[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by RichardHutnik
One can argue, in one sense, that chess is a victim of its own success. Despite some kludginess in the rules, individuals could stumble across the rules, and play, and find a game that could keep them busy a lifetime. It is when you get a community behind a game that they do wear it out. This is the nature of abstract strategy games, is that they set themselves up to be solved. The more popular the game, the sooner it wears itself out. What I will say is happening is the chess community is gravitating towards Speed Chess as the solution to a lot of its ills. Reducing the time to play a game offers the biggest bang for the buck. So, do expect that to become more of the norm as time goes on. Of course, the opening book being stale is another issue, but it seems to be not that important to the chess community normally. Chess960 has show enough there. However, there does appear to be some backlash. It will likely, by default, be the way to address opening book staleness, unless a better solution is offered. And, all this being said, I believe the variant community should look into its strengths and try to come up with some alternative that can speak to the conversation. By the way, the issue I see with Superchess is that it s a proprietary product, that doesn't get enough exposure, and I personally find the pieces far too confusng. Nice idea, but it is set up where it won't spread and get needed exposure.
Regarding SuperChess, I believe that it is part of the Chess Variant community's answer to what the Next Chess can be. I will state again I believe everything should be look at, not just the stale openings, but the excess of draws, and also the desire to innovate, as seen by the CV community. The Variant Community (not just people who are here, but all), have a chance to come up with a system approach that would enable it to have a say in a game that continues to develop. I believe this approach needs to stop treating each and every single innovation as a separate game, but as part of something larger. A game can be thought of as a scenario in a larger framework.
Too bad the Seirawan pieces are proprietary. They would be a great addition to the Variant community.
Amazons. Queens fire arrows to make squares unpassable. Last player that moves wins. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Due to the AI playing it poorly, I think they didn't include Amazons in for Zillions. I believe a variant that allows killing of enemy Amazon pieces available for Zillions. Maybe you can hack that zrf.
Chess drawing as high as it does at the highest level is a problem. In regards to the 'variant' phrase, this would be fine for standardized terminology, if it doesn't decide to make Xiangqi fit into this. Into the larger framework I describe, a 'variant' would have consistent terminology and piece names, as other games that are considered 'variants'.
Proprietary means that the designers, Harper and Seirawan, haven't given anyone permission to use the pieces for any other purposes than what they intended. You can't take the Hawk, and use it as something else, and you are not permitted to use it in any other game, but what Harper and Seirawan approved of, which now is just Bughouse. Ok, people on their own can use them as they choose. But, if you wanted to run a publicized tournament and use their pieces for other than what they intended, you may risk them suing you. This is what is meant by proprietary.
Invisible King Chess. Opponent can't see where you moved your king to. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This game does look like it needs a ref to be able to ref things. And the game should be like chess in every regarding, including the need to move the King if the King is in check. It makes the rules easier on people.
Let me spin the discussions on standards another way. Who would be interested in coming up with a single save game format, like the way Zillions is set up, that could enable a wide range of systems to be able to load up, and read games? Please exclude from this question that it is IMPOSSIBLE and never would happen. I just want to see who is interested in it working. So, who here is in favor or oppsed to coming up with some universal save game format?
PGN will be able to handle every single game on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Game_Notation The main thing is that people agree to what will be used more than what it is.
Well, the idea I am looking at is an extended version of PGN for a wider range of games. I wanted to see if anyone was interested in this. I don't think PGN is sufficiently robust to handle all the Game Courier games.
It isn't a matter of what can be come up with. You can see one approach I worked on: http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-notation It is a matter of what people can agree to.
Kinglet Chess comes to mind here: http://www.chessvariants.org/winning.dir/kinglet.html
Dipole Chess. A cross between Chess and the game Dipole by Mark Steere. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Wouldn't a simple answer for the demotion issue to be that piece demote to pawn-like pieces that can't promote? This is another way to break the cycle.
What is a 'Lazy Amazon'? Possible compromises in the game, is to allow a piece to demote to ANYTHING weaker than it, with either Knights and Bishops not able to demote, provided the piece it is demoted has been captured by an opponent. And, on this note, I think we are looking at a different game related to this one. Not sure how to code it up in Zillions, however, so I am going to hold off trying to do anything with this.
Feel free to download the Zillions file for Dipole Chess, and edit it, and give it a new name. I would be interested in trying it out. Maybe you can call this chess variant: Advance Degeneration Chess.
Ok, let me jump in with my old open standards discussion. Why don't we work to get as many types of abstract strategy games as possible covered by this expansion project, instead of just 'some more chess variants'? We are back to standardized communication protocols here again by discussing this. Do this right and people can write different components that would work together.
I found this on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWyELPv04Fc&feature=related It is a bit slow paced, but I still got a few laughs out of it.
If proliferation leads to an enriching of the variant playing experience, by providing variety to a common set of rules, so that the variants act as scenarios in a larger framework, that is great. If a variant leads to yet another game joined into a pile of other games, then this isn't helpful at all. It ends up being yet another voice squawking for attention. Rather than enrich the play area, it distracts. And this is true, whether such is seen as 'Proliferation', 'Muliform', 'Ramalamadingdong', or 'George' :-P. So, in light of this, I had been requesting the variant community come up with a framework to integrate the essence of variants together, with all their variety, so people can focus on playing in the framework, rather than feeling they are jumping from one area to another. I am NOT saying this framework is meant to replace the flowering of variations. It is meant, however, for a way for people to sample and taste the world of variants, without feeling the need to reinvent the wheel. The framework allows people to have their play seem fresh, rather than getting stale. And the framework should also allow a place for the untested and untried to get tested and tried by a playing community. The framework could also clear a way for the variant community to have a world champion over its games collectively. Have this happen, and you have increased credibility. So, my take is proliferation that leads to enriching of a framework is fine. That which results in fragmenting and noise, is a problem.
Seirawan Chess
. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hello George. You may touch on why such had happened. I believe because the Chess Variant community can't agree to common standards, and it is an excess of 'every man for himself', with the CV site being a shrine to self-indulgence, the end result has been a breaking down of the community. I believe the variant community should be the vanguard of any game community, to act as play testers of how a game evolves. When they aren't in this position, being booted out as freakish and disruptive heretics, for the lack of a better word, then then the game community itself suffers from stagnation. You see elements of it even today. There needs to be dialog. I need to also add here that when the variant community spins off a variant that demands players invest in new boards and a bunch of new pieces, before such has been shown, that is yet another issue. Also, when the variant community demands players throw away everything they know, causing chess players to discard their knowledge, in order to play, you don't get crossover. You end up being nothing more than a freakshow to them. Oh, they will look at all these games here, and saw, 'wow, that is odd', but won't play. They may sneak over and try an established variant, that is old (say go from Chess to Xiangqi or Shogi), but that will be on the side. It is a reset of their knowledge. Anyhow, people are free to contact the Seirawan people to see why they feel as they do about variants.
Hello all. Just curious if the CV community here would like to plan an annual convention somewhere. Perhaps adopt Origins or another convention as their meeting place. You could also run some in person CV tournaments, and work towards having a world champion at things down the road. Because of geographic diversity, perhaps several can be done. You have one in Europe, one in Asia, and another in North America. Having a convention annually would enable people to finally get a chance to meeting and discuss things, and even get award ceremonies done. I would be up for this also being an IAGO main event also, and bring in other game communities also. Maybe have SchemingMind show up, or Richard's PBEM folk. Just my two cents. Anyone else have their thoughts on this? Anyone want to work on planning this out?
Many Worlds Chess. Large variant, inspired by the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It actually had been months since I looked at this, and don't remember my thoughts on this. All I can do is speculate here regarding several things: 1. I think I was concerned that there may be a chance for allowing someone to end up moving multiple times on a single board, without the other side moving, resulting in one side mating due to neglect. My thoughts may of been ways to prevent that from happening, without ruining what this variant is attempting to do. 2. I think I was also postulating whether or not you could then spawn off different rules with each new board that is launched and if there were an infinite number of rule sets that could materialize.
Please forgive any offensive comments I have made in this, or any other threads. I just want to say, my wish is that the number of variants created would lend to more people being interested in playing chess variants. I believe if the process spawns more interest, and more players, that is a good thing. That is my desire here. I don't want to offend anyone to create them. I do wish, that the creations would generate more interest though. In a more blunt way, that the creations serve the world as much as they do the creators of the games, if not more. My attempts to call for some standards, came out of this. I am sorry if such calls are seen as offensive to anyone.
Thanks for the head's up on the time. A few hours out is fine. So long as this helps the whole Database unavailable messages, then this is good news.
The post on Myspace put a thought back in my head. I was wondering: What if we could get the Game Courier System to work as a plug in app for Myspace, Facebook, etc...
A good way to get something going by networking on Myspace is to start a chess variants group on there.
So, we are discussing gating here? I believe gating is an important contribution to the future of chess. Like about all contributions, there is a context it fits into. Reserves are key to having handicapping also.
Arimaa. Uses same equipment as Chess, but designed to be difficult for computers.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Z-Man Games will be publishing Arimaa: http://www.zmangames.com/boardgames/arimaa.htm Take note, Chess Variant community. This is a chance for you to get new variant pieces!
I had also stated, when I first ran across Arimaa, that it really shouldn't be too hard for an AI to do. However, Omar does have work in computer science and understanding how current AI research works. He specifically designed Arimaa to hit the weak points of how AIs work currently and not play well. I would say another game like Arimaa is Octi. It wasn't designed with being too hard for an AI in mind (I speak of Octi Extreme), but has the decision tree being WAY too large for an AI to be effective.
Shuuro. Large variant where you build your own army. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The plinths look like a good balancing mechanism for Knights on a large board.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have an interest (can put IAGO in there if you want) of seeing a functioning taxonomy developed, that would help assist in the promoting of chess variants, and setting up meaningful tournaments. I would personally be very much in favor of a monster revamp and gutting of the internals of the 'IAGO Chess System' if it mean the variant community would get behind it. IAGO Chess System (aka IAGO Chess) is attempt 1.0 at this. It does propose that what it become be done by consensus of a community, rather than some individual trying to be a genius. To that end, I welcome a uniformed set of mutators, pieces (with standardized names and appearances), formations and whatever else people want to add, be added to the System, and the system continue to evolve. Anyhow, just my 2 cents...
How many chess variants can dance on the head of a pin?
The lack of mass could explain the apparent lack of traction of any particular variant of FIDE chess to get positioned as 'the next chess'.
It is possible that this was discussed before, but I wanted to get it discussed now. I wanted to look at why people are interested in chess variants. I can see some reasons, but would like more listed: 1. People feel something with FIDE Chess needs to be tweaked to improve the game. This could be the opening book being stale, or too many draws, or just the play is getting over analyzed and tired. People who think this want to add a rules tweak to update things and hope the rules tweak gets adopted it FIDE Chess with the rules tweak becomes the new chess everyone plays. The tweak could be small or large. This is a desire for 'The Next Chess'. 2. Something about chess bugs someone, and they feel they need to make chess match more of the type of game they want to play. This is similar to the prior one, but the person's motivation is more personal, and the interest isn't to have 'The Next Chess', but something they find more fun on a personal level. 3. The person is a creative person who like to create new things. They want to experiment with chess, to come up with something interesting and new. 4. Person is into novelty. They want something new to play, and don't want to face the same challenge. They want to develop a general mastery rather than memorize lines of play. Variants are a way to play something new. Anyhow, let me know if I missed any and which of these would fit why you are interested in chess variants.
Shuffles have been proposed as a way to mix up the opening in chess variants. I was curious if having a set number of formations could be another approach. This line of reasoning came to mind when I was fiddling with Near Chess and came up with Near vs Normal Chess. While the opening lines of play isn't as varied as in shuffles, a formation (set arrangement of pieces) does address weaknesses in the structure of how pieces are arranged. Anyhow, I was curious if anyone has given thought to the use of different piece formations (set arrangements) as a compromise between an outright shuffle, and a set static open. Any thoughts here?
Claudio. So, you are into variants, because you want the rules to make more sense to you?
One could combine a shuffle with formations, to provide a way to have a sound layout of pieces, but force people to adjust to openings they don't play normally (a reason why there is shuffles). Key would be to properly evaluate the the strength of a formation in contrast to another one. You also would have to factor in things like whether a formation has castling, can be subject to its pawns having En Passante, and so on.
Hey Joe. I guess we could swap the positions of the Knight and Bishop (and maybe even Rooks). The main idea I was looking at was to keep the pieces in their same columns, but have placement in the first three rows, with pawns in the second or third row, and the other pieces behind them. I would allow for swapping of king and queen pieces. I believe we also need some guidelines like: 1. Castling is only permitted if the King is in the same row as a Rook at the start of the game. I would also look to have it so that the King would need to have pieces between it and a Rook. 2. Rooks must be either a row behind or in the same row as the King. 3. Pawns on the second row get to move one or two spaces to start. These pawns that move one or two spaces are at risk of being En Passante'd. Pawns that start in the third row only move one space forward to start. En Passante is a weakness of a pawn, that another pawn can do to it. 4. Unless randomly selecting formation to start (like a shuffle), the white player picks what formation they want to use, then the black player selects their formation. 5. King and Queen may swap position (this changes how castling might work). Bishop, Knight and Rook stay in the same column they would normally be in FIDE Chess. My preference includes using King capture instead of checkmate, and also promoting pawns to pieces that have been captured, but I don't want to make this a requirement. The focus is on formations. Also, if people want to have more modifications, feel free to here. These are guidelines. Again, the key is adoption of the basic idea, not holding this locked down and unchangeable. I leave it up to others to play with more. I have played around with multiple formations using Fritz and ChessV and Zillions, and you get interesting results here that look like it is playable. Anyone want to write this up as a legitimate chess variant? I personally believe formations are a worthy element to be added to the world of chess variants. By combining it with mutators, different board, reserve (pocket) pieces, and other things, I believe we can have a way to have a version of chess with a LOT of different scenarios, maybe even a base version that could serve as THE main form of chess for the variant community.
Near Chess. This is a variant of Skirmish Chess designed to be friendlier to newbies. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The rules for Near vs Normal Chess can be found here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSnearvsnormalch The basics of Near vs Normal is to see whether Near Chess or Normal (FIDE) Chess is superior.
Near Chess is here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSnearchess Near vs Normal Chess is here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSnearvsnormalch John K Lewis had suggested ideas found in Near Chess, but then chopped off the ends that were vacated, and was the first run at Simplified Chess. The board then became 8x7 and the final version of Simplified. I believe a Simplified Chess board is a good addition to the world of Chess variants. I did disagree with Mr. Lewis chopping off the last row in the initial Simplified Chess.
Chess is said to be war abstracted, and a wargame of sort. To this end, I figured I would look at what is involved war (and chess variants) and see how they equate. Please look over this, discuss and debate. I will look to post here and/or edit, if I see any more changes. Ok, onto the elements, and how they map to chess: * Terrain: The Board, or pawns in FIDE chess. This marks what is fought over. Pawns act as walls in FIDE chess, and protect the king. * Units: Pieces. * Air Units: Leapers. * Transport Units: Pawns that promote to other pieces can be seen as this. Castling is a very abstract form of transporting. Gating could also be seen as matching this. * Artillery: Units that capture enemy units without moving. * Support: A piece that defends a friendly piece on the board. * Reserves: Pocket pieces, or possibly what Pawns promote to. * Weather: If you were to play with mutators for a chess game, that would seem like weather to me. A variable set of rules that may or may not appear in a game. * Formation: The starting positions for pieces. * Suppression: Pinning a piece. * Generals/Commander: Players * Headquarters: Chess King (Royal pieces) * Morale: Emotional states of players. * Scenario: A game variant (a set combination of all the above). Please comment, critique or add your own ideas.
George, those games look interesting. What I am trying to do here though, is view chess through the eyes of a wargame, not adopt a particular war or era of war to chess. Idea is to see if Chess could become something like ASL or a wargame system with scenarios, rather than locking down tanks and whatnot as if they were part of a static game like chess. So, to this end, I am interested in having the categories I laid out, critiqued and expanded upon.
I was trying to view chess (and chess variants) through the eyes of wargames, using wargame terminology, rather than create a hybrid game.
DUAL RING Tournament Format. Tournament format for handling uneven number of players.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles, you happen to take things in directions I hadn't thought of going. I had the idea of starting a new game. HOWEVER, say C defeats B, who is playing A. If there is a way for C to then play with B's army against A, then that would be another interesting spin. With this, I am asking people to take this and run with it, and see if we can come up with a new format that would fit what we can't handle well now. I know someone else mentioned the problem with stalling by someone who is losing. I proposed a Bronstein clock solution for this, addition to the counting of wins also impacting this.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The basis point of the 'IAGO Chess System' is to provide a framework by which chess could continue to evolve, and also allow room for the variant community to be part of the discussion. What I lay out with classes is ONE approach. The heart of the approach is to start with A and go to Z, with the further you get away from A to be the further you get away from the base game, or original evolution point (this has an internal logic to it). If there is a need to have an E-Class and have M-Class become something else, go for it. However, we would need a consensus here, and it become a convention. I had proposed that new pieces be the starting point of evolving, but if people want another option (or set of options, like formations and shuffle) please feel free to go there. And, whatever the consensus is, IAGO could end up backing something that is the equivalent to FIDE Chess for FIDE. I will say this work does matter, because the chess community is settling on speed chess as the next step in the future of chess, and this blocks the variant community from speaking.
The issues chess faced of excess draws, games taking too long, and stale openings all have been addressed by the fast play (blitz/speed) variant. The World Mind Sports games used the fast version of chess for its play. Because of this, the FIDE community won't feel the need to speak to the variant community at all. End result is that, rather than being an important part of the ecosystem of chess, the variant community is seen as some sort of freaks, which best go away, before they pollute things. And, with this mentality, you will see individual islands of chess variants, with individuals believing they have 'the next chess' which typically end up going nowhere. My experience with the commercial 'the next chess' variant folks (as opposed to those who just want to do fun variants) is they are close the the worst possible type of people to deal with. There is one variant, that shall not be named on here, that bears evidence to that.
'Variant' in the context I am speaking, refers to changes in how chess is played to meet the needs of the community of players, based on the 'wear' to the game of chess. An original change that went on was the 'Mad Queen' and 'Mad Bishop'. After that was the need for time control for tournament play, so the chess clock was introduced. And now, it appears that the reducing of time addressed a lot of issues with chess. Again, the comment 'speed chess is a variant?' bears witness to actually variants of chess getting shut out for consideration (well, outside of maybe Chess960). The Capablanca school is persona-non-gratis.
Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George, I am in favor of the chess after FIDE Chess being called 'IAGO Chess' and we be done with it :-). I don't want it to be a dead end, and I want to allow it to evolve. I am in favor, in a BIG way, of the IAGO Chess System being revamped in 2.0, gutted, and redone, to account for the wonderful world of what we find here on this website, and be able to evolve sanely. I want there to be a committee that I am NOT involved with to decide the ins and outs of this. We have an issue if we just call it 'Chess' that people will think we mean the FIDE version.
The 'Mad Queen' mutation of what is 'Chess' works, but ends up adding extra complexity to the game, which makes it harder to learn, and is a deterent to new players. A lot of these complexities come from what was done with the pawns. Because of the Mad Queen, Mad Bishop and the pawns, we now have these additional rules that were added: * Castling * En Passante * Stalemate (Came in the same time) as a draw. These rules make things more complicated for novices, and hinder the adopting of chess. Take the example of Near Chess (as a reference, not made as a self-plug here) and you can keep the mad pieces, but they don't pick up the other complicated rules. 'Mad Queen' (Modern) chess feels like a bunch of 'kludge' fixes to a game that went how it did, and is needlessly complicated. I am not sure how just saying, 'Let's add one rule tweak or two that I PERSONALLY like' is going to end up addressing this also. By the way, reducing the time to play (Speed/Fast/Blitz) apparently is how the chess is leaning towards addressing its issues. That and some Chess960 also.
DUAL RING Tournament Format. Tournament format for handling uneven number of players.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Chess clocks added running out of time as a new way to lose a chess game. This format added another way to get eliminated. I have looked at ways to make this SANE (Single Alternating Non-Elimination), and not sure how to do it. Idea here is to try to come up with a format that can handle a prime number of players playing, or some other way where you can't divide the number of players into sections. The DUAL RING is also meant to handle more than chess.
I want to see creativity in Chess also. I also would like the variant community to be more mainstream, and generate more player interest. What I see needs to he handled regarding creativity is to have is to that what people are working on had an ability to generate synergy between different designs, and ideas can mingle together. I also would like it to be structured so we can have an evolutionary migration happen. Without any such actions, you will end up with the chess clock being the only thing tinkered with, any the variant community getting shut out of talks. Of course, the variant community could then act like it is 'too good' and 'too smart' for the masses, but that is sour grapes.
Hello John. I believe you are onto something here. What you describe is what I would like to see. I believe an important part to this is, even if people in their own games have their own terminology and so on, when engaging in a common discussion, a common lexicon of terms is used to describe this. Also, working on ways for players to combine different works from the past would help. Let me chime in a sec from an IAGO perspective (PLEASE don't take this as namedropping as a plug). IAGO (read here myself would like to see IAGO do this) would like to elevate the chess variant community by having different variants on the IAGO World Tour, and also to have a recognized 'Chess Variant Player of the Year' and also have a universal ranking for variant players, across a pool of games. Besides this, IAGO would also like to have the variant community be able to input in the future of chess, by having the common works on here lending to the discussion. All this is done for mutual benefit to the community, like variant pieces being produced commercially, and variants being taken as a legitimate form of chess. So, for all this, IAGO (again read me seeing what I believe IAGO needs to do) would like the variant community to come together and push things in this direction. Have something out of this efforts that can be used, and IAGO get behind it. In this, go for what has been spoken on, and get stuff happening.
That looks like a mess. Looks like someone hijacked the original 'American Chess Association' name and tried to make it their own name. Need to see if it comes off properly. Not sure an event using a yahoo.com email address for sponsors is going to come off properly. Well, just my 2 cents. Need to keep an eye on it.
I am not sure what I am seeing with Liberation Chess, outside of the board looks cool, and we may have a way to handle a range of variants with it. Please fill me in on what I am looking for here.
Thanks for the clarification John. Please give me insight into how we can derive a more universal application from this.
Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Xiangqi (Chinese Chess). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would also disagree with Go having an entry on here. It isn't part of the same family of abstract strategy games Chess is.
Ok, how about we start a 'syncretism project'? We create a school of competitive chess variant playing that involves games that are a mix of two or more chess variants? Anyone up for this?
Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Xiangqi (Chinese Chess). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Not sure triviality or not is an issue here. What may be beneficial is if the CV site had a place to reference other games that aren't in the same family as chess. I do believe the Courier system does enable people to play Go on it (and checkers also).
Rapid and Blitz are the games of choice. More indication that the Chess community has decided to reduce the time to play, as the main way to address the issues it has with chess.
May I propose the IAGO Chess System be considered as part of this discussion? http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste I am of the belief now that the Chess community is settling on Speed Chess to resolve a lot of its issues. I would suggest the reasons why be studied by the variant community.
An entry as a 'variant' on the CV site, is found here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSmultipleformat Please continue discussions there.
Ok, I updated Mr. Smiths Wiki entry. Please add others here: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/drafting-page
Multiple Formations. A proposal to add a set of formations to Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George, which entry you referring to? Maybe we can get some synergy involved here.
Universal Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Looks like a good continuation of the study on how to integrate variants into a single system that can be played. I hope more work can be done. Thank you for the contribution.
Basic Chess. Variable baseline chess without drawing lots. Restrict Rooks to a and h files, and King to d or e files.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]With my suggestions of 'Multiple Formations' and 'IAGO Chess System' and also this and Universal Chess (http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSuniversalchess), I believe we are having things advance into a way to integrate variants together for play (my hope is in tournament format). I am in favor of having Multiple Formations adopt the rules to this for the formation where everything starts in the back row(s), while the pieces starting in the second row(s) would follow what is in Multiple Formations. Keep up the good work everyone. Hopefully we can get something going.
Multiple Formations. A proposal to add a set of formations to Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George, thanks for the clarification. When I did this entry, I didn't see Basic Chess: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MLbasicchess I am also seeing 'Universal Chess' has been added on here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSuniversalchess
10 Minute Melee. Score as many points during 10 minutes of time with regular chessset. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Another, more mild, variant that comes to mind would be that the capture piece goes back to its start space (only one pawn per column) instead of anywhere.
Capablanca's chess. An enlarged chess variant, proposed by Capablanca. (10x8, Cells: 80) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I know in discussion of Capablanca and other games in the Knight+Rook and Knight+Bishop family of variants, there is concern over uncovered pawns. I happened to just look at the Capablanca arrangement and was curious if anyone else might of tried to do the following: Swap the positions of the King's Knight and the Chancellor. When I did this, it looks like the initial position of every pawn is covered in the game, and there are no uncovered pawns. Anyone else ever play with this? I know the Chancellor and Archbishop don't have the same symmetry, but it appears there isn't a problem with uncovered pawns. So, what we had as the original position: White: King f1; Queen e1; Archbishop c1; Chancellor h1; Rook a1, j1; Knight b1, i1; Bishop d1, g1; Pawn a2, b2, c2, d2, e2, f2, g2, h2, i2, j2. Black: King f8; Queen e8; Archbishop c8; Chancellor h8; Rook a8, j8; Knight b8, i8; Bishop d8, g8; Pawn a7, b7, c7, d7, e7, f7, g7, h7, i7, j7. Becomes... White: King f1; Queen e1; Archbishop c1; Chancellor i1; Rook a1, j1; Knight b1, h1; Bishop d1, g1; Pawn a2, b2, c2, d2, e2, f2, g2, h2, i2, j2. Black: King f8; Queen e8; Archbishop c8; Chancellor i8; Rook a8, j8; Knight b8, h8; Bishop d8, g8; Pawn a7, b7, c7, d7, e7, f7, g7, h7, i7, j7.
Mats, I was posting an observation I noticed, and requesting feedback on it. I was not trying to critique any other variant of the game suggestions people have for the game itself, like what you suggested.
Joe, I have no idea what short-range pieces would do, or the impact of this new configuration I proposed. It is more of an observation than anything else.
Do you have a 'Eurasian Pawn' (if not that, one under another name)? It moves forward one space, but may capture one space forward, or either space in front of it diagonally. There is an option with it where it may move either one or two spaces forward as its first move (option depends on player and game conditions)
In regards to the question about 'NextChess' (if this is the name we are agreeing to, or 'Next Chess', that is fine, and doesn't look taken), may I suggest there be a focus on HOW it will come about, addressing the issues we would like to see dealt with, and not just WHAT? Like, what do we all want 'NextChess' to be like? What do we want in it to have? What do we find appealing about variants, and what can we distill from them? And can we have a game that isn't static, but one that can evolve so it remains fresh? You can look at what I have written before, and what I have proposed as variants, so you can get some idea what I am interested in, from mutators, to a range of formations, to a classification system for handling a range of variant types, in terms of complexity and stability.
Fergus, I do appreciate what you are saying as each game being a standalone game with its own flavor, and arguably each one being a 'work of art' in its own right. My concern about this is that it makes each game a deadend that can't be picked up and tweaked the way Chess has to spawn variants. The community doesn't end up owning the game and collectively tweaking it to its wishes. It is a take it or leave it, which ends up resulting in a bunch of games that have their own followings, but not enough to reach a critical mass to support mass adoption. There is also egos at stake where one designer or another jockeys for position to have their game as 'the next chess'. I have dealt with such individuals on the commercial level, who have staked their financial lives on it, and it isn't pretty. I could name multiple of them, and then ask if any of their games have a following here. I don't see it. I believe in an earlier NextChess discussion, we saw limitations on a select game being picked. So, let me amend what I said by saying we should have room for preferred configurations, and also games as stand alone, but I also believe we should have some form (or several forms) that allow the community to give feedback and we evolve a design we can get enough people to play that has a critical mass behind it that it could get adopted and we get some neat byproducts of this, like commercial equipment being made to be able to play (you finally get variant pieces... YIPPIE). In a nutshell, can we have both what you want (each game as a work of art unto itself) and also something we can evolve as a community, that can borrow from all over? Maybe have a third way also of an Athlon format where, over a given year, a set number of the established games are the pool that is played, and we push for a championship over that format. Let's do everything I say, rather than either or.
I am bringing this up to get some ideas here. The discussion on NextChess had me wondering if we can come up with some format for having people play stand-alone chess variants, but them linking together. Call it 'Pick your Poison'. In this format, a player would challenge another player, and one of the players would then pick a variant to play, and somehow it consist of a selection of possible games to play. I am not sure how this format is determined. Maybe players have a preferred list of games played, and the overlap is what they play. Basic idea is to come up with a way for players to have the freedom to play what they way, games to retain their own unique flavor, but also we have an standard way for establish ratings over a season, in a certain format. Please give some thoughts to the best way to run 'Pick Your Poison' (or please come up with a better name here). Consider it as a way to get my wish of there be a world champion at chess variants overall.
Hello Fergus. I think it would be useful to clarify a bit of what I was
speaking about here:
1. My use of 'art' is meant to be in contrast to that of 'science'. In
one sense 'art' and 'craft' were put next to each other. You can take
what I said to speak about something created that can be admired for its
quality and stand alone.
2. While I can understand and appreciate designer's works standing alone,
as a fine piece of work, I am also of the belief games are designed to be
played, and not just put in some museum somewhere. Because of this, I
believe there needs to be a dialog between the designer and players of
games, to make sure what comes about is played. We can continue to follow
the old path of 'monkeys at the typewriter' spitting out more and more
works, and hope one sticks, with each game is its own and end of
discussion. But I believe for a game to grow, it needs a community of
players behind it. To this end, the community needs to feel as they are
part owners over the game, and have input. You can see examples of this
involvement in 'crowdsourcing':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing
Part of the reason for FIDE Chess being what it is, is that a community
adopted the game, and how it developed wasn't from one person, but a
community that played it and codified the rules. I know designers wish
they could create stand-alone games that would get the same degree of
reverence FIDE Chess has. But I believe, unless a community feels the game
is their game, it isn't going to happen.
3. As for the effectiveness of the stand-alone game method, I can refer to
what you wrote in the original NextChess thread goes into the problems we
face with the current approach:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=NextChess
As for 'why not just have a collection of variants like we have now,
and no do some NextChess'. Well, how is this working?
Let me answer this...:
Equipment Availability
Good.
My comment: Availability I would rate actually as poor. One can
theoretically make their own equipment for everything. However, that
doesn't mean that equipment is readily available. Most games are given as
gifts to other people. If giving gifts is the criterion of availability,
how exactly can we rate equipment availability as good? Take the example
of Games Magazine in its Games 100 lists. They list chess variants, and
tell people about Grand Chess. People get interested. Ok, now where do
they get the board and pieces? They don't. They have to make them.
Player Interest
Poor. Some variants have fairly large followings and most don't. I'm sure
it is also that way with card games, for which most everyone already has
the equipment. Most people are simply interested in playing the same games
everyone else already knows how to play. In most places around the world,
it will be easy to find someone else who plays Chess, but probably next to
impossible to find someone who plays your favorite variants. Naturally, the
promotion of Chess variants helps, but I don't know what promotion of some
kind of meta-game would do in addition to this.
4. We have some practical reasons to get NextChess to function. We need to
have it so that we can make it commercially viable to supply equipment for.
Despite people saying 'Let's just be digital' such doesn't have the
same degree of accessibility through physical equipment to have things take
off. And unlike cardgames, we DON'T have equipment readily available at
all. Like, how about going out and getting a 10x10 chess board in North
America? Sorry, not easily doable.Fergus, let me clarify a bit on my 'dead end' comment: 1. Dead end means that the game itself, if merely a creation of a designer (and held as such) won't have much in the way of modification. 2. For there to be sufficient play to test a game out, and feedback from a game community on it (and them adjusting accordingly), the game won't build much of a following behind it. The community is what gives a game life, and lends to its promotion and it being 'evangelized' to get other players. It take a community to keep a game alive. They need to feel ownership over the game, or least be a stakeholder in it. Chess and other of the more know abstract strategy games have this. The smaller variants, most of which are on here (and not the major ones) don't. So, what I am saying is there needs to be a community behind a game caring about its growth, to take off. And I was suggesting in what I stated that maybe we can do a crowdsourcing version of chess, to see what may develop.
Hello again Fergus. Please understand the position I am coming from. As much as I would like chess variants to be light and casual things, I am involved with a non-profit who is trying to not only represent the interest of players and designers, but also publishers, schools, and everyone else. The interest is to get increased interest by the media, so that we can get more resources so we can do more, and get more of the world to notice, and get variants here greater attention. I do have an interest to get a magazine on the newsstands that would promote chess variants. Throw in also a TV show, or cable network that has room for variants, and I believe we could be onto something. Anyhow, on the note for a tournament format to promote chess variants, I will propose the following as a starting point: * How about having a tournament where the winner then picks what game will be played the following year, and players compete, and the player returns the following year to defend their title? A proviso would be the player can't pick one of their own designs as the game to defend their title against. I believe this format would touch on a lot of what was discussed in this thread. Of course, we should look towards refining the concept, and take it from there. A variant on this last point is, rather than it be an annual tournament, you run an ongoing series of tournaments, and keep playing the same game until someone different wins. They then would end up picking a different game, and is one they didn't design. I would recommend here that the winner of the prior tournament doesn't have to play in the qualifier Please let me know your thoughts on this (This goes to everyone, not just Fergus).
A possible approach to this is what I mentioned in the NextChess4 thread: How about having a tournament where the winner then picks what game will be played the following year, and players compete, and the player returns the following year to defend their title? A proviso would be the player can't pick one of their own designs as the game to defend their title against. I believe this format would touch on a lot of what was discussed in this thread. Of course, we should look towards refining the concept, and take it from there. A variant on this last point is, rather than it be an annual tournament, you run an ongoing series of tournaments, and keep playing the same game until someone different wins. They then would end up picking a different game, and is one they didn't design. I would recommend here that the winner of the prior tournament doesn't have to play in the qualifier. Anyhow, I believe you also come up with an agreed to list of games that would be candidates to be played and can be picked by the winner of the tournament.
A few comments (I had been out of action trying to get a new laptop set up): 1. In regards to invention, I believe it is one of the strengths of the variant community, and provides both an outlet for designers and also a way for chess variants not to get boring. My concern with them is that each one ends up being its own path, and doesn't lend anything to the collective experience of playing variants, outside of just another game to play. I would like the experiences to be able to mingle among one another and for the variant design, in some framework, to enable one design to be built off of another, and that to continue to evolve, and what is learned to be able to be reused. Yes, we can do that to some extent now, but we have issues with naming conventions and the like, which make it more difficult. 1a. I have a vested interest in seeing the chess variant community produce champions at various games, which we could help use to promote variants. I speak from the perspective of a sports federation when I say this. And I write this also, in that I would like to see IAGO to be able to recognize and stand behind the conventions the variant community came up with for the pieces and the like. 2. Chess on a 12 by 12 board looks like Warmaster Chess 2000. Please let me know how it isn't the same. Here is word on Warmaster: http://blog.chess.com/RooksBailey/chess-crusade-warmaster-chess-and-no-chess 3. FastChess? We talking about a Speed/Blitz chess as the game in question? I am of the belief also (I say also if Speed/Blitz is what is meant by FastChess) the chess community is deciding to speed up the clock to solve all its ills. And it does resolve a lot of the issues it has, regarding openings, draws, and making the game more interesting to watch. Unless the variant community gets together and comes up with some way to showcase itself more to the world, and get interest, there is a definite interest in locking out the variant community, saying it doesn't bring anything to the table but distraction. I would rather not see that happen. 4. I don't believe you will get anything to replace 8x8 unless the physical boards become more readily available. That is how it works. And I wouldn't expect 9x9 to be it either, as that totally disrupts normal chess. It also brings back visions of the chess variant with 2 queens aside and the bishops on the same colors.
The Fair First Move Rule in Chess. Every turn you flip a coin to see who goes first.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I am not really a fan of this variant, as I feel it adds too much randomness to chess. However, I believe if you get rid of check/checkmate, and replace it with capturing the enemy king, there isn't an issue with check.
Does the CV site here rate players across a range of chess variants so it is able to determine who the strongest player is at chess variants in general? If so, I am curious how. I was looking for a way that you could have an ELO-type system that would factor the strength of a player across multiple chess variants (or other games), rewarding stronger play over a range of games, as opposed to someone dedicating to a few. Any ideas on how to do this, or how the CV site does?
Joe, does that rate people playing ALL variants of chess under one rating or has a unique rating for each game? I assume that it is for the former.
Thanks. We are looking for a rating involving multiple games that rewards players playing multiple games, for the IAGOweb.com website.
Check out this Internet Meme: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/roller-coaster-chess People playing chess on a roller coaster. It looks like it has been holding steady since 2007 as far as Internet activity goes.
Hello everyone. IAGO now has a multi-site leaderboard up that we are still testing and adding features to. You can see it here: http://leaderboard.IAGOWeb.com We would be up for people visiting the site, and signing up. I would also be interested in seeing CV play.chessvariants.org games get on there sometime, so we can add the results here to. Currently a few games in the chess/chess variant family are up: FIDE Chess, Shogi, Grand Chess, and Shatranj . I would be up for a lot more. Anyhow, if interested, please post and say you are. Also, feel free to sign up and follow these directions: http://iagoweb.com/wiki/docs/associations The way the system works is that a partner site sends an RSS feed out of the game results. IAGO picks it up, and compiles the data. People who sign up get their game stats and see how they compare against other players who also sign up (Elo). The system allows one rating board for multiple game sites.
IGGameCenter also has Russian Chess (Tavreli) on it also, and we are tracking the results.
Movie about Bobby Fischer in the works. The current working name for the film is 'Pawn Sacrifice'. Toby Maguire set to play Booby Fischer. Info here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596345/
Chafl. combines Chess with Tafl. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think it would be interesting if more games cominging Tafl with Chess are proposed and played. I had done this earlier with TaflChess: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MStaflchess TaflChess is a lot closer to regular chess than this.
On a 10x10 with the Eurasian Pawn, where do you suggest the pawns set up, on the second or third row? I personally would like to say EITHER and add the concept of multiple formations into the NextChess, so that we don't develop stale opening books, while also not falling into having erratic set up of shuffle. I would say also players would be free to set up their lines of pawns on either the second or third pawn, but restrict things.
Bungie, the makers of Halo, announced today a new multiplayer mode for Halo: Reach. That mode is CHESS! See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS7V9SbBvRA I know, the date and all that, but I think they should throw it in there.
Hasami Shogi. Popular Japanese game, playable with Shogi set. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I am curious about this. Is this game a chess variant?
Henry VIII Chess. This is a hybrid capture king-losing chess variant. (7x8, Cells: 56) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The idea for this game came out of another game mentioned on Scheming Mind. I thought it would be interesting to change their approach to all Queens, and see how it went. It apparently went pretty well with my playing it on Zillions. It ends up being an interesting twist on misere' games. Yes, it likely can be better. Feel free to come up with something better. When I do a game design, part of it is an inspiration for others to improve upon it. Or, I will stumble across something also I feel is worth looking into.
Universal Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would propose adding the Eurasian Pawn in here two. At least cover the full range of pawns, and note them, as a discussion point. During play of this variant, ground rules can be added for what is in and out. For example, I would say NO to a Eurasian pawn on an 8x8 board. Ok, the Eurasian pawn: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSeurasianpawnpi One options for pawns is to have one (or a few base) picture of them, and then stick dots or Xs around it to signify how it moves and captures. I know a pawnrider would likely both be silly and hard to notate.
Vox Populi Chess variant. A crowd plays itself at a game with only one winner.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]As has been noted, this format has gone through revisions. In the most recent form, which is for Connect Four (Captain's Mistress), it goes under the name 'Massive Multiplayer ________' and you stick the name of the abstract strategy game in there. Some other tweaks also have been done: * In play, there isn't scoring, just trying to be on the winning side. * When it is your team's turn to vote on a move, you vote. * When it isn't your team's turn, you can choose to defect to the other team. There is an options to limit the number of times you can defect, with the current preferred number of defections to be one. * If all players defect from one team, they all lose, and the game is over. * Run digitally, it would be idea to keep players anonymous, so no one knows who is whose team, or even the number of players on their team. As an added note, this format could be used in scientific research to study loyalty and defection patterns among team members, and you add or remove elements from the environment to see how it impacts the loyalty of players in the game.
I just saw this game on Boardgame Geek. With there being a deck building game genre craze going on, that is starting to rival Trading Card Games, For the Crown makes an appearance. It looks like chess meets the deck building game genre. Might be shaping up to be to the deck building genre, what Navia was to collectible card games. Here is more info on it: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/97512/for-the-crown
The heart of deck-building games, is that they get expansions. Jeremy, please see if you can get the community here involved, and also get the word out to the Navia community to, who still has an interest in the game.
Ok, no problem. Is there an entry on here for For the Crown yet? I know of a few Navia players who I can let them know about the game.
I found this article on WhyChess.org , which should be relevant to the variant community: http://www.whychess.org/node/324 I had felt that the chess community would benefit, if it took variants more seriously to deal with the issues it has faced with chess. Well, it looks like they are going for the idea of reducing the clock, and the variant community is getting locked out yet again from being taken seriously. Anyhow, give some thought here to this. It would be of benefit if variants could go more mainstream.
Test msg... ignore. Seeing if there is an issue with the database.
Simpleton's Chess. This is an even simplier version of Simplified Chess. (7x8, Cells: 56) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I don't see the complexity of this being more complicated than Checkers/Draughts personally.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.