Comments by judgmentality

I would like to do some de-cluttering, or at least consolidating, too, for
my own variants. Can relate.

"To keep adding more pieces to this variant, the main task to be done is standardize the various piece sets into one: the Alfaerie-many." I will work on that too. As much work as I've already done on Alfaerie - Many, it represents just a fraction of what I intend to do.

In the diagram for Grand Warp Point Chess, shouldn't the upper knight also be able to go to d8? (Would like to see it be able to go to g4 and e4 too).

To John Smith: I've finally figured out how to answer your question. If a Cylindrical Bishop goes to an x or y square it acts normally and not cylindrically. The board shall be regarded as cylindrical only in an 8 x 8 way while seeming to exclude the unusual corner squares (which still exist, just not in cylindrical space). I've updated the rules to reflect this. Thank you for bringing attention to this formerly unaddressed problem.

Probably this question is answered elsewhere already so forgive me if so: Can you drop a piece and then move it? Or does dropping come at the end of a move?

Even if Carlsen loses, he is thought by many as possibly the greatest
player of all time reflected in his highest rating of all time. People
thought he was far the best before he gained the title. Anand is a
tremendous underdog and if he wins, one imagines Carlsen will one day
regain the throne.

Speaking only for myself, I had no intention of discouraging an alternate system of nomenclature. At this moment, I have no flash of insight into how to begin one, but my remarks were intended to convey that it would make sense to develop an internationally recognized system that is more accurate and sensitive to language differences. Possibly language, traditionally, has effectively divided people as much as it has united them. Like the scientific community at its best, the chess variant community is and should be international in scope, when we act with deliberate purpose and not mere whimsy and comfort (neither of which should be discounted as important motivating forces for lingual and variant activity). 

IN short, I welcome the dialogue, discussion and any contributions to this subject matter any interested parties may have.

I only ask, if we are to continue this dialogue, that perhaps we start a new thread for it rather than under the rubric Team-Mate Chess.

There is, however, a way in which the ("pure" / "theoretical" / "hard") scientific community differs very much from the professional community in that scientists are encouraged to share their results and submit them for peer review. Chess athletes too are encouraged to do the same and the universal consensus about advice grandmasters have for chess athletes as the number one way to improve themselves is this: Play over your own games and annotate them in as detailed a way as possible, drawing on the most pertinent resources (AI, opening theory, tablebases, etc.)

Yet, the professional chessplayer will want to keep his most important innovations (mostly I speak here of TN "theoretical novelties" or opening innovations - relatively easy for computers to find but surprisingly difficult for humans) secret to unleash as weapons. The model for this is obvious: Warfare. This is the most genesis metaphor I failed to mention in posts of today. Yes, this chessplayer is similar to teams of scientists who compete to patent in the marketplace and don't rush to publish until they've acquired intellectual property.

There was an innovation by a great variant player on PBM that involved one's opponent selecting possible moves for choice on each successive move. This conversational way of engaging during ongoing games of chess is a nascent field of variant theory I wish to develop further, adding another metaphor, chess as a rigid way of exploring logical communication, exposing hypocrisy (cf. Em. Lasker again). For me, it's a chief appeal of rule-based games. People can and do argue endlessly about abstractions (regardless of whether they are right or wrong) but only a poor sport will argue with a fairly executed, concrete winning game experience.

Proposal:

A Colorbound Conversion Rule

Any colorbound piece has, in addition to its normal movement, one extra possibility: the colorbound piece may move one square horizontally or vertically. This may be done only once and if it is done, it must be done on the first move made with that piece.

Many opening setups will cause the same colorbound piece to end up on opposite colors for opposing sides. This will gives players of those pieces an option to make it the same color if they should think it wise and helpful or even necessary for defensive purposes! :-)

So I didn't pay attention for a couple days...

First game: Carlsen draws with Black.

Second game: Carlsen wins with White.

Third game: Anand wins with White.

Fourth game: Anand draws with Black.

Rest Day.

Anand will have the White pieces coming back.

Carlsen - Anand WCC II, tied at 1 1/2 points each.

Who ever made the comment about the Top Heart being a Boyscout restricted to just two moves, great point and nice analysis. :-)

Carlsen is one point ahead but with five games to go, Anand has White
pieces three more times.

Ben, is the email listed on your person page accurate? I tried to email you and it came back.

Hehe, in defense of my muddled arithmetic: Why, thank you, George. ;-)

There is discussion of assigning a different value to draws with Black than draws with White based on the overall statistical likelihood of drawing with one versus the other and the perceived (and likely objective) greater difficulty of drawing with Black than with White.

I would say this: One day soon, computers will be so advanced, especially quantum computers, that they will produce a definitive solution of FIDE Chess. At the exact same time, or shortly thereafter, almost every chess variant ever invented will be solved too, I believe, including variants with "bug-eyed monsters" (cf. wikipedia's fairy chess page). The "more chess moves than atoms in the universe" doesn't really apply because there aren't so many moves which are at all sound.

Does that mean professional chess play will be obsolete?

No, no more than extreme fighting is made obsolete by gorillas or kangaroos who can surely outperform in the ring.

As sport, some of these chess variants can still be played by chess athletes even after computers have "solved" them. And the solutions should come with greater clarity too, just as Fermat's problem is currently solved but there may be a more elegant solution still out there.

If my thinking may seem muddled, it's because it is muddled. We may even see the specter of computers and humans working together (appropriate for a likely cyborgian future) to solve chess variants on the spot, in the course of competitive professional play. I don't know.

But possibly "Next Chess" (if there is a "Next Chess") will be too complicated even for forthcoming quantum computers to solve.

If Anand is still performing at a very high level and if Emanuel Lasker and Steinitz could perform highly into their fifties, perhaps Kasparov should come out of retirement and test his mettle. I was one of those, perhaps misguidedly, urging him to retire and pursue politics full time. I do appreciate that he has been an outspoken and courageous voice of dissent against kleptocrat Putin. I've been told that Russian prejudice against Judaism and Armenia has made it impossible for charismatic Garry to gain leverage and perhaps kooky theories of history haven't helped? (Though I haven't kept up on Garry's idea that most historians are off on their recent chronology). Now I'd like to see Garry return to the realm professional sports.

Also, as David Paulowich has pointed out, the basic maxims (heuristics) guiding fine FIDE play are much the same in most chess variants. There is little doubt in my mind that were professional FIDE players to be given financial incentive to go into variants, they would also easily dominate our own realm and easily become the best chess variant players. Or at least highly successful, just as many great professional chess players have done well on the poker circuit.