Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

M Winther wrote on Sat, May 30, 2009 04:16 AM EDT:

The motif behind the preoccupation with chess variants. It's
obvious that chess has become very analytical, and there is today
less 'alchemy' left in chess. When chess began in India, it was
commonly played with dice. The mysterious aspect of chess as a
universe of variants is continually narrowing down into
well-trodden paths, and chess has today become a resource of the
overruling ego. I think this is what lies behind attempts as
Seirawan Chess, etc., which aim at reintroducing chance and
wizardry into a game which is today very much about technique and
preparedness, which does not allow much room for the unexpected.
There is nothing essentially wrong in a scientific and
rationalistic view of chess, it's only that it might develop into
a form of compulsion neurosis, where always the rationally best
move must be done, with the aid of a computer.

To allow chess to be enhanced, while keeping the option to play
standard chess, would satisfy the part of ourselves that is not
only interested in ego-power, tournament victories and rating
lists. So I think that evolutions in chess reflect developments
in the collective psyche. When the modern rules emerged in the
beginning of the 16th century, this answered to changes in
collective consciousness. The renaissance had brought with it
notions of objective criteria, and the game was seen as an object
of study in itself. Before, it was solely a game of parlor and
wholly integrated in the social context, and that's why it was so
popular among women in medieval times.

Perhaps a better term than computerization is the term
rationalization. I think it's a sign of the times that people are
feeling that an out-and-out rationalization of every aspect of
life, including chess, is too much to bear. The urge to
'irrationalize' chess, by tampering with the rules, can perhaps
be seen as a reaction against an overruling ego with its
rationalistic urge to control, and the accompanying vain search
after recognition and self-gratification. To give the lie to
rationalism, one would want a 'wizard piece' to suddenly turn 
up on the board, as a chance event, to reintroduce a portion 
of 'game alchemy' into chess.

It is possible that an evolutionary turn, what occurred in the
16th century, is again taking place. It is necessary to meet the
demands of a collective consciousness which cannot bear anymore
of rationalistic reductionism. This is necessary if chess is to
remain popular, and I think it might be inevitable to introduce
an alternative. Congenially, FIDE has decided that Chess960 be
included in the general chess rules, coming into force at 1. July
2009. It is a pleasing development, but there might be better
alternatives than Chess960. This topic must be discussed among
chessplayers. 
/Mats

George Duke wrote on Mon, Jun 1, 2009 07:12 PM EDT:

''Many tribes never use the toes in counting, but signify the close of
the first 10 by clapping the hands together, by a wave of the right hand,
or by designating some object; after which the fingers are again used as
before.'' --Levi Leonard Conant 'Counting' // How could rules be
changed so that systematically less than best moves, in any conceivable rational context, would benefit by the
end of a game? Betza's article ''Many Rules for One Game'' can have
different rules for different squares, and also with rules subject to
change, there can be no best move for computer to find.

Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Jun 4, 2009 10:33 PM EDT:

Interesting point of view, one I am sympathetic toward. FIDE is
over-analyzed. Is shogi, or XiangQi, or any other major variant as analyzed
as FIDE? I also have some reservations, but I'll reserve them for later.
The things we agree on and some recent developments in those areas might be
worth discussing. 

Carlos Cetina has likely gone the farthest with introducing the sense of
wizardry and new possibilities with Universal Chess, a random, shuffle
variant that uses a wide range of variant pieces as well as the usual 5
pieces and pawns. All you are guaranteed to start with is 1 king and 8
pawns. The remaining 7 pieces can come from a set of 24 pieces up to and
experimental set of 70+ pieces. It's a very interesting game, very
tactical. Very high-powered; Carlos is not shy about using a large number
of pieces the equivalent of a queen or even stronger. I would like to see
an entirely short range version of the game, which should be more
strategic. 

Nick Wolff has a strange little offering called PK Chess that certainly
takes the certainty out of the game. I don't know if this exactly has been
done before, but it leads to very wild games. It's a very simple idea. The
FIDE rules hold, with one addition. After each player's 5th turn, all
their pawns change to knights. After the 10th turn, all knights turn to
pawns. After the 15th turn, all pawns -> knights, 20th... George has been
talking about this type of piece in his Pocket Polypiece comments. This is
a fine example of the genre, and I've found it almost playable :-) I keep
thinking that if I just calculated a little better, and planned for the
changes from the beginning, I could set up a decent defense, and then work
on some sort of offense... naah! The game is not stable; it swings toward
chaos, you fight it back, then it takes off again. It's a fun ride, a real
roller coaster.

The last game I'd like to look at is one I haven't played, Shuuro. It's
a commercial game that debuted here last week. For a variantist, it has a
very common weakness in using only the standard FIDE pieces and pawns.
[Maybe someday we'll be able to get decent variant pieces at good prices.]
Beyond that, though, it shows a nice bit of imagination with a 12x12 board,
roomier than most, and the slider-but-not-jumper-blocking plinths that are
randomly placed. The innovation of allowing knights to land on top of them
and stop as well as move 'through' them is quite nice and does a fair job
of enhancing the knights' mobility, and reducing the sliders. This looks
like it could be quite interesting, I'd like to play it. Can we get a
preset? [Maybe if I put this comment on the Shuuro page, where they'll see
it...] This is another game I would like to see shortrange pieces in, that
could move through or on top of the plinths. I'd also like to try letting
the players place the plinths deliberately, each player placing 1 plinth in
each of the 4 quadrants - alternating who goes first in each quadrant.

H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jun 5, 2009 03:37 AM EDT:

How does this 'Universal Chess' differ from Superchess? (
http://www.superchess.nl/indexengels.htm )

I could find no link for it.

Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Jun 5, 2009 02:09 PM EDT:

Hi, HG. You're right, it is similar to Superchess, a game I never paid any
attention to. The differences, on a first pass, are that Universal uses
only standard pawns, which I prefer to the varied pawns of Superchess,
truthfully. That was one of the main reasons I didn't pay attention to
Supe. Also Superchess allows players to choose their pieces. Universal has
3 different piece sets, roughly 25, 50, and 75 pieces in size. All these
pieces are shuffled, and the first 7 are placed randomly on the board with
the king and pawns. The players have no choice of pieces, only of piece
sets. Then, every 5 turns, you may drop the next piece in the sequence. 

Apparently Carlos has not yet posted a separate game page for Universal.
However, if you scroll to the bottom of the Cetran Chess page, you will
find the necessary rules and piece list for Universal.

5 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.