defending champion retaining title on a tie in score, and you are going to produce draws. Anyhow, this also goes to the person arguing for stalemate staying in the game. I will say that is fine, but why should it score 1/2-1/2 for both players (count as a draw?). What did the player who was stalemated exactly do? They get a draw due to the bungling of the other player, which does nothing to advance the ending of the results? How about awarding the player who stalemated their opponent 1/2 point, but their opponent doesn't get any points? It still hurts to mess up like that, but still respects the stalemate as a gotcha someone can mess up on.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.