[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Excellent concept. Sounds interesting. (I wonder when where Seirawan first published this variant.)
I am sceptical of this variant because the bishops will tend
to get exchanged too easily (by moving one's bishop from the initial square, offering exchange, while simultaneously guarding one's bishop with a hawk. As the bishop (especially when
fianchettoed) is the positional piece par excellence, I think this
game will be lacking in many positional qualities, especially since
the Elephant (N+R) and Hawk (N+B) are such tactical pieces. Something that will
help to remedy the problem is to restrict the entry squares of the
Hawks. My suggestion is that the Hawk should not be able
to enter on the bishop files, and, perhaps, the Elephant should not be able to
enter on the knight files. In other words, the external pieces should only
be able to enter when king, rook, or queen moves. (Trenholme implemented the same pieces on the Gustavian board. Perhaps it's better.)
/Mats
/Mats
I have now implemented a variant which doesn't allow piece entry when the bishop moves. This is done in order to make it more difficult to exchange bishops. /Mats
Yasser let me know that the intellectual rights of Seirawan Chess are “pending” as patents and trademark issues are worked out. If the intellectual rights are approved the game will be “commercialized”, including a book and program. Right now they are getting the physical pieces produced. It wouldn't be correct of me to publish my Zillions program, then. But it is a little curious since everything about the variant is traditional. /Mats
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2007 01:22 PM UTC:The problem of patenting the unpatentable is unlikely to go away any time soon. We have the perfect example in a Carrera/Bird/Capablanca variant that has been patented in the US. To anyone who has a bit of knowledge of chess variants and history, the patentee's claims are patently false and absurd. Unfortunately, good lawyers and bad law support this ridiculous position, and you could get badly hurt and certainly seriously harrassed for having an unauthorized Zillions implementation. I feel a proper response is to utterly boycott such products and encourage others to do the same. The only other useful response would be to mount a serious legal challenge to the ability to patent games, but this is impractical and undoubtedly Quixotic. Thank you for the information. I, for one, will never play this game unless and until it becomes freely available.
My only objection to this game is the names of the pieces. Why not choose the universally known names (Archbishop and Chancellor) and settle with it ?
It has to do with physical pieces: the elephant and hawk are
sculptural. They are depicted here. /Mats
sculptural. They are depicted here. /Mats
Ralph Betza's Tutti-Frutti Chess(1978) and Karakus' Perfect Chess(2000) are also in the subset of those putting RN and BN on small 8x8 with all the other pieces, and they even add familiar Amazon(RNB) by just dropping one R, N and B. That's a lot of power density, whereas Seirawan Chess goes for higher piece density after a few moves, a slight tilt away from those two.
Perhaps it's about the same piece density, then, because Seirawan Chess has two pieces more. A Tutti Frutti zrf can be downloaded from the Zillions site, here. As Seirawan Chess is defined it's not particularly good, because the bishops gets removed too easily. These two variants are probably better. But one thing amazes me, namely the immense popularity of the Archbishop and Chancellor. Seirawan Chess has a co-author, namely Bruce Harper. Video clips of the Seirawan Chess simul recently held is here. They plan to create Seirawan Chess tournaments. What's so strange is that they cannot see the variant's obvious flaw. /Mats
The problem with the Elephant (Chancellor) and the Hawk (Cardinal), which are known from Capablanca's Chess, and hundreds of other variants, is their tactical intricacy. They are super-knights, and in this capacity they can create a maximum of new threats: eleven enemy pieces can be exposed to new threats in one single move. A knight can threaten seven pieces (not counting the square from which it came). A queen can create six threats (not counting two on the diagonal/orthogonal from which it came). A bishop, and a rook, can create two. A Korean or Swedish Cannon can create three.
We know that amateurs have great problems with the knights, because of their notorious capacity of making double-threats. So how will they fare with eight knights on the board, four of which are super-knights? The Elephant and Hawk are ideal for professionals because they can make use of their tactical superiority, instead of having to slowly grind down their weaker opponents in long positional games. But will such a game really be attractive to amateurs? In practical endgames, especially, these pieces are practically unforeseeable for the weak player. I'd wish they had opted for pieces with positional qualities. Although these pieces are attractive, their intricacy make them inaccessible to the amateur. For this reason I am surprised to see how many variants exist that employ these pieces.
/Mats
We know that amateurs have great problems with the knights, because of their notorious capacity of making double-threats. So how will they fare with eight knights on the board, four of which are super-knights? The Elephant and Hawk are ideal for professionals because they can make use of their tactical superiority, instead of having to slowly grind down their weaker opponents in long positional games. But will such a game really be attractive to amateurs? In practical endgames, especially, these pieces are practically unforeseeable for the weak player. I'd wish they had opted for pieces with positional qualities. Although these pieces are attractive, their intricacy make them inaccessible to the amateur. For this reason I am surprised to see how many variants exist that employ these pieces.
/Mats
So how can we address this problem of the future of chess? Not all players are attracted by Fischer Random, either, although it's a good training variant. Firstly, the standard position has a great advantage. White's position is slightly better so that he can develop an initiative. It is simply the most harmonious and best position of all 960. Secondly, an important part of chess is to prepare your own variants, and to acquire specialist knowledge of certain variants. This is all gone with Chess960.
Nevertheless, even if the problem only concerns professionals, it's necessary for us to address the problem. We can't allow the professionals to dictate the future of chess because then chess will become overly technical, like the examples of Chess960 and Seirawan Chess. This is obvious also among the grandmasters who want a shortening of the time limits, something that will also increase the technical aspect of chess.
Probably most chessplayers want a standard position to start from, and not too much anarchy. We must question whether it's possible, then, to improve Seirawan's suggestion, and introduce pieces that are less tactical than those super-knights. The Swedish Cannon is an interesting piece that introduces new tactical themes (there are, of course, many alternatives). Its value seems to correspond to a bishop. To simply introduce a single external piece by way of pawn-relocation could be a way of vitalizing chess. Between the rounds one can alternate between standard chess and the new variant: Swedish Cannon Chess
/Mats
Nevertheless, even if the problem only concerns professionals, it's necessary for us to address the problem. We can't allow the professionals to dictate the future of chess because then chess will become overly technical, like the examples of Chess960 and Seirawan Chess. This is obvious also among the grandmasters who want a shortening of the time limits, something that will also increase the technical aspect of chess.
Probably most chessplayers want a standard position to start from, and not too much anarchy. We must question whether it's possible, then, to improve Seirawan's suggestion, and introduce pieces that are less tactical than those super-knights. The Swedish Cannon is an interesting piece that introduces new tactical themes (there are, of course, many alternatives). Its value seems to correspond to a bishop. To simply introduce a single external piece by way of pawn-relocation could be a way of vitalizing chess. Between the rounds one can alternate between standard chess and the new variant: Swedish Cannon Chess
/Mats
I rather doubt that we're going to address the problem of the future of chess. It will either evolve into something new and worthy without anyone's planning it, or it will go softly into the night as checkers and bridge seem to be doing. The chief problem chess faces, in my opinion, is Scrabblization. By this I mean that chess has become a game like Scrabble, in which an enormous amount of rote memorization has become almost as important, or perhaps even more important, as strategic and tactical intuition -- and this is especially so for one making the move from casual amateur to serious tournament player. Like lovers of checkers and bridge, experts who have invested that effort are emphatic that they're glad they did. But that doesn't attract others to follow after when there are plenty of other strategy games without so much 'book' where they can hope to excel just by having a knack. This is just my partly-informed opinion based on remarks I've heard from better players, so I readily admit I could be completely off-base -- I'm no expert at chess. But if I'm right, then chess has gone so far down the road toward Scrabble that, at this point, I'm suspicious that those who are experts have acquired a distorted view of the game during their years of study. Reading whole books devoted to variations on a single line of play, memorizing openings out to twenty moves, is certainly not what the inventor of Chess had in mind. This is why I think something like the random-array or (better still) the player-selected-army variants are the likeliest future for chess, if it's to have one at all.
Scrabblization is surely the fate of any game that is deterministic with the players having complete information - given that it is played and studied long enough and widely enough.
If so, and if it is a problem, the only long-term solutions are to either restrict player information or remove the determinism. But is the game we are left with still chess?
Since Scrabble has neither determinism nor perfect information, it seems that removing those elements from chess won't necessarily prevent Scrabblization.
I agree, at least in part. Removing either or both is probably necessary to prevent Scrabblization, but may not be sufficient.
I would guess, though, that their removal would prove sufficient as I suspect the causes of Scrabble's Scrabblization are not to be found in Chess.
Chess isn't complex enough in today's computer age. We need a more complex game. But as I pointed out, we needn't abandon traditional chess. If a player in the first move 'tables' the extra piece (e.g. Swedish Cannon), then the game will be played with a later possibility of extra piece entry. If both players, in the first move, refrain from 'tabling' the extra piece, then the game will be traditional. In this way there is a choice, and chess keeps its link to history. /Mats
I implemented this feature (optional extra piece) in Alternative Chess.
/Mats
/Mats
They are doing it again. Henry Bird did it 1874, Jose Raul Capablanca did it 1923 and now Yasser Seirawan does it 2007. 'Revive' as the premier alternate chess 400-year-old D. Pietro Carrera's Chess! See how the names change. Carrera's Champion(R+N) becomes Guard 19th C., then Chancellor or Marshall 20th C., now Seirawan's Elephant 21st C. Bravo for Elephant on 8x8 now instead of everyone else's 8x10! Carrera's Centaur(B+N) becomes Equerry 19th C., Archbishop, Chancellor(not to be confused) or Cardinal 20th C., now Seirawan's Hawk 21st C. New names for new millennium. Same old comfort zone. Capablanca Random shows these can be tweaked in acceptable fashion to taste 50 or 100 or 200 times good and symmetrically. So, with a new one every fifty years or so, the low-order 50 times 50 years is, well, over 2000 years, itself more than age or time of Chess. Consistency is no hobgoblin.
Does Computer detect irony? Our previous Comment of 'Excellent' Seirawan Chess could be computer test for any exclusively left-brained entities. To perspicacious observers, everything meant its opposite! Seirawan's and Hooper's name changes for Marshall and Cardinal are actually to be condemned not appreciated. When we say 'Bravo' for RN and BN on 8x8, it is really one prolonged hiss of disapproval. When projecting recycled Carrera CVs every 50 years til kingdom come, Computer may take it literally, but an effectual 'advanced' Turing test bolts (hey, sounds like 'halts': Halting problem) at a lark, red herring or wild card. How to tell? You simply have to be elite 23-paired-chromosome-carrying (apes have 24). Gary Kasparov's Advanced Chess (teaming purported 'grandmasters' and 'chess-playing' program), no other than Yasser Seirawan has called 'atrocious idea'. True enough despite source. Abominable idea too is Seirawan's Chess' crowding Marshall and Cardinal onto 8x8, foremost because of borrowing without attribution (Perfect Chess, Tutti-Frutti etc.), displaying ignorance of place among hundreds CVs. Besides, SC plays as mediocrely as Omega Chess. Is (IRONY: EUPHUISM) as 1(GRADUALISM: TRANSLOCATION) 2(PERSIFLAGE: APOLOGUE) 3(RNA: COFACTOR) 4(CONSISTENCY: HOBGOBLIN) 5 All of the above, 6 1&3 only, 7 2&3 only, 8 1&4 only ?
Very original and interesting idea about how to introduce 'new' pieces R+N and B+N to chess. Advantages over 8x10 and 10x10 variants are obvious: starting position stays the same (with usual opening patterns). The board dimension stays the same, so balance in piece values is retained. I think the names for these pieces chosen by Seirawan are fine: since ordinary chess player donesn't know them anyway, no problem to come with names you like more.
True, the drop mechanism works so that the introduced pieces fit right in by being immediately protected whatever the bank-rank move may have been. Is Seirawan Chess presented then in the same serious vein as Fischer Random Chess? Maybe instead SC is sort of Chess-light for off-time club play not so serious. Or are Seirawan and Harper wanting to join the CV community, so we can expect more of these? I personally handed Yasser Seirawan face to face a copy of USP5690334(for Falcon) back in 1998 and basically appreciate and approve their showing interest in Rules changes like this. In prolific columns YSeirawan has panned GKasparov's Advanced Chess and been mostly indifferent to FRC.
An obvious disadvantage is that the bishops tend to disappear from the board too fast. The bishop fianchetto is seldom effective because the opponent can move his bishop from the initial position, and offer an exchange while simultaneously guarding the bishop by inserting the Hawk. Likewise, a bishop at c4 can immediately be exchanged by moving a bishop to e6 and inserting the Hawk. Of course, one could solve this by disallowing piece entry when the bishop moves. Comparatively, in my Alternative Chess, pieces may only be dropped on a friendly pawn on the second rank. The removed friendly pawn must immediately be relocated two squares ahead of the dropped piece. This forces a weakening of the pawn position. Introduction of a piece comes at a price.
/Mats
So, do Knights moving out first make better openings? It does not seem advantageous not to get (RN) and (BN) out pretty early. Maybe the effect over-all is to reduce the number of feasible openings, not increase them. In the video that came with it, Yasser Seirawan joked that it was hard to tell who was ahead at some points in the 6 or 12 simultaneous games being played. Speculate that they are not really much serious about Seirawan Chess but want to break into the possibility of altenatives. MWinther Commented, so I can say we think Bifurcation Pieces are better than more Marshalls and Cardinals, but since there are so many of them and not yet adapt to 80 or 100 squares, it is hard to be specific.
Here is my spin on this: 1. I also, in 2007 (unaware of this game) happened to wonder how to do Capablanca pieces on an 8x8. End result was IAGO Standard Fantasy Chess (Capablanca 64) in its bunch of mutations, which can be found on the Zillions site (Seirawan's version isn't in it). It was different than this. I believe the best shot to get Capablanca pieces adopted is with an 8x8 board. I played with this concept years ago with my Corner Chess game also (meant to be 4 player chess on an 8x8 board) 2. I would propose that the name Sharper Chess be adopted in honor of the fact that Harper worked on it (S from Seirawan and the rest is Harper). It also sounds pretty cool as a name. 3. Here is how you settle the name controversy (people who don't want to lose the names Chancellor and Archbishop). The top two pieces in fantasy chess are the Chancellor and Archbishop. I know Seirawan wanted different, because he felt the other ones didn't make sense. Well, I say you can go with BOTH actually. If the pieces start on the board, they are Chancellor and Archbishop (or Cardinal). If they start in a POCKET position, then they would be Hawk and Elephant. I don't see it as a big deal. This way, you also know if the Capablanca pieces have entered the game or not. 4. For people arguing about this and that, and disappointed (want to have them enter different spot, have different board, and other complaints on here), please view this variant as being a METHOD to get new pieces into the game. This game is a near ideal GATEWAY to get new pieces into chess in an acceptable manner. Viewed in light of this, it is a good thing. Work with this, and then add your own tweaks. Want to have the Amazon get accepted into chess? Well, have it as a possible other piece in Seirawan chess. a. People who don't think it is radical enough, can we keep in mind, we need the FIDE crowd to adopt it to some degree for there to be enough players? b. People who feel it wrecks one line of play or another, and believe bishops will die too early (thus propose that if you move a bishop, you can't enter in the Capablanca pieces), can we play with this a bit more and see if we can keep the simplicity of what is propose, and make it lead to MORE options on play, rather than less? Also, if makes the game a LOT more open, with new lines of development, why wouldn't that be acceptable? 5. I believe an easy variant on this would be you leave the queen space blank and then players alternate turns each placing a queen, elephant/chancellor, or hawk/archbishop in the initially left empty queen space. 6. This variant can work with Chess960 as a variation of Capablanca Random Chess, and make it easier to accept. Also, it can work with Bughouse. 7. This version allows for Capablanca pieces to get into chess, without having to deal with the headaches of Gothic Chess. 8. The underlying methodology of introducing pieces here can be used with other chess-like games. Consider Shogi with this, for example. You could even go with the OLD version of Shogi without the rook and bishop on the board, and the pieces in the last two rows, and have them come into the game via the method in this game. Chinese Chess would be another. 9. Anyone want to calculate how many different ways that new ways the two new pieces can enter the game?
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
/Mats