Comments by panther

I've now added some justification for my chosen values for the pieces in this variant.

As an observation for Fergus, lately some of the diagrams haven't been showing up properly when I've visited this game's webpage (the many diagrams all used to do so at times in the past, and I haven't changed any of them in any way). Also, I've noticed that when a 'Comment' is posted re: anything, at the same time the main Chess Variant Pages webpage indicates that some item has been 'Rated', too, which is not the case.

Note to Fergus:

I've noticed many old webpages, including that for Circular Chess, have some sort of error message at the bottom of the page in question, and as an effect of that, perhaps, people cannot post (or even see old) Comments or Ratings for such a page. However, in the case of the Circular Chess webpage, I was able to post fresh Comments it after clicking on a 'Review' I did for Circular Chess quite some time ago, and I was then able to have the option of posting a fresh Comment for Circular Chess' webpage.

Another note to Fergus: when viewing this webpage's many diagrams from my laptop, i.e. with a more modern Firefox browser, I can now see all of the diagrams (unlike from my desktop computer, with its old browser). The same goes for Comments for Circular Chess' webpage when viewing from my laptop (i.e. the error message I see when using my old desktop is no longer there). However, the problem I mentioned about the Chess Variant Pages main webpage is real enough regardless.

Hi Jose

I got your email invite to play a game of Latr. XXI with you. At the moment I'm just mulling over the idea of playing online games once again (I've only ever played 2 games, both rather chess-like). Latr. XXI looks surprisingly complex for a game that has just 2 piece types. If I do make a comeback to online play, soon, I'd prefer to start with seemingly simpler variant(s), although I've noticed a number of people have tried Latr. XXI already, so I guess it's quite playable, and it's possible I'll try a game of it farther ahead in the year to come if I do become accustomed to (slow) online (chess variant) play (besides getting my feet wet at some point with any number of variants which seem truly alien to a regular & veteran tournament chess player like me).

I'm curious if you too have tried Canadian tournament chess play (i.e. been in Chess Federation of Canada rated events).

Kevin

Hi Jose

I wrote a comment on your Latr. XXI variant page, but it doesn't show up here, and there was a message to the effect that you wouldn't get my comment by email. One point is that I may try a game of it, but later in the year perhaps. If you read the whole comment, you might care to respond in this subject thread instead.

Take care, Kevin

Hi Fergus

Using my desktop's old browser (Windows Internet Explorer [can't figure out what version], as used on Windows XP), I suppose can see all of the diagrams (the diagram with abstract pieces, and the photos of real-life sets) on the Gross Chess webpage (which, due to my old browser has a fatal error message at the bottom of it, preventing me from viewing or making any Comments).

I'm hesitant to experiment with any of my desktop's settings, since I can just use my laptop with Firefox on it instead when I see I'm missing something I should see on the Chess Variant Pages. I'm still pretty much all thumbs with modern computers, and it took my old man some time to fix my desktop after I tried Firefox with it before. Still, I can try to provide more info if you're curious.

I've now mentioned in the Notes Section of this submission some more 'basic mates' that I've convinced myself are possible, i.e. a couple involving K & 3 minor pieces vs. lone K. I've also mentioned one cute tactical difference 4D Quasi-Alice Chess has from Alice Chess, right from the start in the opening phase. In addition, I've given reasons why 4D Quasi-Alice Chess perhaps should not be viewed as clearly an inferior version of Alice Chess.

Two possibly interesting variations on the rules of Raumschach could be based on altering its setup postion, replacing each side's rather weak Unicorns with either Manns (non-royal pieces that move like kings), or alternatively compound pieces, all of Mann & Unicorn movement capabilities combined. I tend to fancy the latter alternative at the moment (keeping the setup position the same in other respects). In either variation of the rules, the Unicorns are replaced with in effect major pieces (joining the queen as one), and perhaps significantly increasing the possibility of delivering an early mate (moreso if the suggested compound pieces are used). Meanwhile, rooks, bishops and knights are still preserved as relative minor pieces, and might be swapped without great loss for a few pawns if required during a game.

I'm not sure either idea for a variation on the rules of Raumschach would be significant enough to warrant 1 or 2 submissions to CVP, but I thought I'd put the variations out there for possible discussion, at least. As an aside, I think Alice Chess is, to date, the ultimate 3D variant as far as being chess-like, but if Raumschach can be improved on somehow that still may be worthwhile as a goal.

I've now provided reason(s) why each piece in Full house hexagonal chess is positioned where it is in the setup postion for the start of a game.

I've now given my reasoning why I think 4D Quasi-Alice Chess is indeed effectively an 8x8x2x2 (i.e. 4D) setup, and not a 8x8x4 (i.e. 3D) setup in disguise.

From the "About Chess Variants" section on the CVP main page:

Modern Chess has inspired countless variants. Some have been created by Chess champions seeking new challenges, some by entrepreneurs who have provided commercial sets, and some for fairy Chess problems without any intent of actually playing them. And most have been designed by creative people who like to try out new pieces, new rules, or new ideas.

This site seeks to catalog the vast number of Chess variants created throughout history, as well as to nurture the creation of new variants.

...

Regarding what I've highlighted in bold face, I've noticed occasional negative comments on CVP about variants that were not in any way playtested. If I recall correctly, Fergus in his article about designing chess variants at the least recommends playtesting them.

My question for anyone is, should the "About Chess Variants" section on the CVP main page be altered to reflect a possible general desire nowadays, so as to say that only variants that are playtested should be submitted to CVP? If not, maybe some other sort of policy statement in this regard instead?

Hi Fergus

Nice pictures of the lovely plastic fairy chess pieces!

Regarding the mysterious representations of the Spider & Dragon pieces, I came up with possible explanations, which are a bit of a stretch of the imagination, though.

The Spider piece could be meant as an abstract representation of a spider's body, minus all 8 of its legs (perhaps for practical reasons); it looks like there may be 4 little stubs near the top of the piece, possibly representing the beginnings of a spider's front 4 legs.

The Dragon piece does look like it has an armoured face mask to me, too. I found a wikipedia illustration of the type of face mask (actually, helmet) that it might represent:

Helmet_(heraldry)

Since this (barred) type of helmet is reserved for nobility, that led me to heraldry, to verify that dragon symbols were ever used for that. ;) Sure enough, yes; see part way down from the start of this link:

Origins_of_modern_heralry

P.S.: A dragon can sometimes mean a soldier who is a musketeer (dragoon is common spelling); muskets have been around a long time, so it's possible a (nobleman) musketeer could have worn such a helmet too, I suppose.

Hi Aurelian

As a newcomer to chess variants myself, I'm wondering if there are many competing methods of estimating the relative values of chess variant pieces (perhaps considering board size or shape as well). Just based on what I've seen so far, it looks like H.G. and Ralph Betza are the leaders in methodology for such, perhaps with H.G. leading presently.

So far my most serious questions about the correctness of attempting any such estimates without lots of high level human playtesting, & good old fashioned thought, have centred especially around comparing three specific individual pieces with other individual pieces.

One case for me is comparing a bishop to a knight. On an 8x8 board GM Larry Kaufman, using analysis of the results of many high level chess games, concluded surprisingly that a knight is fully worth a bishop on average (with two bishops outweighing N+B or N+N, though). This surprised me, since intermediate or advanced level chess text books routinely claim a B is usually worth a little more than a N, and on one occasion I was gently scolded by a grandmaster level player for trading a B for a N in the opening phase of a game without sufficent compensating reason, in his estimation (for what it's worth, I had been playing a slightly obsolete book line!). An online search once gave me a result that noted that one grandmaster has tried to explain how Kaufman got the result that he did, also fwiw. Anyway, there is little doubt in my mind that on a square board larger than 8x8, a bishop would normally be superior to a N.

The next case for me involves the Amazon (a piece with both Q & N movement capability). H.G. has informed me it's just worth a Q plus a N, after investigating. This was a red flag for me, since in chess a Q is worth B+R+P often (normally?), not just B+R. I suppose the extra pawn's worth of value reflects the power & mobility created when fusing B & R powers into one piece, and I have often based my own tentative estimates of piece values with the addition of a pawn's value to that of a compound piece's component values (as amateurish as that may be). Anyway, one reason why I think an Amazon may be worth more than just a Q+N is an Amazon's overwhelming ability to attack & mate an enemy king all by itself, at least on occasions, whereas a Q & N, even if lucky enough to be coordinated in attack, may not be able to deliver mate all with checks, and perhaps need to pause to bring the knight closer to the king, allowing time for a possible counterattack, or else perhaps have to settle for the Q just giving perpetual check, if fortunate. However, a Q & N if coordinated can concentrate their power on a single target unlike the Amazon by itself, or, if not coordinated, may each attack seperate targets, so I can't be completely confident that an Amazon is worth more than Q+N.

The last case for me involves comparing a R+N compound piece (let's choose the name chancellor) and a B+N compound piece (let's call it an archbishop). If I recall correctly, H.G. informed me that an archbishop is worth a chancellor (at the least on an 8x8 board). Though my doubts are less strong about this, the fact that it seems much harder to deliver mate to a lone K with a K+A than to deliver mate to a lone K with a K+C reminded me of an observation I've seen in books on chess endgames. Namely, that the fact that forcing a 'basic mate' with K & 2 bishops vs. lone K is easier than forcing mate with K+B+N vs. lone K is a sign of bishops outperforming knights quite often. This analogy is not much to go on, but still it gives me pause. For a larger square board that's 10x10, I wonder if a chancellor would definitely outweigh an archbishop to some extent most of the time, as the scope of the rook component of the chancellor on a largely empty board increases by 4 squares no matter what square the piece is on, whereas an archbishop could, on such a board, more often be located on a square that doesn't add a full 4 extra squares to the bishop component's scope.

Not an answer to your question, but I hope it provides food for thought at some point.

Kevin

Posted by Joe Joyce:

"Kevin, I keep the slide rule I used in college under an abacus on my encyclopedia bookshelves. I don't program. All my presets are bare bones board and pieces. I am a dinosaur. Gronk! ;) Seriously, I am perfectly happy with a board and pieces, it's all you need. And most games here don't have a preset, which I see meaning 1 of 2 things, they're dinosaurs like me or they aren't serious game designers. Maybe it's just because they don't believe enough in their games, but if you don't make a preset, nobody will play your game. So what you're offering is an idea, not actually a game. You are still participating in the conversation, but at a lower level, and are much less likely to get your say.

The question of how FIDE chess skills transfer is an interesting one, and is related to the value of variants in playing better FIDE. To an extent, I think it depends on how flexible as a person one is. It's been my experience that the skills can transfer well and transfer better the closer to FIDE a game is. Grin, if you want to try an experiment, play Grand Chess, Modern Shatranj, Xiang Qi, Shogi, and Jetan, and see what you think. I believe experience helps, and the broader the experience, the more help it can provide. I learned more about pawns in designing and developing Hyperchess and playing Grand Shatranj than I ever did playing and studying FIDE. (Well, and Texas Two-Step...) Until then, I didn't even realize that there was more to learn about pawns. So I am definitely in the camp that says the more diferent kinds of chess you play, the better you will play all of them.

I believe you're right about the splits in variantists' preferred games - there are many. Some games, like Bughouse or Grand Chess, have their dedicated adherents. I've also noticed designer styles generally reflect the kinds of games they like playing. But that's not only an obvious but a very blurry observation because variants are so varied. Currently there are some 5000 or so variants listed, and roughly 1000 have presets. Logistically, most people are forced to "specialize". But many who do play variants, play only 1 or 2 exclusively. I don't see that as much different than only playing FIDE."

Hi Joe

When I first came to CVP, it was with the minimal purpose of leaving a record (other than on my blog) for a small number of chess variants I invented, which I wasn't sure were worthwhile, i.e. I was just offering ideas, as you put it. CVP's database is massive, and so, on a rather less impressive/important level, to me it's all been somewhat like the end of the blockbuster movie RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, where the lost ark is stored deep in a US government warehouse, somewhere amongst all the other boxed up items. :) The variant I had the most hope for was Sac Chess, my first submission, and pleasantly enough, Carlos quickly made a rule enforcing preset for it without my asking, as he rather liked the variant on sight. So, sometimes ideas do indeed have a chance to rise to prominence, if someone notices and likes them at some point. Not that Sac Chess has been played much on Game Courier, yet, but at least I've practiced a bit more against H.G.'s interesting program for Sac Chess since abstaining from Game Courier play for about 6 months now.

The six 4D variants I've made so far I now think of as more for show, unless 4D Quasi-Alice Chess turns out to be of interest to someone. At this point I feel it's in the shadow of Alice Chess (if it has no other problems with it), even though Alice Chess is only 3D, as Alice is already very popular and perhaps too similar (a similar concern goes for a number of my other variants that are non-4D that I largely created after first coming to CVP). The 5 other 4D variants all have the typical limitations of higher dimensional variants that you pointed out to me (though I immensely enjoyed finding all the largely unforcible mating positions with minimal material for 4*Chess, and diagramming them for its submission). Still, fwiw, there are so few 4D variants in the massive CVP database at the moment that anyone cannot help but see mine if they search the 4D category, should they be looking for ideas from it.

I may get around to trying to make a plain preset at last, though due to painful experience I'm often shy about trying something new, e.g. in conjunction with modern computers, if it may turn out to be complex or quirky in an unpredictable way. I've done no HTML language code at all, so I'm kind of a dinosaur (I was born in the early 1960s, overseas on an RCAF base, before France temporarily left NATO, militarily). So far just one variant of mine has been at all rated, by one person (as Average), but it's a solitaire dice variant that's so generally applicable to CVs that I'd say it was not suitable for a preset; otherwise, a higher than Average rating for someone's variant that's without a preset might better encourage the making of a preset for it. I'm kind of surprised there are about 1,000 presets compared to the total number of about 5,000 CVP variant submissions. That seems like a healthy ratio, though I'd guess some people, like Fergus, have made a lot of the presets, and not just for their own variants.

I've played any number of games of Shogi over the years, though I've been relatively rusty for several years now. Xiang Qi I've played far less, and the book I have for it (unlike the one I have for Shogi) is largely unfathomable to me, even though it's in English. Every time I casually mention chess variants to my fellow serious competitive chess players, with a couple of exceptions (the friends I play certain Oriental games with, very occasionally nowadays), they look at me quizzically and remark they haven't got time for more games. That's in spite of some being Bridge players, Go players, or very occasional bughouse players. One reaction seemed most honest to me: when I told the fellow I've played hexagonal chess, with 3 cell colours, he remarked just the thought of the effort hurt his head. I'm probably in over my head in dabbling in all these variants, especially due to being out of shape and often a bit foggy due to supposedly mild medications. At least some of the people on CVP must be highly energetic (at the risk of channeling The Donald), not to mention flexible.

Even if the most popular variants eventually become worldbeaters in terms of popularity, and players peel off to specialize in them, or one variant replaces chess in dominance one day, a general chess variant organization or website like CVP at the least serves as a laboratory for untried or currently less popular variants. In the case of CVP's Game Courier, it provides a place to play chess variants by correspondence, rather than rushing with a server that also may not carry a variant someone wants to play. Some people use Game Courier to play standard chess, too, which kind of surprised me. Fwiw, being introduced to rated tournament chess by a friend's very competitive older brother, I became at least somewhat competitive, typical for veteran chess players. The availability of chess on Game Courier has the attraction of allowing veteran chess players the possible improvement of their overall Game Courier ratings, even though that rating is not supposed to mean too much by itself. As I get older, I'm more concerned with having relatively respectable looking ratings (at least at chess), rather than going all out for improving them. Still, some variants strike me quickly at first sight as fun, if a little challenging (e.g. Circular Chess), the playing of which could easily be worth risking (status symbol-like, albeit paltry) Game Courier rating points over. Fwiw, to this day there are some people who wish there were no rating systems for chess.

Fwiw, some world championship level players finally lost at Arimaa to a computer in a challenge match during 2015, as noted previously on CVP, i.e. that game has fallen, too.

Perhaps there can be no board game of skill worth playing that will forever not fall to computers. The progress of self-teaching algorithms & quantum computer development give me that sense, anyway. Finding enough memory for storing nodes during searches, to search deep enough for board games requiring such, might be the thing that's slowest to come as the years begin to go by, but I'm speculating, especially as a layman. The best hope for human board game players might even be if arguably less desirable technologies are somehow forgotten due to general divine intervention to, say, avert WWIII, but this is even wilder speculation. Fergus has suggested Knightmare Chess, which uses cards, might be computer resistant, but without playing I am less sure that this might not be so.

I recently reassured myself chess is still worth playing, in spite of especially computers. For example, they allow easier cheating, especially on the internet. However, chess is in good company, as technology has made cheating easier in other areas of life, such as in the field of education, and efforts are made to combat it. If chess is ever to be abandoned as dominant, the selection of a replacement game may depend on the reason why chess was abandoned. If it's due to opening theory being played out, only, then Chess960 would be a quite suitable replacement. Kasparov has suggested the same starting position be used for 10 years, then switched. I'd go farther and suggest 100+ years - it's taken that long for chess theory to be fleshed out as much as it has been to date. The reason I like a fixed start position is to help study & merchandising (opening books), which I think may have been a more positive than negative thing, say in the case of popularizing chess.