Comments by SamTrenholme

Yeah, the 'two knights' value is the one I used for my '19.5 pawns' figure. Basically, my gut guesses are:

• A crowned bishop is worth about a pawn more than a rook: 6 pawns.
• A crowned knight has the same value: 6 pawns.
• A crowned rook is worth somewhat more, probably about as much as an archbishop: 7.5 pawns
• In total, 19.5 pawns of force for these three pieces

A cardinal (Rook + Knight) is worth a good deal more than a Crowned knight. The crowned knight has a 6 pawn value, and a cardinal is worth about 8.5 pawns on an 8x10 board and about 9 pawns on an 8x8 board.

Now, it would be nice if Greg added the ability for black and white to value pieces differently in ChessV, so that we could more fully test the values of pieces.

I wonder if there is some other way of enhancing the rook, knight, and bishop to give us even less force on the 10x8 board than the 'crowned piece' enhancment. One idea: A non-capturing king's move. Or, if that doesn't give the pieces enough power to make the game have interesting tactics, A non-capturing camel's move.

If we simply have another rook, knight, and bishop, that adds 11 pawns of power to the board. The weakest usable enhancment I can think of is a non-capturing leap one or two squares forward. This makes the enhanced bishop non-colorbound, and allows the enhanced rook to more quickly get in to play, and makes the enhanced knight a little more mobile.

Before finishing off, some quick random thoughts:

• They have just recently solved 8x8 checkers (Look up Chinook). How long will it take to solve Chess?
• 3d printers will very soon go from costing $100,000 to costing about $10,000. This will make it possible to somewhat affordably make custom Chess variant pieces without having to have an arts and crafts project.

First of all, Derek, I hope the posting I made did not, in any way, show disrespect towards your opinion, research, nor criteria for choosing the opening setup you did. The length and tone of your post indicates that you may have been personally offended by my posting. I did not mean any offense towards you; I was merely pointing out that I have different ideas about what makes an ideal opening setup.

I think I need to clarify some tthings so you can understand me better. Anything in italics like this is something you wrote. So, let me make some minor clarifications:

The color-bound pieces imbalance (e.g., queen and archbishop both on dark or light spaces)

'Colorbound', for me, has a very specific meaning. I use Betza's meaning for colorbound: A piece that, for the entire game, always has to be on the same color. A bishop. for example, that starts on the white squares will always be on the white squares for the entire game, since it can not make a move going from the white squares to the black squares. Netither the queen nor archbishop are colorbound; both pieces can reach any square on a blank board in two or three moves.

As an aside, I like your using 'what squares can the power pieces go were they the only pieces on the board' as an evaluation criteria for evaluating an opening setup.

you have a vast number of positions to choose from (12,000+ according to Reinhard Scharnagl)

Actually, we only have 72 positions to choose from (see the beginning of this thread again).

Edit: It looks like the beginning of this thread got eaten, so, again: I observed that all of the various Capablanca opening setups proposed over the centuries have the following three features:

• Symmetrical with the rooks, knights, and bishops.
• The rooks are either in the corners or one file away from the corners
• The king is always in a center file

There are only 72 possible opening setups that meet all three criteria.(End edit)

An undefended pawn can, with perfect play by white (the player with the first-move-of-the-game advantage) over a number of moves irrefutably result in a stolen pawn despite perfect play by black

As I recall, the evidence for that assertion was very questionable. An undefended flank pawn will not result in a proven win for white. It might make the opening a little more tactical; for example, in Narcotic Chess (RQNBKMBNAR), black might be forced to develop his marshall side knight in order to defend his archbishop pawn.

Again, please do not take my postings personally, and thank you for your insights.

- Sam

I don't think the problem is a lack of interest in SMIRF, per se, but a lack of interest in Chess Variants in general. I have downloaded and played SMIRF; indeed, I use this program to help test and create mating positions with my 10x8 Capablanca variant.

Don't feel bad. I have worked hard making my own open source project. Have I gotten a single cent for this project? No.

- Sam

Looking over at BrainKing's list of games, here are some win/draw/loss for white ratios:

• FIDE chess: 47.50/4.14/48.35
• Janus Chess: 50.32/2.19/47.47
• Embassy chess: 50.36/2.26/47.37
• Grand chess: 50.07/2.68/47.23
• Capablanca random chess: 50.84/3.07/46.07

Now, as we can see, The Capablanca variants have noticeably less draws--but noticeably more wins for white. So, while FIDE Chess may be too drawish, it doesn't have an advantage for White either. So, while not empirically tested, a 8x10/10x10 variant with less power on the board may more closely approach the 50/0/50 (no draws, no advantage for white) ideal. Indeed, we see above that Janus Chess, which has about 1 pawn less power on the board than Capablanca Chess, is a little closer to 50/0/50 than the other Capa variants (The difference is so small, however, that it may be a coincidence).

Is 'crowned chess' closer to this ideal then FIDE chess or Capa chess? I have no idea. The only way to find out is via computer and other testing.

I can also make the argument that my Capa setup, Schoolbook, is closer to 50/0/50 than other Capa variants, since having the powerful pieces in the corner and harder to develop and having the area around the king well defended may lower White's advantage.

- Sam

OK, a new set of mating problems for Schoolbook has been posted and should show up in the index in a few days.

In a previous posting in this thread had me look at the win/draw/loss ratio for the first player in Chess and some Capa variants. Looking at those numbers, I noted that Capa variants decrease the number of draws compared to FIDE Chess--but those draws become wins for White.

I also noted that the perfect game (for myself, at least) would both have no draws and no advantage for the first player to move.

Looking at some other games, it looks like drops helps us get closer to this ideal:

• Shogi (called 'Japanese Chess' over there): 48.63/0.98/50.37
• Chessgi (called 'Loop Chess' over there):52.38/0.49/47.11
• Minishogi:51.62/0.80/47.57

We can see that, particularily with Chessgi, White has a definite edge. One way of reducing that edge is to use the well-known 'pie rule':

• Player #1 makes a move for white
• Player #2 chooses whether to play white or black
• The game continues normally

Another way of reducing this edge is to make the pieces less powerful; the chessgi Zillions rule file allows one to play 'Shantrajgi', which is Chessgi with the far less powerful Shantraj pieces.

Another idea is to take Capablanca chess, and add the pie rule in order to neutralize white's advantage. In fact, maybe it is possible to further reduce draws by adding even more powerful pieces to the armies. Hmmm, Grand Chess with the Amazon added, and the knights augmented with an Alfil (2 squares diagonal) jump, and the pie rule may make for an interesting game.

In reply to Derek's comments that the numbers at BrainKing may not be perfect: The numbers are the best numbers I can find for win/draw/loss ratios of chess variants. While not perfect (and no numbers in the real world ever are; this is why we really can't have piece values more accurate than 0.5 pawn or so), this gives us an idea of what variants will make for a fair, competitive variant where draws are rare and neither side has an unfair advantage.

One piece of data I wish I had was good win/loss/draw data on the doublemove variants. The nice thing about doublemove variants is that we can lower White's advantage by giving him only one move for his first move.

Looks like there is still a web archive link to the page, for people who want to look at the rules (click on the hotlink in the last sentence).

- Sam

Freeling invented a lot of notable variants in the 70s and 80s. His most notable invention is probably his 1984 Grand Chess, but he has a lot of other interesting inventions. Looneybird (Different capture than move; Shogi-style drops) and Rotary (You can rotate your non-pawn pieces), to name just two others, look interesting.

Many of his games can be played on his website.

- Sam

*Bump*

In other words, since Mr. Rutherford asked for this variant to get more attention in a recent comment, I am commenting here to see what people think of this variant.

I will look at it late on, when I get a chance. I'm just settling down after a 4-day road trip.

- Sam

My general feeling about this variant is that it is, like Chu Shogi, a slow yet strategically rich variant. Games can easily last 100 moves or more. I personally prefer games that aren't as slow, but that is just a personal preference.

For people who like games like Chu Shogi, I can see the appeal of this variant.

- Sam

OK, here is my proposed idea for a contest category:

A chess variant the can not end in a draw, and that does not give the first player (nor second player) any noticeable advantage

The idea is this: One complaint people have about FIDE Chess is that the game has too many draws. Another complaint is that white has too much of an advantage. My proposed category is to design a chess variant where draws are impossible, and where the inventor of the variant demonstrates that their variant does not seem to give either player an advantage.

This is a little tougher category to invent for than to, say, invent a 56-square variant, so more creativity is needed with the inventors.

I propose another category:

A variant that computers can not be programmed to play well

In this category, the inventor has to make a variant that they can demonstrate is difficult for computers to play. Multimove variants and other variants where there is a high branching factor are obvious candidates, as are variants where it is not easy to calculate who is ahead (Can this be done?)

What do people think of these categories?

- Sam

It saddens me to see that the excellent SMIRF chess variant engine is no longer available for download. Fortunatly, I was able to download a copy of SMIRF when it was still free downloadable, and have finally had a chance to give this chess engine a test spin. The variant I have SMIRF play is my own 'Schoolbook Chess' (CRC setup #27621 with different castling rules).

SMIRF has a very romantic style of play, making bold sacrifices. For example, in thie game against Zillions of Games, where both sides have five seconds to make a move on a Pentium Core Duo 1.5Ghz, SMIRF has the black pieces and makes several bold sacrifices before finally delivering the mating blow to white:

1. e4 Ng6 2. f3 Nd6 3. d3 Af6 4. NI3 e6 5. Ng4 Ah5 6. I4 AI6 7. Nb3 h5 8. Nc5 Qc8 9. Ixh5 Axh5 10. NI3 Af4 11. g3 Ah6 12. h3 b6 13. Ng4 Aj5 14. Nb3 Mh8 15. Af2 BI6 16. Bj4

SMIRF gets ready to make his first sacrifice.

16... Mh5!? 17. NI3 Mxj4 18. Nxj5 Bxj5 19. Ag1 Mh5 20. Kf2 Mg5 21. f4

SMIRF now sacrifices both of his knights to continue the attack on White's King.

21... Nxe4+! 22. dxe4 Mxe4+ 23. Kg2 Nxf4+! 24. gxf4 Mxf4+ 25. Kh2 KI8 26. c3+ f5 27. MI5

SMIRF sacrifces his bishop in order to keep his attack lively.

27... j6! 28. Mxj5 Qb7 29. Bf3 Qxf3 30. Axf3 Mxf3+ 31. Kg2 Mf4+ 32. Kh2

Black can now force mate; finding this mate is left as an exercise to the reader.

In another game, SMIRF plays ChessV, with SMIRF having the white pieces and each side given 30 seconds to decide their move on a Pentium Core Duo 1.5Ghz. Here is how that game went:

1. Ng3 e5 2. Mh3 Ne7 3. Nd3 Neg6 4. e3 d6 5. f4 exf4 6. exf4 Ad7 7. Af2 Axh3 8. Axh3 Ke8 9. Bg4 Bh4 10. Bd7+ Kd8 11. Qe1 Ne7 12. Bf2 Nhg6 13. Nf5 Bxf2 14. Kxf2 c6 15. Nxe7 Nxe7 16. Qe2 d5 17. Nc5 Ng6 18. Rje1 Kc7 19. Bxc6 Kxc6

At this point, even though White is down material, he can force mate. The mate, again, is left as an exercise for the reader.

My internet connection is spotty, so I can not play timed games, so I can not be a part of the tournament.

The tables look poor in Firefox and make the board unreadable. Please do some more cross-browser testing; 20% of your readers don't use Internet Explorer.

Here is an image you may wish to use which I just made, based on the game courier preset:

I like seeing variants move beyond the usual square and hexagon boards. Another interesting board is the board used in the ParaChess variant. Not to forget the Crazy 38s board. Some other boards that may make for good chessvariants are some of these boards or these potential boards.

- Sam

This discussion inspired me to look a little more closely at the short-range project. Here is what I have come up with so far:

31 short-range pieces

I will briefly look at 31 possible 1-2 square short range pieces that are on a square board. Basically, here is an ASCII diagram of the five possible places where a given piece may or may not be allowed to move:

3 2 1 2 3
2 5 4 5 2
1 4 . 4 1
2 5 4 5 2
3 2 1 2 3

1 is the Dababa; 2 is the Knight; 3 is the Alfil (Interesting fact: 'Alfil' is the Spanish word for what we call a Bishop); 4 is the wazir; and 5 is the ferz.

Here is a look at all 31 combinations of these possible moves, or, if you will, 'atom' pieces:

D N A W F

1 2 3 4 5       Name                                            Colorbound
N N N N Y       Ferz                                            2-way
N N N Y N       Wazir                                           No
N N N Y Y       Guard; Commoner                                 No
N N Y N N       Alfil                                           8-way
N N Y N Y       Alfil-Ferz                                      2-way
N N Y Y N       Waffle; Phoenix                                 No
N N Y Y Y       Guard + Alfil                                   No
N Y N N N       Knight                                          No
N Y N N Y       Knight + Ferz (Augmented knight)                No
N Y N Y N       Knight + Wazir (Augmented knight); Vicar        No
N Y N Y Y       Crowned Knight; Centaur                         No
N Y Y N N       Knight + Alfil (Augmented knight)               No
N Y Y N Y       High Priestess                                  No
N Y Y Y N       Alfil Knight Wazir                              No
N Y Y Y Y       Crowned Knight + Alfil                          No
Y N N N N       Dababa                                          4-way
Y N N N Y       Ferz + Dababa                                   2-way
Y N N Y N       Woody rook                                      No
Y N N Y Y       Guard + Dababa                                  No
Y N Y N N       Alibaba; Deacon                                 4-way
Y N Y N Y       Alibaba + Ferz                                  2-way
Y N Y Y N       Alibaba + Wazir                                 No
Y N Y Y Y       Mastodon                                        No
Y Y N N N       Knight + Dababa (Augmented knight)              No
Y Y N N Y       Knight + Dababa + Ferz                          No
Y Y N Y N       Minister                                        No
Y Y N Y Y       Minister + Ferz                                 No
Y Y Y N N       Squirrel                                        No
Y Y Y N Y       Squirrel + Ferz                                 No
Y Y Y Y N       Squirrel + Wazir                                No
Y Y Y Y Y       Lion                                            No

The power of these pieces depends on the size of board we are using. The Alfil is clearly the weakest piece; probably worth less than a pawn. The Lion is clearly the most powerful piece; probably worth about two queens. Seven of the pieces are colorbound; an 8-way colorbound piece needs eight of the piece to cover the entire board, a 4-way colorbound piece four pieces to cover the board, and a 2-way colorbound piece needs two pieces to cover the board (such as the Bishop in FIDE chess). There is one 8-way colorbound piece (the Alfil), two 4-way colorbound pieces, and four 2-way colorbound pieces in our mix. The other 24 possible pieces are not colorbound.

The pinwheel piece

You may observe that the knight is a unique 'atom'; all other four 'atoms' can move four squares; the knight can move eight squares. One possible way to divide up the knight in to two 'subatomic' pieces is to make what I call 'pinwheel' pieces. There are two possible pinwheel pieces; the two pinwheel pieces combined make a knight. Here is a diagram of the 'left-handed pinwheel':

. X . . .
. . . . X
. . * . .
X . . . .
. . . X .

And the 'right-handed pinwheel':

. . . X .
X . . . .
. . * . .
. . . . X
. X . . .

In other words, the 'left-handed pinwheel' can, from e4, go to d6, g5, f2, and c3. The 'right-handed pinwheel' can, from e4, go to f6, g3, d2, and c5.

Each 'pinwheel' piece is 5-way colorbound; you need 5 pinwheel pieces to cover every square on the board. However, its colorboundness is unusual and a pinwheel combined with any one of the other atoms (Ferz, Wazir, Dababa, Alfil, or even the other Pinwheel) becomes a non-colorbound piece.

Dividing up the knight in to the two pinwheels, we now have 64 possible short range pieces, 54 of which are not colorbound.

Other ways of dividing up the Knight

The pinwheel is a very unusual piece. It does not preserve left-right symmetry, which means it will not be as popular with chess variant inventors. The only widely known Chess Variant I know of with left-right asymmetrical pieces is Tori Shogi. However, it is far more common to have pieces that do not preserve forwards-backwards symmetry, including Chess' pawn, and Shogi's lance, silver and gold generals.

There is one way of breaking up a knight in to two moves-to-4-squares atoms that preserves both left-right and forwards-backwards symmetry, and two ways to break up the knight in to 4-square atoms that only preserve left-right symmetry.

All three ways of breaking up a knight have already been discussed by Betza. To summarize:

Sub-knight atoms #1: Narrow and wide knights.

Narrow knight:

. X . X .
. . . . .
. . * . .
. . . . .
. X . X .

Wide knight:

. . . . .
X . . . X
. . * . .
X . . . X
. . . . .

Both of these pieces are 4-way colorbound.

Sub-knight atoms #2: Crab and Barc

Crab:

. X . X .
. . . . .
. . * . .
X . . . X
. . . . .

Barc:

. . . . .
X . . . X
. . * . .
. . . . .
. X . X .

Betza liked these sub-Knight atoms the most; they are unique in that, unlike other symmetrical sub-Knight atoms, they are not colorbound. He preferred the Crab over the Barc, since it encourages one to attack the other player.

Sub-knight atoms #3: Forward knight and Backwards knight

Forward knight:

. X . X .
X . . . X
. . * . .
. . . . .
. . . . .

Backwards knight:

. . . . .
. . . . .
. . * . .
X . . . X
. X . X .

These pieces are not very useful by themselves until combined with other atoms; the forward knight is probably the more useful atom to add to other pieces.

I've updated the Wiki page to improve its formatting. My next project: How much are each of these 31 atoms worth; naturally, this will be a rough guess but good enough so people playing a short-range chess variant will have some idea what to do.

As an aside, the most successful are ones where we don't even known who invented the variant. FIDE chess was invented somewhere in Italy or Spain between 1400 and 1500; we can't place it more closely than that. We don't know who invented modern Shogi nor Chinese chess. And, Bughouse chess, which is the only chess variant I have actually seen other people play over the board [1], is also a variant where we do not know who invented it or where.

Interesting thought: The most successful chess variants were invented by people who did not care if they would become rich or famous with their variant; they just wanted to have some fun with the chess pieces. Something to think about.

- Sam

[1] I myself have occasionally played a variant with a FIDE board, such as Berolina pawn chess or 'Knights move as Squirrels' chess.

This is a big change in Chess. Ever since Steinitz, to become the world champion was non-trivial. You had to defeat the current champion in a grueling 1-on-1 tournament against the world champion. FIDE made it harder to stay champion in the 1940s: You had to fight every three or four years to stay champion, which resulted in Botvinnik briefly losing the crown twice, once to Smyslov, and once to Tal. This was probably a good change: It stopped Fischer from pulling an Alekhine: Staying world champion by refusing to play a player you know is better than you.

However, now it has become even easier to be world champion. You no longer have to win a 1-on-1 against the current champion. You merely have to win a single round robin tournament to hold the crown. I think this will make the championship more dynamic and exciting. From Steinitz to Kramnik, there were only 14 world champions. Now we should have a different world champion every two or three years.

It's a very interesting change in the world of chess, but one it needs to breathe some life in to a game that I feel is in a slow death spiral.

- Sam