Comments by panther

Off topic, but perhaps related to the previous post (which is a hopeful
post, to me), on a Canadian chess message board some years ago a Canadian
inventor of games currently residing in the US argued that at least one
over-the-board competitive event (ideally with cash prizes) might be held at some point, which would involve the playing of more than one type of
chess variant, perhaps including chess itself. That is, much like there are
competitions held that involve the playing of more than a single Poker
variant within one particular face-to-face Poker competition.

The game inventor's idea is to some extent already being carried out
online, e.g. in the case of Game Courier on this website, but note that in
that case the contestants agree to the chess variants that they will play,
if an invitation from a fellow player is issued. That's as opposed to what
I thought the game inventor had in mind, i.e. a relatively small set of
chess variants, as selected (in advance of such an event!?) by an over-the-board event organizer, to be chosen from by the players (or else all the chess variants in the selection would have to be played by all the players). 

What I thought he had in mind didn't seem like such a good idea to me since
chess itself normally takes a lot more study to master than, say, the basic
form of Poker (or any of its variants), and I assumed that learning any
chess variant worth playing might also take a lot of study, so that a chess
variant player could not hope to be truly skillful in more than a handful of chess variants at best. However, I have now combed through
chessvariants.com for some time, in looking at variants that are on various lists given (aside from my not looking directly at much of the main alphabetical list), or in looking at popular variants as found on Game Courier. That was in the process of selecting variants with existing presets that I think I might like to play on Game Courier. I am now wondering how fundamentally different from standard chess that a lot of the most viable chess variants really are.

On the other hand, for the 17 variants (so far) that I think I might wish to play, if I start playing on Game Courier again at some point (after some looming dental work), I was happy to see that they each fit into at least 1 of 11 categories in total (some of which were designated by me, such as "10x10 board variants"). That represents considerable variety, for my currently preferred 17, plus 11 are games that I've not played against people more than once or twice online or offline, if ever (one being my own Sac Chess variant).

Joe Joyce wrote earlier:
...
"Checkmate is one of the trickier parts of higher-dimensional chess. The standard method for K + Q vs K in 4D is to move the king to the/a middle square, then move your queen between your king and the enemy king, pinning it against the edge of the board. But this only works if your individual "little" boards are no bigger than 5x5. My method, by restricting diagonal moves greatly and introducing the "held king" concept, will work on any size (rectangular) "little board". It allows forced mate with K and any 2 of the Q and pair of Bs vs. a lone K. And it took a little help, as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi gave me the final piece of the hold rule - that it works on the individual matching squares in each little board. A version of the hold rules can be applied to any higher than 2D variant, though it might well have to be tweaked to fit each higher dimension."

With the final version of the "hold" rule now in effect, at this point I don't quite get why just a K & Q do not suffice to force a win against a lone K. Hopefully the answer won't need to be too lengthy or involve a hard-to-post diagram, but any short answer may depend on if one thing was considered in your previous playtesting. That is, the idea of actually allowing the superior side's K to step onto a cell where it could be immediately held by the lone K. If not, I'm wondering if the following method would then suffice to win (assuming I've got the rules right and my visualizing of the 4D board is correct). There would be two cases once the superior side's K has allowed himself to be held (if he is not then held by the lone K, he will proceed to hold the lone K himself), namely:

Case 1) If the superior side's K is held on an individual matching square on a different little board, play the Q to a safe individual matching square as the Ks are on, i.e. on a third little board. At that point the Q plus K combo (with the Q sticking to individual matching squares on little boards that match those of the Ks) would seem to be able to eventually force the lone K to an edge (as opposed to central) little board (unless the lone K voluntarily released its hold early), and in a sort of checkmate-lite by the Q will force the lone K in having to move out of check (to an adjacent square, still on its edge little board) to abandon its hold on the superior side's K. At that point the superior side's K can hold the lone K, now with each K to be on the same individual matching square (but a different one than before), and then the Q can be brought to a safe individual matching square as the Ks are now on, at which point the process just described can be essentially repeated, with the superior side's K never releasing its hold, and instead of the Q & K combo ultimately delivering checkmate-lite on an edge little board, it would actually now ultimately deliver a real checkmate;

Case 2) In this second case, the superior side's K is held on the same little board by the lone K. Bring the Q to a safe square on the same little board as the Ks are on, then play to drive the lone K to an edge cell in order to deliver a checkmate-lite (if the lone K does not first voluntarily leave the little board that the Ks are on). At that point the lone K must go to an adjacent little board, and the superior side's K can follow him to that same little board, holding him there (again never intending to release the hold). At that point the Q can be brought to a safe square on the same little board as the Ks, then the Q & K combo would ultimately proceed to deliver a real checkmate on the new little board that the Ks are on.


If the above method actually works, then I'm wondering if K & R vs. K etc. are now to be considered basic mates too, as in chess, and whether for this purpose bishops need to have the enhanced little board movement rules that they do in Hyperchess4, i.e. so that a pair of them are able to force mate.

Joe Joyce wrote: "...Just as in FIDE chess there is a condition called "opposition" in K+P vs K endings which prevents the pawn from successfully promoting, the same sort of thing happens when you try to get your king onto the same 2D level in Hype. The opponent's king stays as close to your king as possible, in both a neighboring big and little square, preventing your king from ever actually getting on the same board as your opponent's king to hold it to a specific 2D level..."

Thanks Joe. What you explained about an analogy in Hyperchess4 to the opposition of Ks in standard chess (an analogy given by you elsewhere too, I think) I independently finally realized (or it sunk in) today, and I meant to make an edit to my previous post to that effect, but I saw that you beat me to it. I found that even with the lone king in a corner cell of some little 2D board, it can never be smoked out by just two pieces (K & Q), say if they are placed on adjacent cells to it, but on an adjacent little board, since there would be always be one of the three adjacent cells available to the lone K on the same little board as its corner cell.

Hi Joe

In trying to think up a way to allow a K & Q to force mate vs. a lone K in Hyperchess4, or to possibly allow other 'basic' mates as in standard chess, I came up with the idea of further extending the "Hold" rule to include situations where the kings occupy a cell on the same "column" of 4x4 2D little boards and also share the same rank with each other, or situations where the kings occupy a cell on the same "row" of little boards and share the same file. It would then also be possible to hold an enemy king on 3 coordinates (i.e. Column, file, Row or rank), as opposed to just 2 coordinates, which could in turn lead to situations where a king that's being held on just 2 coordinates might be allowed to 'reverse the hold' by holding the other king by moving onto a cell having a 3rd coordinate that they would then share (tentatively speaking, I wouldn't advise to have the rule that the hold is actually reversed though). I haven't thought through all of the implications of this idea, but I didn't wish to reject it out of hand in case I'm at least close to being onto something at all interesting (if so, you might let me know at some point).

Note that I rejected the idea of extending the "Hold" rule to the kings sharing any 2 co-ordinates since for one thing the two kings would then be in a hold situation right at the start of a game.

Hi Joe

Fwiw there are two player equal army chess variants I've seen with each side having the K & Q switched in the setup position so as to be each opposite to the other side's Q & K respectively, so at least the idea would not be without precedent. I don't yet see that holding a lone enemy king on just 1 of the 4 4D board coordinates would suffice to work on its own, in order to be able to force a mate (say with just 1 Q). Perhaps the superior side's king needs to be allowed to further extend the hold onto 2 (or later even possibly 3) coordinates, if the lone king can be forced onto a cell from where it can be held by one more coordinate (once held on just 1 4D board coordinate), except I don't yet see how the lone king can be thus done in by force.

My suggestion that I wrote of earlier at least would not have the two K's already in a hold situation if using the current setup position, since one of the types of holds I suggested adding would be the Column & rank coordinates (i.e. I was careful not to say 'file' instead of rank); the other type of hold I suggested adding was Row & file. Still, the 2 kings (if my suggestion were adopted as it was) would not be too far from one being able to hold the other, by at least one of the kings advancing rank by rank while still staying on the same Column as each others' position in the existing setup. In this sense my suggestion made me a little uncomfortable. In another sense it did as well, in that it is something of a considerable 'kludge'. Hope you can make use of the suggestion somehow after all, even if the idea is indeed to be modified.

Hi George

The game of (19x19) Go is more intuitive than chess, which concentrates more on calculation, and is played on a much smaller (8x8) board. Go had been thought to be possibly more computer-resistant than chess until the latest defeat for the human side. A forlorn hope may be that neural net
programming techniques don't work as well for games (e.g. most chess variants!?) which are based more on calculation, though for the sake of accepting the challenge, and in a case of overkill, programmers are now aiming to beat top human chess players with self-teaching (neural net) techniques as well.

The 8x8 game of Arimaa (barely a chess variant IMHO) suffered a similar
fate as Go last year, as far as humanity is concerned, for that is when a
program (not using neural net technichiques afaik) finally beat top Arimaa players in the annual computer vs. top humans contest. Arimaa was thought to be promising for humanity for a different reason, in that there is a high branching factor at each ply (17000+ legal moves on average available), which might put a dampening effect on Greg's suggestion earlier in this thread concerning Marseilles (i.e. 2 move) Chess, since, as he noted, it has a branching factor of about 900 legal moves per ply.

Unless there can be a chess variant that is surprising computer-resistant,
and with the potential to be popular enough to be widely played, my flights
of fancy are turning more and more to the outside chance that in our
lifetimes there may be a global divine intervention that in effect pushes a
reset button (hopefully gently), e.g. on some of the worst aspects and/or
misuses of modern technology (including any forms of cheating).

[edit: much earlier in this thread you wrote:

"Kevin Pacey began recent topic here December 2015 with the term "next chess." And weeks later adds interesting questioning whether any CV diverges much from OrthoChess, probably meaning from programming standpoint. "Next Chess" originates with Joe Joyce wording and then by series of threads in abeyance since 2014 we made a list of over twenty contenders: NextChess9."

While hoping this thread won't wander too far off topic, I'll note that:

1) I happened to notice the term "next chess" used on a random message board some years ago (I think), where a poster whose name escapes me was noting that he thought many people were trying to invent a board game of skill that would replace chess in terms of dominant use worldwide, with some such people taking their game to trade shows, getting into quarrels involving threats of lawsuits...;

2) It has seemed to me that many of the more viable/popular chess variants that I've seen (thus far, in my early exploration of chess variants) may not differ from standard chess all that much, in that they might allow a skilled chess player to soon be equally skilled in playing them too. However trying to define what makes any one chess variant more like chess than another chess variant is would seem hardly possible. Yet, sometimes the case can be clear, at least to me. Circular chess, or Capablance Chess, for example, seem a lot more chesslike than Rococo, and a chess master may well need longer to master the latter than either of the former variants. Also, some variants use rules governing at least some of the pieces which are radically different than is the case for chess or other chess variants, e.g. Fusion Chess, or variants that use an Anti-King. Again, a chess master might often get the hang of how to play with an Archbishop or Chancellor (in Capablanca Chess) sooner, I would guess. I haven't yet touched variants which have slightly bizarre objectives, such as Losing Chess, for example.]

On a Canadian chess message board (chesstalk) a poster (Mario
Moran-Venegas) wrote today, re: AlphaGo's loss in game 4 of the match: 

"AlphaGo's Policy neural network does not care about the quantity of point
lost or won by. It's highest priority is maximizing winning probability or
(when losing) minimizing losing probability. After move 78, it should have
followed what you say chess engines do: attempt to prolong the game by
complicating it.
The Policy neural network is the boss of hundreds (literature says a max of
1200, I don't know how many were actually used) of brute force engines
similar to chess engines.In the future versions I see the following
changes:
1.A change in the dynamic depth-of-analysis assigned to an engine. My guess
is that which ever engine was given the task of tackling the area around
move 78 was not going deep enough thus affecting the overall assessment of
the entire board as a loss for Black (AlphaGo). Many (including commentator
Michael Redmond) are now saying move 78 "did not work".
2.A change on the Policy NN to make use of complexity on the board."

If Mario's guess above, concerning move 78 of game 4, is correct, an
implication might be that the large 19x19 board used for Go may be close to
the upper limit of what the neural net technique (plus brute force engines)
used is currently capable of allowing a computer to beat top humans at, for
the game of Go, as played on an nxn size board. Make n significantly larger
than 19, that is, and a computer might fail to beat the top human players.
Not sure if the same would apply for a very large board size chess variant
too, as more calculation than intuition would be used than for Go, but
maybe there's something to the idea.

Much earlier in this thread Joe Joyce mentioned a very large board war game
of his invention that was arguably a chess variant, too. Fwiw, I've
invented a couple of 5x5x25 4D chess variants (625 cells) which would have
more cells than standard 19x19 Go, though I recall Joe's war game was even
larger. In any case, a very large board size might appeal to more potential
players of a given chess variant than other ideas that have been mentioned
in this thread, such as changing the rules a game is played by every other
turn (or the same for how a given piece moves).

George wrote earlier:

"...If little Los Alamos 6x6 had been the old standard, it would be
replaced by something bigger. And the mere fact OrthoChess is on little
8x8, and the other world CV types are 9x10 and 9x9, China and Japan, should
be embarrassing to their GMs. That's why Stanley Random started 15 years
ago calling f.i.d.e. "Simpleminded Chess" and now I do..."

Historically chess variants strongly resembling today's standard version of
chess have been tried on larger boards, but there may have been legitimate
reasons why the lesser 8x8 size was settled upon for so long. Perhaps the
expected length of an average game on any bigger board size was thought
undesirable (the same could go for a smaller sized board). What chess lacks
in comparison to Shogi or Chinese Chess it may, at the least, make up for
in other ways. 

The unique combination of chess' features, none of which may make it
particularly unique when taken seperately, have made chess enduringly
popular thus far, and no one knows exactly why. The game has held up well,
though nowadays extensive databases, engines, the difficulty for top
players to win with many Black openings, tablebases, and the increased
possibilities for cheating (especially on the internet) are putting chess
under pressure. The question may be whether any chess variant can hope to
replace it anytime soon, in terms of dominance, and so far I haven't
noticed any obvious candidates for such, perhaps even in terms of merit
IMHO.

[edit: For some years Arimaa seemed a golden candidate to be the Next Chess. I used to Google it and see comments like "they've fixed chess". Before a computer finally beat top players in 2015, though, one of Arimaa's supposed strengths over chess, that there was no set opening setup, had already been weakened since there were certain setups thought better than others. There is a similar problem with Fischer Random, I've heard, in that any number of starting setups are apparently not very interesting. In any case, I actually prefer a chess variant that has a fixed start position, for merchandising and study purposes, assuming the opening phase is at least as rich in possibilities as standard chess. Also, I think a variant that looks nice on someone's coffeetable could further help to popularize it, and a fixed start position assists with this. Unfortunately this doesn't bode well for variants with many more cells than a game of Scrabble (15x15), which might be otherwise desirable for possible computer-resistance. Arimaa also had a problem hurting its speed of spread, in that its inventor imposed various licensing requirements, such as on websites, clubs or literature, although many apps for the game may have been sold, at least. Meanwhile, below is a link about Arimaa, which notes the history of its man vs. machine challenges.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa

I've edited my previous post a bit, to include discussion of Arimaa and
some features I think desirable if there is ever to be a Next Chess (in
terms of dominance like chess currently has). I may elaborate further on
the latter in another thread in future, perhaps beginning with why I
personally chose or rejected certain chess variants as ones I might play if
I take up playing on Game Courier again (such as after fully recovering
from recent dental work). Perhaps ones I rejected are more interesting
cases to mention, since some I accepted were at least partly for the sake
of anticipated fun/novelty (e.g. Smess, Circular Chess).

Fergus wrote:

"My favorite commercial variant is one that regularly changes the rules and
may be computer-resistant. It is called Knightmare Chess, and you can find
it in the CVP's Amazon store. It uses cards to change rules or introduce
new conditions in the game, and it could be described as Magic: the
Gathering meets Chess."

Thanks Fergus. The info regarding the 3rd edition of Knightmare Chess (if
that's an edition that you're familiar with) states the recommended age
range as 10-15 years. So, at least the game is not too complex, while since
you enjoy it, it's not too simple for at least some adults to enjoy,
either. The question is, could it ever be massively popular, say if
assisted by the decline of standard chess? Also, I'd mention that while I
didn't try to see what the board, pieces and cards look like (if that's
possible on Amazon), I suppose that it's possible a board and set for the
game could be one day made to look elegant on someone's coffeetable, with
the cards kept for storage within, say, the belly of a wooden folding
board. It may seem like a small thing, but one wonders how many people took
up chess or at least occasionally play it because there's a nice set on a
coffetable, or as seen in a movie.

I neglected to mention in my previous post at least one thing that may be
of interest, if it hasn't been noted elsewhere already. I found Omega Chess
(commercial variant) somewhat attractive, but what made me decide against
it was that a K & R vs. K ending would often be a draw, if I understand
the rules correctly. That's since the lone king could hide in a Wizard
square adjacent to one of the 10x10 board's four corners, when all the side
with the R can do is deliver stalemate, which I think is still a draw in this game. Since I already had other 10x10 board variants I was interested in possibly trying, that did it for Omega Chess in my books, since one would expect K & R vs. K to be a win on a square board normally.

I recall Fergus mentioned to me that Knightmare Chess might be computer resistant. I now doubt that it ultimately will prove to be, even though there is a quite random element involved in the game (which doesn't appeal to me to begin with, though strictly speaking as a standard chess player). Computers are now great at other games with random elements present, Bridge for instance, and so I expect programmers can succeed with Knightmare Chess too, given time to absorb how skilled humans play it. Not only that, there is still the spectre of things like neural net techniques, or the development of quantum computers.

It struck me today that one thing that might allow a computer resistant chess variant to be produced is to introduce a quasi-random element instead, one that often gives humans the edge. If the idea is workable, chess engine assisted cheating or the superiority of engines over even top humans may largely go away as concerns in the minds of possibly many. Computers as yet cannot be programmed to do advanced moral thinking, as far as I know, and I suspect they might never be able to even if nominally Technological (AI) Singularity is achieved. Morality takes into account even emotional feelings, and there seems little doubt that computers can never be given a soul of the sort many think we may have.

How might such a chess variant based on humanity's grasp of morality work? Well, the best we have for an expert in morality could be a law school or seminary teacher, for example. For the sort of chess variant I have in mind, it would be a kind of combination of the knowlege of moral issues and chess that a player has, as well as his chess skills (kind of like chess boxing combines chess and boxing - another variant that may be computer resistant to some extent). Before making a move in such a chess variant, the moral expert (teacher) or an assistant arbiter asks the player a skill testing question (could be multiple choice). If his answer is acceptable, he gets to move, otherwise he loses his turn, much as in some dice chess variants. Like chess boxing, this is perhaps not the sort of chess variant you can play on your coffeetable at home with a guest, but you could play it in a tournament hall or on the internet (securely guarded large trivial pursuit-style card decks, or databases, of moral Q & A's might be used). Young children may be at a disadvantage at times, but at least some adults might not mind that at all. [edit: Now that I think of it, a sort of trivial pursuit style card could also be a small database device that also lights up red (wrong) or green (right) for 1 of 2 answer choices offered and selected from; that would make this variant idea more workable at a tournament hall I'd suppose.] [edit: An example moral question might be: "A man drops a $5 bill and walks away. Do you: 1) offer him the bill, or 2) take it, because you found it"? A less simple one might be "You're a healthy boy and there are three similar cookies. Your younger sister is blind and cannot speak. Do you: 1) split 1 in half, take 1 and 1/2 & offer the rest to your sister, or 2) take 1 and offer 2 to your sister"?]

I've edited my previous message a bit, in case anyone missed it.

Hi Fergus

Someone pointed out to me on a Canadian chess message board that computers are already being programmed to debate moral issues. I suppose this alone puts my variant idea to waste:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ibm-supercomputer-watson-programmed-debate-moral-issues-1447413

Hi Fergus

Might you have an idea of how difficult it could be for an experienced Game Courier programmer to write a preset (rule enforcing or not) for Knightmare Chess? I'm not sure I could find any number of opponents to play against over-the-board in Ottawa, but the game makes me curious. I'm getting ready to move with my family to another place in town in the coming months, but after that I may resume Game Courier play at some point.