Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

We list at other article the reformists Alexandre 1820's, Bird 1870's,
Lasker 1910's, Capablanca 1920's, Maura 1960's, and Fischer 1990's.
None of them can be said to have succeeded in their advocacy, but what did they do anyway? In particular, Lasker, why is second world champion on the
list? It is easy to locate Alexandre as forerunner of Fischer in
randomizing starting positions. With some conviction Bird and Capablanca
of course reinvent Carrera for their times. Maura's Modern reaches somewhat across
Latin America. What about Dr. Emanuel Lasker,
mathematician, friend of Einstein? When Capablanca defeated Lasker to become third Champion, Capablanca tossed around one of his first ideas for reform. It was simply to reverse Bishop and Knight. Lasker then and earlier advocated scoring wins differently by type. ''In order to prevent the decay of chess by the frequent occurrence of drawn games finer nuances of difference of execution must show themselves in the result, and stalemates should be considered and counted in the estimating of scores for tournament purposes, wins by themselves to count less than enforced mates.'' --Lasker's idea summarized by Reti (Source: Richard Reti, 'Modern Ideas in Chess') The ironies are that some GMs, but not variantists, might know of Lasker's scoring proposals, and that today that is the extent of  debate within OrthoChess circles, how to reward points differently -- the same topic Lasker brought up 90 years ago.

Okay, thanks that works, and should be able to substitute for Chessboard
Math in the code with Game Design or other one next time. 19.February.2008
here are the Falcon associations with Seven days, Seven Wonders, Falcon
being the Pyramid, and the other mnemonic 'sevens'. 19.April.2008 is
review of Mark Thompson's ''Defining the Abstract,'' the same author
of 2002 Tetrahedral Chess.

If you click on the 'Edit' button to the right of David's comment, you
can see and copy but not change what he actually typed.

George, the best approach to clicking on Next 25 item(s) that I have figured out is to create links like these: skipfirst=25, skipfirst=50, skipfirst=75. Sorry, but the posts displayed on these pages default to one-line descriptions, in spite of my attempts to tinker with the HTML code in the links.

As the newer posts pile up, a search for paulo will take you down to this indexing post. EDIT: expanding on Joe's follow-up comment, you can simply replace ChessboardMath in the link's A href='http:// expression with the name of any other thread.

[Maybe Paulowich could explain again how to read Comments 26+ in threads, which is readily done in articles.]  Mark Thompson's Tetrahedral Chess is on our recognized list at Chessboard Math. Here's a variant 3-D board also with 84 squares, now called Pyramid (another different 3d has name Pyramidal already). One block, or cell, sits centrally atop 3x3 cells, then 3x3 above 5x5, then 7x7. Four levels, or layers, each of 1, 9, 25, 49 cells respectively (=84). Connectivity is easier to visualize than Tetrahedral, and there are all the usual orthogonal, diagonal and triagonal directions of Raumschach
(125 cubes, 1907). At the one-cell top level, a Rook has only one
direction to move through, first 3x3, then 5x5, and in three steps to the
very center of the bottom 7x7. Raumschach King at any corner has 7 cells to which to move, whereas Pyramid King, also omnidirectional, would have only four from the lower corners.

Wikipedia: ''In May 2006 a record-shattering 517 move endgame was
announced. Mark Bourzutchky found it using a program written by Yakov
Konoval. Black's first move is 1 ...Rd7+ and White wins the Rook in 517 moves.''
Black R-b7; B-b3; K-f4; N-g5. White Kd2; Qh1; Nh2. They are still finding
these things after 512 years. What's the rush?

| Who would waste time on Centaur(BN) and Champion(RN) anymore? No one 
| is interested. Knight was not meant to be compounded but must always 
| stand alone. 

I am in total disagreement. The Archbishop (BN) is one of the most elegant
and agile pieces ever designed. It is simply marvelous to see it in action,
dazziling the opponent. To do justice to its play, this piece should be
renamed 'Dancer'.

Who would waste time on Centaur(BN) and Champion(RN) anymore? No one is
interested. Knight was not meant to be compounded but must always stand
alone. We will call attention to where we prove the inefficacy of those
two under this Chessboard Math and Game Design. Please check tomorrow, and
you will relieve addiction to Capablanca misadventures Chancellor and
Archbishop, whatever they may be called in this or that embodiment. We
announced solemnly and theatrically their demise and RIP in January, venerable Centaur and Champion, and sure enough the next day Bobby Fischer died --
after the fact. Check it out.

(3) How many pieces at most does Chameleon capture in one move within
Ultima? in Rococo instead? Why the difference?  (4) What is the minimum
Fool's Mate at Alice Chess? (5) Consider practical piece values the way
Betza does without particularly computer aid. First, here compare Rococo
Cannon Pawns and Centennial Quadra-Pawns, neither able to promote. Of
course, Cannon Pawn benefits from larger board in general, compared to
Quadra-Pawn. At 10x10 Cannon Ps. are superior, whilst 8x8 Quadra-Ps. Where
would be the cross-over point, 8x9, 8x10, 9x9, 9x10? Which of the two have
higher piece value and better winning chances on those intermediate sizes,
other things being equal? // Now the upcoming decade of the teens, after
these aughts, will probably not see us get so sophisticated as Barton's:
(Z) ''By how many seconds a year does proper time in Singapore drop
behind a hypothetical reference clock fixed relative to but far away from
the sun, (a) due to the orbital motion of the earth; (b) due to its
orbital motion jointly with its rotation? (Orbital speed is u = 3 x 10^4 m/s, and
the speed of rotation at equator is u' = 460 m/s. Pretend that the axis
of rotation is perpendicular to the orbital plane.)''

What is a chess piece but a vector anyway? We want CV problems of the
calibre of good Physics questions, like ''(W) A seagull sits on the
ground. Wind-velocity is v. How high can the gull rise without doing any
work? (X) A siren is fixed at the origin. Wind is blowing at w = 100 km/h
from north. Determine (i) the group speed and (ii) the phase speed of
sound going north, south, and east. (Y) Neutral pi-mesons (mass m) in
flight at speed cB (with respect to laboratory) decay into two photons.
Calculate the energy of the photons emitted at a given angle to the flight
path.'' --all from Gabriel Barton 'Relativity Principle' (1999). For
Chess we can devise rough counterparts. (1) A Falcon sits on the board
centrally. How many moves are possible without re-crossing any of its paths
on 8x8? 8x10? (2) A Springer(N) is fixed at an opening position. How many
moves are maximally possible without crossing any of its paths on 8x8?
8x10? 10x10? [N.b.: these are not classic Tours, which permit
route-crossing.] (3) more Problems in follow-up

There are 10^32 or so configurations of Chess pieces on 8x8. Tom Standage
writes ''Computers are unquestionably the modern descendants of
automata: they are 'self-moving machines' in the sense that they blindly
follow a preordained series of instructions, but rather than moving
physical parts, computers move information. Just like automata before
them, computers operate at intersection between science, commerce and
entertainment.'' We are comparing automata from 17th, 18th and 19th centuries --
''The Conflagration of Moscow,'' ''The Slack-Rope Dancers,'' Chess
player ''The Turk'' -- with modern computers. In 1937 Alan Turing
published ''On Computable Numbers.'' ''The chess machine is an
ideal one to start with for several reasons. The problem is sharply
defined, both in the allowed operations and ultimate goal. It is neither
so simple as to be trivial or too difficult for satisfactory solution. And
such a machine could be pitted against human opponent, giving clear measure
of the machine's ability in this kind of reasoning,'' writes Claude
Shannon in 1950 ''A Chess-playing Machine.''  All of Turing, John von
Neumann, and Oskar Morgenstein  were also thinking before, during, and
after World War II  about the possibility of programming computers to
play chess. [Source: Tom Standage 'The Turk' 2002]

One thing that makes chess easier to program for is the standard opening.
With a standard setup, there becomes the possibility of opening book,
which severely limits the search space of the computer. 

Go starts with the most options and the game simplifies as it approaches
the end. In fact computer can play near flawless Go, if starting from near
end of mid-games, yet starting from the first move, computers can only
reach low amature dan level.

Arimaa is hard bacause of high branching factor by employing multiple
moves and weak pieces.

Shogi is relatively hard because of the drop rule which increases
branching factor as well.

Machines beat human beings at things such as speed and power.  I don't see
it as a problem if an AI can beat humans at Ortho-Chess.  What DOES matter
in this area is that Chess doesn't get so optimized in its play that it
leads to excessive amounts of draws, and failure of players to creatively
beat their opponents, limiting the drama.  Also, if a game is feeling
overly played out, it begins to lose the community it is supposed to
serve.  If people raise up the game as some sort of infalliable god, and
refuse to look at how it can better serve, then the game has a problem.

Gary Kasparov in promotion for his 1990's Computer matches repeatedly
represents himself as ''mankind's last stand'' against Computer. Then
he lost to Deep Blue in 1996 and claimed there was at least one move that
was not recognizable ''computer move,'' whatever that means. I think
''Chess Variants'' biggest problems are twofold, one the same Computer
dominance problem of OrthoChess. There must be solution for it, or all
these games will continue obvious decline.  Problem Two, the other one
is the quality problem, how to determine good games. Who decides? I have
said within game conversations to different individuals over years, there
are ''prolificists'' (having more than 15 CVs) whose every CV I
personally would be ashamed to put my byline on, had they been my own idea
or ''invention.'' Yet these games keep pouring out and get published. And the
more self-promotion, or outspokenness, the more attention for many, many
atrocious CVs.  There is serious divide between two opposing camps, not
explainable away by debating points. Embarassingly, there is frequently not even common language for evaluation. One prolificist recently indicates complete ignorance of the difference between compound piece and multi-path piece -- concepts at opposite poles from each other. Same problem of prolificism blends into the sheer number of ''inventable'' creations possible, no one really addresses. The Betza Piece Values VI article, recently commented, suggests so many quadrillion -- get that 10^15 and more theoretically workable -- separate pieces, by commenter Levi Aho's
calculation, not to mention games-rules' sets. Somehow those without
stake in own inventions must start winnowing some categories, and
maybe some actual Rules-sets would emerge. Lately Hutnik indicates some intention of the sort, but on side touts Calvinball with ever-changing infinity of Rules-sets.

On [2008-06-04] Joe Joyce wrote:

I lose to Zillions because I tend to attempt to match its speed. While I am beginning to look at 2 possible initial moves, it's already 11 plies down. I'd like a game where a 2 minutes per move time limit was an equal handicap to both me and the computer.

According to the quote in my previous comment, the [Strength] bar in Zillions appears to tick off search depths from 1 ply to 11 ply. Setting this feature at, say, 5 ply should cut Zillions down a lot (5 ply = three moves for the computer and two moves for its opponent).

Back in the Big-board CV:s thread, I also had trouble when clicking on Next 25 item(s). I figured out how to make links like these: skipfirst=25, skipfirst=50. Here is a little known computer trick:

Zillions of Games Discussion Boards

Desired Features for Zillions of Games

Jeff Mallett (Jeffm) Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 6:21 pm:

>...would it be simple to have an option to search 
>to a fixed depth (and then apply quiescence or 
>whatever search extensions ZoG usually uses) 
 
You can do this now. Go to the Computer Opponent dialog and... 
* Set the search time to infinite 
* Set the variety to none 
* Set the strength according to the fixed depth you want 
(the minimum setting is a depth of 1). 
 
This will allow you to compare as you want. 

Actually computers are far more sophisticated than merely 'adding
machines'. IN fact the computer algorithms that play chess are not brute
force. The brute force ones are the ones all GMs and Ims can easily
defeat.  
Computers see many strategical advantages such as doubled pawns, isolated
pawns etc _ these are all built in - Computers will choose moves based on
above IF there are no branches that will give them an even greater
advantage.
In fact computers make better decisions by valuing material over positions
 a bit more than humans . Humans tend to make more unsound sacrifices.
Computers don't do so (though they can be programmed to)

I think the problem with making a computer play these games is to develop
the algorithm which is a human endeavor. the computer is a machine that
can handle and process logic that we program. 
Once an algorithm is developed to prune the unnecessary branches for Go
and Arimaa then computers will easily dominate. Perhaps the problem with
these games is that there is not enough theory yet to develop a suitable
algorithm. 
What is been forgotten here are the brilliant programmers who contributed
to the current chess machines we see now. 
So no breakthrough in computer technology is needed at all, just more
human minds translating the strategy/tactics needed to win into
programming.  

Pattern recognition is not a problem for computers but this is a vague
notion at best. Humans tend to go with a 'feel' for something. This
'feel' cannot be translated logically. The computer needs something more
tangible.  

I think winning patterns  can be programmed into Go, but the Masters must
be willing to GIVE UP THEIR secrets! 
Exactly how much literature is out there for Go and especially Arimaa ? 

I think Go is the next challenge of computer programmers. 

Arimaa is simply not popular enough to be taken seriously by computer 
programmers.

Basically, the computer in front of you is a complex adding machine. It doesn't think nor recognize patterns the way a human does. Yes, we've made the adding machines complex enough that they can do things like play music and movies, and even play Chess well. But we haven't been able to have it so computers can, for example, translate from one language to another without the translation being so bad it's just about not readable.

Nor have we been able to get a computer to play a game with a high branching factor, like Go or Arimaa well. Computers play Chess very differently from humans; they just look at all of the possible moves, using 'alpha-beta' pruning to determine which moves are and are not looking at. They don't recognize patterns; they just see possible future moves and how much material they have.

A computer needs to evaluate millions of possible positions to play as well as a human who only looks at dozens of possible positions. Computers aren't able to really see a given position to evaluate how good it is; they only play as well as we do because they basically brute force through just about every possible chess move so many moves down.

Games like Go and Arimaa are good because brute force just doesn't work with these games. In order to have a computer play these games well, we will have to make a true AI breakthrough. Which will probably have consequences far beyond just having a computer playing some abstract game really well.

Actually games can make good contribution to computer science in pushing it
to create a good theory of practical complexity. Currently there's only a
good theory of worst case complexity and a passable theory of complexity
of approximating within certain percent of best or worst case. But
practical complexity has to be estimated without really necessarily
knowing the worst case. 

The practical significance is with such a theory computers can have a better feel for strategy, instead of either only planning for the worst case, or using more or less blind (actually guided) search.

P.S. - Arimaa has a nice web-site devoted to it (even has an animated tutorial with music); and has World Championships for humans, and another World Championship for computers (thus encouraging programmers to create a winner). I can see where this game would be difficult to program, after all, do the human programmers even know what is the best strategy/tactic in a given position?

Anyway, time is on the side of the computers.

So, lots of pieces, large board to give those subtle gradations of
positional value, multi-move turns with a mechanism to spread each turn's
moves across the gameboard, scalable... what games are examples of this
[besides Gas Hogs ;-) ]? 

Go is, I believe, still an example of a game that humans play better than
computers. The weak spot in the idea that computers can play any game
better than humans, with the right algorithm, is the algorithm. I would
guess that idea is not proved, and suspect it may not be able to be proved
[Godel is the mystic name I invoke here, for the obvious reason]. But that
is speculation. What is, to the best of my knowledge, true, is that
computers don't play all games equally well now. [Otherwise, we wouldn't
need generals or CEOs, except on gameboards.] So, by providing
'difficult' games for computers, we may encourage better AIs in the
future. :-D 'Gaming has always driven computer design' is to a
considerable extent, a truism. So let's maybe help it along in a slightly
different way, by providing games that need new algorithms.

[Edit] I see Ji is ahead of me. One point he made I only thought of is the amount of time a computer needs to come up with a good move. I lose to Zillions because I tend to attempt to match its speed. While I am beginning to look at 2 possible initial moves, it's already 11 plies down. I'd like a game where a 2 minutes per move time limit was an equal handicap to both me and the computer.

Given enough time a well programmed computer will at least draw humans on
any finite game, that I certainly agree, but there still much utility in
creating games that at this point computers are woefully bad at. At this
moment at least computers think in many ways very differently than humans.
By throwing widely varying situations for computers to master, we develop a
fuller theory of cognition. I think humans should always strive to beat the
computer so as to improve both us and the computer. 

It took over a decade to solve checkers completely, humans are not over at
abstract games yet.

Assuming a computer is in good working order and that it has a program for
the game in question, then if it cannot play the game well, it is only
because it is lacking something in its code.  With refined codes near
optimization - the programs will defeat the humans.  If a human cannot
accept that, then he (or she) can simply play other humans to have a fair
brain-to-brain playing field.

Humans are strategic players, computers are tactical players. Computers can
follow a few pieces in long sequences, humans are better at evaluation
whole board situations. Thus a game where strategy counts and that the
evaluation function quickly engulfs the whole board, would be the hardest
for computers. Another thing would be is that if the differences in the
relative worth of the positions are subtle, and that the resolution is
sufficiently in the end game that the program is forced to evaluate more
positions within any one ply. 

However there is another approach, that is to have a game of sufficiently
high complexity class and sufficiently scalable, then one just need to
increase the size of the board to keep it out of the computer's reach,
especially if the time complexity is beyond exponential, or space
complexity is beyond polynomial. In this kind of game one can think of
leveling as computer and humans battle at increasingly higher levels.

Why the desire/drive to design games computers find it difficult to play?
Competition. I know it's a John Henry sort of thing, at best - especially
since I'm a strong AI proponent. I accept that computers can out-calculate
me in most chess variants. I'm looking for games where people can compete
on more or less even terms with a computer. Not games that computers
can't play, but games that computers can't calculate people to death in.


If I understand correctly, the big advantage that computers have over
people is the ply-depth, or number of moves, the computer can calculate.
What ways are there to make the calculation of ply-depth more difficult
without making things too complex for a human? Or are there any?

Possibly another way to express this is that I'm looking for contests
where the advantage is not all on the computer's side. Computers don't
play complex wargames, with multi-move turns and all the other
paraphernalia they entail, nearly as well as chess. To me, a 'contest'
implies more than 1 side can win. I don't play arithmetic games [eg: Fizz
Buzz or speed-multiplying 2 2-digit numbers] against computers because
there's no contest. I do play games like Sid Meier's Civilization, where
I do have a chance. FIDE seems to have moved from one side of that line to
the other recently. [Lol, maybe what I'm saying is that I could beat the
original chess computers...]

So, not a need, but a desire, and not a superiority but a parity - that's
what I'm hoping for. The best games are those where both sides have a
chance. Since we play against computers so much these days, then at least
some of our design should reflect that, I think. And now, off my soapbox
'til next time. ;-)

Joe, 
Time travel chess will not be a problem because the computer has a record
of all past moves made. Of course it would take some to develop a suitable
algorithm but that game should not pose a problem. 
Kriegspiel  is also no problem (just dont ask me to do program it!) - same
thing here - the computer will be normally better at building many trees of
possible piece placement etc. 
Statistical based games are not a problem, but any game relying on human
psychology will be more of a problem. 

For instance, computers already can play poker well based on starting
hands,bet amounts and even can execute certain types of bluffs but fail
miserably when it comes to detecting bluffs and adjusting to player
styles. 

Go has been touted as been something a computer cannot do well in but I am
not sure if this situation will last. 

And as Gary Gifford said earlier - why the need to invent a game that a
computer can't solve anyhow?

How good a program? 

This is a serious question; if you can make the game more one of pattern
recognition than calculation, can you reduce the computer's ability to
'always' win? 

For example, Gary Gifford's Time Travel Chess [or whatever it's properly
named]; it allows players to go back and change previously-played moves -
how easy is this to program? 

The 'dark' chesses, those with imperfect information, they are more
difficult, and the computer would have to play those more like a wargame,
which has possibly perfect piece information, but semi-random combat
results. The computer has to use a more statistical approach to moves
there, and I would think it would also [have to] use a more statistical
approach in Kriegspiel, which is exactly opposite - totally determined
combat but unknown piece placement. So I'd suspect variants designed to
be more like wargames might reduce the computer's ability to crush its
human opponent. Others have disagreed.

What types of chess variants are hard to program?

Chess (orthodox chess or 'FIDE') is very hard to master and a very
difficult game to compete in. The real reason most give up on chess is
because there is too much competition and to get an 'edge' one must be
sufficiently knowledgeable in opening theory (but not excessively
memorizing lines as this does NOT improve play), constantly analyze past
games with the help of a computer and also analyze high level games
played. Not to mention constant practice. 
Online resources are normally filled with players playing in realtime
especially 2/12  5/12 blitz.

Any chess variant with same rules but with extra pieces with sufficient
popularity will reach this stage (though larger board games it would be
difficult for humans to memorize as much lines). 
Computers aid most modern chess players in analyzing games and do not
contribute to any 'decline' in chess except in the eyes of spectators
not too familiar with chess who may not respect the chess player for been
beaten by a computer. 
Computer programming has advanced sufficiently that a program can be
written for any game that relies on perfect information. 

Computers are only behind in games with psychological aspects such as
poker. 

The effect of computers on chess popularity - None, except to serve as a
useful learning tool.

Hey we started this Chessboard Math thread, so we can add irrelevantly and
irreverently as follows. Devise a test for top-50 Grandmaster X (or K).
Set up certain moves from actual play at various stages, say 20 boards
altogether.  Some are Computer-Computer, some Human-Human, and
Computer-Human. Be sure the chosen 'X' or 'K' has used the phrase
''computer move'' before. The test is to determine whether given
moves, numbering 20 in the test, all from different game-scores one of
each, is *Computer Move*.  Most likely they cannot tell, better than expectation 10 of 20, and such talk is bluster.  Turing test anyone?

What is style? Are there styles of individual designers in their CVs, their chosen artwork? The last sentence below returns to ''style.'' Because Computers play 8x8 so well definitely led to my losing interest in reading any more standard Chess books by 1990's for improvement. What Computers do better than we can has affect on our motivations, everyone in varying degree and according to subject. Why play FIDE Chess anymore when purchased program wins every time?  Many decide not to play for the very reason. To repeat from the other thread, surely most of the
vanishing interest in Mad Queen is attributable to Computer dominance. (The Comment separates the subject, repeating somewhat, from their Piece Values thread.) Will Computer eventually write entire books to be published during this 21st Century? Could Computers yet find palindromes ''Never odd or even'' or ''Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?'' Of course, but not without the motivation to do so. So let us systematically remove the motivation for certain computer projects, if it impinges upon dignity. Are there CVs they will not master? Greg Strong mentions types of Chess that programs have difficulty with. Do Computers have style anyway? Evidently they do, from analyis in Chess blogs about Computer vs. Computer matches. The complaint by Grandmasters is often also that somehow their Chess play lacks style, or their style is unappealing, evinced in phrase ''Computer move,'' as if that means something somewhat derogatory.

I am not sure about full aspect of the two comments. I played occasionally in
Duplicate Bridge tournaments as undergrad at Harvard in our Winthrop House
Dining Room. Would that change the test with computers, Duplicate all
playing same hands, unlike Contract?  How could Johnson be so far off? Johnson's column is on Duplicate, and actually the sentence is the only one I lopped off last words:
''The bridge computer programs aren't even close, since the game is so
much harder to program with all the hidden variables and psychological
factors.'' -- J.J. 25.May.2008. Psychological factors at Duplicate in
long tournament, Computer is not yet so advanced maybe to play without
human intervening on behalf. Our task though is to ask, is it not terrible  problem that most of our 3000 Chess games, with programming attention,
Computer can rise soon to the top; so why not start re-designing to deal with that some way? [The same Wikipedia article GG reads also says ''In comparison to computer Chess, computer Bridge is in its infancy. The question whether Bridge-playing programs will reach world-class levels in foreseeable future is not easy to answer.'' Whereas Chess programs the likes of Kramnik already will not play anymore; so it is matter of emphasis, the Bridge 360-385 loss being probably sound defeat, and Johnson's wording about right that ''Computer not close'' to be any time soon.]

And today's top programs, as would be expected, have high national bridge rankings. In 2005 and 2006 a Dutch bridge magazine (IMP) discussed matches between five-time computer bridge world champion Jack and 7 top Dutch pairs (including the European champions of the time). The program defeated three out of the seven pairs (including the European champions). Overall, the program lost by a small margin (359 versus 385 imps).

George, I am told that Bridge, fine game though it is, is also in decline;
and a visit to a tournament will often see screens erected in front of
players to prevent cheating by the use of signalling – a poor sight
indeed.  Western Chess may be (slowly) dying but so too will Contract
Bridge.

G. Nicholls

We thought, well great, here is some original topical Chess material for
once, instead of CVPage esoterica or the standard columns and blogs
promoting dead or dying FIDE Chess, owned by Computer. But wait, it is not
Mike Henroid's weekly column but the Bridge(!) column by Jared Johnson
next to it 25.May.2008 with the interesting content in local paper. Writes
Bridge expert Johnson, ''Both chess and bridge are great games, but
interest in top-flight chess seems to be waning for one major reason. Most
Chess games among experts result in draws -- and that's boring. You rarely
have ties in bridge. ....  Whereas Chess has just two opponents facing each
other, a bridge event can have dozens or hundreds of pairs, so no one is
playing for a Draw. Another problem with Chess is that the standard range
of opening moves has become so thoroughly analyzed and predictable, you
just don't get much excitement. Not so at Bridge. You get the occasional
dull deal, but the next hand might be seven hearts, six clubs and 17 high
card points. If they really do want to rejuvenate Chess, some new
approaches are needed. Computers have already beaten world champions at
Chess. The bridge computer programs aren't even close, since the game is
so much harder to program with all the hidden variables.  Knowing that a
machine can beat a man has been one more blow to Chess. At Bridge the
humans are still on top. .... Meanwhile, Bridge players will pick up their
next hand with fair confidence that most of the time the complete deal
will be something they've never seen before. And there will be a winner.
And a loser.''

Hereclitian-Calvinball is coming to my mind here again.  The question again
I will ask is whether or not these set rules can be combined in an infinite
number of configruations

Lasswitz's Universal Library (1901) settles on 100 different characters
and each volume 40 lines per page, 50 characters per line etc.: 10^6
characters per volume. We want to express in ''print'' everything which
can ever be said, be it scientific or metaphysical. How many volumes are
required? In the Library, Lasswitz asserts, are the lost works of Tacitus
and all the future works of everybody as well. One volume has the ''space
repeated one million times.'' Another goes that way until one 'a' at the
end of line 40, page 500. The CV counterpart might be Large one-dimensional
Chess with one shared royal Alfil. 
In 13th Century, Lullus' device used concentric rings, to be turned to
bring inscribed words into new arrangements: Blood is *blue* *green*
*purple* *red*. Other investigators followed. Giordano Bruno, Athanasius
Kirchner, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Leibnitz's calculating machine,
reducing the problem, performed addition, division, roots, exhibited at
London in 1763.  Kempelen's chess-playing 'automaton' Turk, invented
1769, debuted at London 1783. [See previous here] Symbolic logic,
combinatorics, game theory, computer algorithms. No infinity. Instead,
perfectly finite number whether volumes, game Rules-sets, languages,
within certain defined parameters only so many possible arrangements.
Variously, according to aspects and whether we count books or sheets: as
many as 10^2000000 (Books) or as few as 25^1000 (Sheets). Herewith strict 500 pages or equivalent, although notionally a Variant could postulate 501 pages. A fortiori, within hundred-square space or less there can be only finite Rules-sets likewise because they one and all are circumscribed or subsumed within finite wording and characters. [Source: ''Postscript to 'The Universal Library' '' by Willy Ley]

The Universal Library. Not without reason we associate every possible CV
with a name. Every word or phrase actually in any language, known or
unknown. 'The Universal Library' by Kurd Lasswitz was written as
serio-satiric fiction in 1901. Cannot the first Chess Variant be taken as
one of those in the Alfonso Manuscript year 1283? For Mathematics itself at
same time, Spanish-Majorcan Ramon Lully (1235-1315), Raimundus Lullus,
articulated the earliest version of the Universal Library. If we take one
characteristic of something, Lully postulates, and state all the
possibilities, we must of necessity state the Truth too. One modern
version asks, how long will it take Chimpanzee (or Computer?) to type out
fully-correct version of 'Faust', 'Don Quixote' or ''The Tempest''? A
recent Comment -- ridiculing the infinity of CVs -- points out there are  huge but finite number possible states of the Universe. In Physics also, dispensing
with Time is explored by Julian Barbour's 'The End of Time'(1999), 
sentences of which introduce ''Chess Morality XVII: Turning Rhyme.''

In ''Defining the Abstract'' Mark Thompson discovers four timeless
factors defining a CV (or game, or formal axiomatic systems if one will).  Namely, Clarity, Decisiveness, Drama, Depth. The tradeoffs are apparent.
Which are markedly like polar opposites? Which paired opposites in tension forever try to drag the other down, in the quest for coherence?  Which
reduces or offsets  the other one's effectiveness in any design? Go ahead
and guess, there being only the three possibilities. Why obviously, Depth
versus Clarity, and secondly Decisiveness versus Drama, as Thompson
enunciates. Think predator versus prey: more depth means less clarity by
and large. Or like balancing an equation: if less decisive then more
dramatic, by some rule of balance. Observe a binary star system's unending tug-of-war: an abstract game's play-offs. Two-body problems three- four-,
multi-. ''Defining the Abstract'' appears to have been written for
short-lived website 'Games Journal' in 1990's.

We started this thread with the following, then went through some exotic
pieces reported by Martin Gardner decades ago, covered other topics,
whereupon discovering 'The Turk' (2002), are still absorbing Tom
Standage's last chapters relating it all to computer dominance today by
such as IBM's Deep Blue. >>> ''World's first binary computer?
Chessboard 64-square uses Rook & Bishop moves [Add. algorithm: depict
each number across a rank by 'R' counters, then use Rook moves to slide
all the representations to Rank 1; right to left, replace 'doubles' by 1
a___b___c___d___e___f___g___h  to left until each first-rank square
 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___   is binary 1 or 0, where a 'Rook' is '1'.
 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___   Bishop-like Multiplication to left shows
 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___   chess-computer-abacus 19x13 (differing
 ___ ___ ___b___ ___ ___b___b 1 procedure than Addition). After place-
 ___ ___ ___b___ ___ ___b___b 1 ment, Bishop-counters are to move dia-
 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___    gonally left downward. Moves become B d4-
 ___ ___ ___B___ ___ ___B___B 1 a1, B d3-b1, g4-d1, g3-e1, h4-e1, h3-f1,
128 64  32  16  8   4   2   1   making first rank now:
 B  B      BB  BB   B   B   B   And again replacing the 'doubles' with
one to each pair's adjacent left: BBBB_BBB = 11110111 = 247 (Base 10).
--Method of John Napier (1617) 'Rabdologia', including also Subtraction,
Division and Extracting Roots on 64-square chessboard, Sc. Amer. 1985.''

Appearances are deceptive. History-text orthodox versions never tell the
whole, or hidden, story. Befitting our larger scheme of things, on the
very same day as the Chicago fire 8.Oct.1871, the greatest recorded fire
in North American history separately took place, over 600 times larger area than that urbanized Chicago Fire, raging across 1.5 million acres, 6666 square kilometres of Northern Wisconsin and upper Michigan. French trappers and Christian fundamentalists had 'opened' the region, nothwithstanding already being occupied, and there followed slash-and-burn methods on old-growth forests, in order to build Chicago, the altered environment then making fires ripe. Now in 1857 Silas Mitchell published in 'Chess Monthly' the secret of the Turk's operation. How worked this 85-year-long intrigue convincingly by mostly Cafe de la Regence Chess professionals fully cooperating with the wily Maelzel? [ Recondite footnote: Each individual year mod 17 equals one(1): 1769(Turk construction), 1837(Morphy), 1854(fire), 1871(fires)...2007; and they all chance to be actual seventeen-year Cicada (order Orthoptera) years entomologically in the field (Brood XIII), a one-month-every-seventeen-years phenomenon still observed spectacularly by inhabitants midcontinent North America. The correspondence to Chessic milestones? Merely useful mnemonics, or literary device not suggestive of latter-day agency. ]

Maelzel had performed the Turk at New Orleans for months 1837 before
embarking to Havana, Cuba, his final destination. Born at New Orleans the
same year 1837, Paul Morphy(1837-1884) won matches with all the leading
English masters. At Cafe de la Regence, Morphy defeated Daniel Harrwitz.
Also at Paris Morphy defeated German Adolph Anderssen and so became
accepted world Chess champion by 1859.  With his French background, Morphy was, after all, returning home. According to Tom Standage's 'The Turk'
(2002), Silas Mitchell witnessed the fire broken out July 5, 1854, at the
National Theatre, Philadelphia, spread to the Chinese Museum, housing the
Turk. Mitchell, ''standing helpless amid the fire's crackling wood and
shattering glass'' would hear the Turk's last words -- ''Echec!
Echec!'' The Automaton Turk (1769-1854, 85 years: 17x5). Seventeen more
years later, the USA most notable conventionally-recognized fire ever, the Chicago fire October 8, 1871, destoyed many square kilometres -- surpassing even Napoleon's seige of Moscow 1812 -- the common comparison made at the time.

E.A.Poe wrote, ''Yet the question of its modus operandi is still undetermined. It is quite certain that the operations of the Automaton are regulated by mind and by nothing else.'' And Poe wrote: ''Maelzel has a peculiar shuffle with his feet, calculated to induce the suspicion of collusion with the machine in minds which are more cunning than sagacious.'' Poe speculated ''that it would be only slightly more difficult to build a machine capable of winning all games
than a machine capable of winning some games.'' --Tom Standage 'The Turk' 2002.   Biographer Harvey Allen wrote, '' 'Maelzel's Chess-Player' was the first of Poe's works in which he emerged as the unerring, abstract reasoner, and foreshadowed the method he followed later in his detective stories such as 'The Murders in the Rue Morgue' -- a method which has been embalmed in the triumphs of Sherlock Holmes.''
Dr. Silas Mitchell, who had attended as a child, recalled that ''the
Turk, with his oriental silence and rolling eyes, would haunt your nightly visions for many an evening thereafter.'' Maelzel died at sea out of
Havana, Cuba, ''as the ship approached Charleston'' [soon to be site of first battle of USA Civil War]. Professor John Kearsley Mitchell, E.A.Poe's sometimes benefactor, bought the Turk at auction. So, the Turk passed from Napoleon's stepson Eugene de Beauharnais' estate directly to Poe's family doctor. But mixed-up crates contained pieces of Maelzel's other automata and missing parts, Maelzel's final stratagem.   --Standage 'The Turk' 2002

From Standage 'The Turk' 2002:  ''Played with the automaton,'' wrote
Babbage, ''He gave Pawn and the move. Automaton won in about an
hour.'' Visiting Pierre-Simon Laplace, Babbage saw for the first time
the mathematical tables computed by hand under Gaspard de Prony. Later in
1821 Babbage, comparing with friend John Herschel, two
independently-calculated astronomical tables exclaimed, ''I wish to God
these calculations could be executed by steam.'' ''He decided to
act,'' says Standage, sketching out how calculating machine might
work. Hence, the genesis of Babbage's first mechanical computer, the
Difference Engine. More complex Analytic Engine, to rely on punch cards,
copying method of Joseph Jaquard (whose loom used cards for weaving
patterns), was according to Standage ''inarguably the earliest ancestor
of the modern digital computer: It had direct mechanical equivalents of a
modern computer's processor and memory. Babbage even devised a symbolic
notation with which to write programs for it.''   
Questioning whether the Turk was pure machine, ''Babbage started to
wonder whether genuine Chess-playing machine could, in fact, be
built.''

6 March 1819.  From Tom Standage 'The Turk' 2002: Maelzel's handbill
(1819-1820) declared that the Turk, giving odds of Pawn and move, would be displayed together with the automaton trumpeter and the Conflagration of
Moscow. ''The view is from an elevated station on the fortress of the
Kremlin, at the moment when the inhabitants are evacuating the capital of
the czars, and the head of the French columns commences entry. The gradual progress of the fire, the hurrying bustle of the fugitives, the eagerness
of the invaders, and the din of warlike sounds impress the
spectator...'' ''as a combination of 'the arts of design, mechanism, and music, so as to produce, by novel imitation of Nature, perfect facsimile of the real scene'.''  Simultaneously, Maelzel offered for sale his patent of the Beethoven-endorsed Metronomes in order to purchase rental right from Eugene de Beauharnais, Napoleon's stepson, the Turk's owner for its ongoing use. The Turk continued to beat the most skillful chessplayers in Europe, inspiring discussion about possibility for machine intelligence. Computer pioneer Charles Babbage saw the Turk play at Spring Gardens on March 6, 1819. ''The automaton played very well and had an excellent game in the opening. He gave check-mate by Philidor's Legacy,'' wrote Babbage. ''The following year on February 12, 1820, Babbage went to see the Turk again at St. James' Street and challenged it to a game.''    --Standage 'The Turk' 2002

Tom Standage book 'The Turk' 2002: ''[In 1770] Before the audience Kempelen announced that he had built a machine the likes of which had never been seen: an automaton Chess player. ....wheels, cogs, levers, large horizontal cylinder of protruding studs similar to that found in a clockwork music box.''   And ''Edmund Cartwright had just seen the Turk in London. Surely, he reasoned, if it was possible to construct machine capable of playing Chess, it ought to be possible to build an
automatic loom.'' [patented 1787]   And ''There are numerous accounts
of Napoleon's match with the Turk. As young man in the 1790s, Napoleon
played Chess in the Cafe de la Regence in Paris. Johann Nepomuk Maelzel [who bought it by 1809] set up the Turk in the apartment of the Prince de Neufcha^tel, Napoleon's most trusted general. 'The Emperor went there, and I followed him,' recalled Constant in his 1830 memoirs.'' 
  ''The Turk was purchased by Napoleon's stepson, Eugene de Beauharnais sometime between 1809 and 1812. Eugene was the son of Napoleon's wife Josephine by her previous husband (who had been guillotined in 1794).''  
 ''On June 21, 1813, the French army was defeated by the duke of Wellington at Vitoria. News of the victory inspired Maelzel to hatch a plan. He would commission new piece of music for the [automaton] Panharmonicon to mark the occasion. Maelzel jotted down rough outline of such piece and asked Beethoven to write it for him. The composer readily agreed.''  And ''Beethoven was initially skeptical about the metronome but changed his mind and started marking his scores with 'M.M.' (Maelzel Metronome) and number to indicate correct tempo setting.''  Moving exhibition to London, Maelzel augmented his display of the Turk (now Eugene's) ''with his diorama, the Conflagration of Moscow, and the Panharmonicon.''  ''Maelzel subsequently modified the speaking apparatus for trip to France so that the Turk said 'Echec' instead, and thereafter the Turk spoke French.'' --all from Standage

Lo! and behold. 'Rock/Fire/Scissors/Paper/Rock/Fire/Scissors...'
represents Rook/Falcon/Bishop/Knight...  So, the old selection game of
Rock, Scissors and Paper has unobserved element 'Fire' now (also Water,
Fire, Air, Earth). Moreover, math equation 'e to the (pi, i) equals minus
one' corresponds exactly and appropriately, in order, with 'e' as Rook
(base 10), pi as Bishop, i as Knight (for its different imaginary  mode), and 'minus one' as Falcon (summation & resultant). In fact, wider numerical, scientific and mythological matches emerged  about year 2000 eight years later: 
Sun     Sunday       Gold Au   Great Pyramid    Falcon        Electra(F) 
Moon    Monday       Silver Ag Artemis' Temple  Dove,Chicken  Merope(P) 
Mars    Tu(martes)   Iron Fe   Colossus Rhodes  Hawk          Sterope(N) 
Mercury Wednesday    Hg        Lighthouse Pharos  Vulture     Maia(B)  
Jupiter Thursday     Tin Sb    Statue of Zeus   Bird of Jove  Taygete(K) 
Venus   Fri(viernes) Copper Cu Hanging Gardens  Bird-Goddess  Alcyone(Q)
Saturn  Saturday     Lead Pb   Mausoleum        Rook, Parrot, Calaeno(R)
                     [V]       [X]              [IX]  or Raven            
 The last column lists the classical Pleiades, whose respective histories
and personalities correlate with the 7 pieces.
Then also exist the seven 'animals' in order: Falcon(F), Lamb(P),
Horse(N), Elephant(B), Lion or Scorpion(K), Totemic Hawk(Q), and
Serpent(R) out of Poem XV ''Piece Offering.''

Still 1783, in London, expert Philip Thicknesse's article in the 'Monthly
Review' declares, ''That an Automaton may be made to move its hand, its
head, and its eyes, in certain and regular motions, is past all doubt; but that an AUTOMATON can be made to move the Chessmen properly, as a
pugnacious player, in consequence of the preceding move of a stranger, who undertakes to play against it, is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE. Wolfgang von Kempelen's machine, when he is stripped of his Turkish robes, turned out of his splendid apartment, deprived of the serious deportment of all the parties, and parade of admittance, is a simple trick.'' [No one much agreed.] ''By diversionary tactics, the display of the Turk's clockwork innards was ingenious device to delude observers that every spectator should think he was secretly controlling the automaton by some incomprehensible and invisible powers, according to the preceding move of the stranger who plays; and he places himself close to the right elbow of the Turk, previous to its move; then puts his left hand into his coat pocket, and by an awkward kind of motion, induces most people to believe that he has a magnet concealed in his pocket, by which he can direct the movement of the Turk's arm. Add to this, that he has a cabinet on a side-table, which he now and then unlocks and locks, a candle burning, and a key to wind up the Automaton; all of which are merely to puzzle the spectators. The real mover is concealed in the Counter, which is quite large enough (exclusive of the clockwork) to contain a child of ten years of age, who could play well by using a mirror or see all the moves through the Turk's habit.''  --All above quotes of Thicknesse from Tom Standage 'The Turk' 2002, who adds ''His pamphlet did not dent the Turk's popularity during the months spent in London.'' Kempelen would often leave the Automaton to play several moves while chatting in the audience.

Pietro Carrera died in 1646, and in the 1680's the Cafe de la Regence was
founded in Paris. Intellectuals Voltaire, Rousseau, Ben Franklin, Napoleon Bonaparte visited the coffeehouse over the years, where ''the game of
Chess is played best'' according to Diderot. There in 1783 Wolfgang von
Kempelen brought for public demonstration the chess player automaton: The Turk. The Turk could perform Knight's Tours faster even than the great Francois-Andre Danican Philidor, author of 'Analyse du jeu des Echecs'. Franklin there as signatory to the Treaty of Paris ending American Revolution, lost a game played to the freestanding Turk. Though winning, Philidor was terrified in principle of a chess-playing machine. Savants' articles in the journal for the French Academy of Sciences speculated that the cylinder inside must encode ''sets of preprogrammed chess moves.''   
     ''As it made each move, the Turk's gloved left hand moved over the board so that it was positioned above a particular chessman. Its fingers would then close to grasp the piece and move it to another square (or off the board entirely). After making each move, the automaton rested its arm on the cushion, at which point the sound of whirring clockwork would cease. The Turk moved its head under certain circumstances during the game. After a move endangering its opponent's Queen, the Turk would nod its head twice; and when placing the King in check, it would nod three times. Every ten or twelve moves Kempelen returned to the left-hand side of the cabinet to wind up the clockwork mechanism.'' --Tom Standage, 'The Turk' 2002    Year 1783 also saw in southern France the first-ever successful demonstration of flight in a hot-air balloon.

For fun, we wonder what is average of CVP 'Recognized' list of 39. For
comparisons, we hold in mind, loosely or closely, most of 4000 CVs here,
and many others from 'ECV' and Patents, by having skimmed or studied
them. Unavoidably, subjectivity intrudes any such educated evaluation, for ex., some liking Shogi to which we are averse for complex Rules.  Standards vary by novelty, historicity, priority, playability and 10-100 other
factors occurring. Hey not exact Science. 8.0-10 Excellent, 6.0-7.9
Good... Result: Chess 9.9, Xiangqi 9.6, Shogi 5.5, Alice 8.3 (1950s), Berolina 8.5 (1920s), Korean 9.0 (presuming X. pre-dates), Courier 9.5, Glinski 8.2 (1930s), Kriegspiel 9.0 (1890s), Losing 5.6, Marseillais 7.3, Pocket Knight 6.0, Progressive 7.4, Raumschach 9.3 (19-aughts still best 3d), Avalanche 6.3, Bughouse 7.0, C.Different.Armies 9.0 (1970s), Crazyhouse 5.1, Extinction 6.9, FRC 5.3 (not original), Grand 1.0, Hostage 6.1, Minishogi 5.7, Omega 2.1, Smess 8.2 (commercial), Ultima 8.8, Wildebeest 8.0 (1980s), AntiKingII  5.7 (not original), Crazy38s 4.1, FlipC&FShogi 6.7, Magnetic 8.0, McCooeysHex 6.3 (1970s), PocketMutation 1.7, Shatranj 9.5, Chaturanga4Players 9.5, Tamerlane 8.9, Los Alamos 8.8 (1950s computer), DragonChess 8.4, Trid(Star Trek) 8.5(latter two with well-known connection).  The all-around average is 7.1, having previously speculated 6.8, solidly in the 'Good' category.

LOL!

So, anyone's prerogatives here being to post even average work and also to
evaluate, Joe Joyce's three CVs appear respectively in the lowest
pentile(Falcon King), fourth pentile(Chieftain), and middle pentile(GS), out of total 4000 CVs (1000 of them being Large CVs). Before he left, Fergus Duniho criticized CVPage's own Recognized list for inclusion of some 'Acclaimed' ones, as Crazy38s etc.  JJoyce and others have also panned CVP Recognized 35-40 for being obsolescent, new listings suspended again for two years. In fact, so-called 'Recognized', though historically interesting, are practically worthless as quality-CV markers. Its list is short on Large Chesses, and at least two, Grand and Omega, are among the very 'Poor', the lowest decile (10%). Of course, some out of the 40 are 'Excellent', as in most any random sample. Maybe all forty would average 6.8 out of 10. The following now add to our last Comment this thread (before Blue Queen), the three large CVs(>= 72 squares): Tetrahedral(2003), Weave & Dungeon(2002), Jester(1999). Previously, these our own selections had all-large-CVs Rococo, Maxima, Jacks & Witches, 3-Player, Gridlock(satire), Eight-Stone, Sissa, Carrera's(the first of its kind), Courier, Grand Acedrex, Gala, Jetan(science fiction also), Novo, Centennial, Chess Really Big Board, Leaping/Missing Bat, Quintessential, AltOrthHex, Ecumenical, Achernar, Altair, Hanga Roa, 4 Armies, Giant King, Insect, Nomic(various). A few, just about as good, are now casually dropped; and also couple of historical ones were really already 'Recognized', creating some overlap(as CVPage overlaps Pritchard's 'ECV'). These are put forth as falling in the top two pentiles anyway, not all necessarily Excellent, making all-around average 7.5-8.9, above the CVPage's democratically-chosen lowest-common-denominator type of inclusions.

Thanks Jeremy. I was thinking maybe the opposite: mandatory move one
piece/pawn PLUS move Blue Queen. That solves annoying keeping track of
two-fold repetition too. So two moves each side per turn, still
stipulating no Pawn capture by Blue Queen without being attacked by same.
That maybe keeps Rules simple as possible, and player can concentrate on
strategy. (Incidentally, that would be our overriding critique of the newer mini-era of 2003-2006 Gilman-Joyce-Gifford upstarts: slightly too many Rules per game (by just one or two or three) detract with player's having constantly to re-interpret Rules, in turn dimming stratego-tactical concentration; needless to say, that never happened in the RBetza era circa 1985-2002.)

Abdul-Rahman's 'one best Decimal(100 squares)' temporarily put on hold,
these are 28 Excellent Large CVs, 72+: Rococo, Maxima; Altair, Jacks & Witches; 3-Player Chess(patent), Big Board, Gridlock(satire), Eight-Stone, Sissa; the following historical ones, Carrera's (since its derivatives get the attention), Courier, Grande Acedrex, Gala, Jetan, Novo; Centennial, Cagliostro's, Chess on a Really Big Board, Leaping/Missing Bat, Quintessential, Hanga Roa, AltOrth Hex, Ecumenical, Achernar, 4 Armies, Giant King, Insect, Nomic(various).

Besides Maharajah and Sepoys, Martin Gardner books of S.A. columns have
many Chess examples. MG features this one by Lord Dunsany, who drew
Capablanca in simultaneous exhibition 1920's.  White (small letters) to 
  R__N__B__K__Q__B__N__R    play and mate in four. This is legal position
  P__P__P__P__P__P__P__P    that could occur in actual play of mad-Queen,
   __ __ __ __ __ __ __     'FIDE', Chess.
   __ __ __ __ __ __ __
   __ __ __ __ __ __ __     kcalB no gnieb ton neeuQ kcalB :noitanalpxE
   __ __ __ __ __ __ __     kcalB os, devom evah  K & Q snaem erauqs
   __ __ __ __ __ __ __     morf noitisop tneserp rieth dehcaer snwaP
  r__n__b__q__k__b__n__r                      .draob fo edis rehto
  h  g  f  e  d  c  b  a      Therefore (actually Move 40, or 60),
                              1 N-d7
If ...N-h3, mate in two more moves.
If ...N-f3, mate in three more moves.

Blue Queen becomes playable with the proviso that Blue Queen can only
capture a Pawn threatening her. Blue Queen cannot actually be captured
even by a Pawn threatening her. Of course, there is no capture of Blue Queen at all simply because the one Blue Queen belongs to the player currently moving. So, the 'Pawn threat' is  hypothetical, based on Pawn's
one-step diagonal-forward capture, with respect to the present position of Blue Queen. It prevents easy Pawn captures. Otherwise BQ moves like normal mad Queen including piece captures, checks and checkmate. Second mini-Rule is there can be no two-fold repetition. Two-fold repetition is not Draw, just dis-allowed and another move must be made instead. This prevents shuffling Blue Queen back and forth, but must also apply to moves not involving BQ, so caution for end-games. Those two requirements should move Blue Queen from thought experiment in games journal(originating 1950's) to playable game.

Where are J K Lewis' piece values, Joe? It helps to familiarize with Ralph
Betza's 'Ideal & Practical Values I-VI'. How many years went into those 2001 articles, now a covenant? Later lists just build on Betza variables from 1990's and 1980's. However, Betza likes to compare pieces pairwise not whole CVs. In system to point-count entire game, available so far are elementary (1) Use unit Pawns 1.0, or 1.1 (2) Where practicable, Rook value & up, ignoring the other pieces, put piece X on empty board with 2 Kings and opposite-colour Pawns, and shuffle them around until finding Pawn-equivalence. These end-game positions are Joyce's  reproducible 'many positions' versus '1 specific position'.  Who should win to left? Trying 10, or 30, positions, we are interested in typical not 
 __ __ __ __ __ __ __    extreme cases with few pieces/pawns. Its experts
 __ __ __ __K__ __ __    know who wins, but move one or two Pawns at a
 __ __ __ __P__ __ __    time one or two spaces, and it goes the other
 __ __P__P__ __P__P__    way.  Pawn Equivalence, Rook = 5.0. There are
 __ __ __ __ __ __ __    in mad-Queen (40+40 points)/ 64 squares
 __ __ __ __ __ __ __     = 80/64 = 1.25.  Should we always distribute
 __r__ __ __k__ __ __    points so that there are approximately 1.25 
 __ __ __ __ __ __ __    the number of squares? So CVs may be like Bridge
hands: the total point-count for bidding in system of all four 13-card hands includes 40 high-card points plus short-suit counts of 5 or 10 or 12 more: 52 points/52 cards = 1.0.  [Whole history of Bridge postdates Capablanca Chess]

To make Blue Queen playable game and more than thought experiment, just
stipulate Blue-painted Queen cannot capture a Pawn unless attacked by that Pawn. Invented 1950's, Blue Queen moves like mad Queen, starts at one of
the four central squares, and belongs to whichever side is currently
moving. The limited Pawn prohibition and otherwise Queen-normality should
make nice game akin to Lavieri's Promoter Chess, but Blue Queen
presumably equally helps as hurts(hey symmetry). Interesting. Finding
proliferation extremely offensive, we just file this variate here.

What goes around comes around. Which is more Elegant formalization below?
More generalizable, or uplifting, or just clearer? And where is the attribution? Invented in 1970's, Conway's Angel leaps to any square reachable by n King moves. With n = 7, Angel covers 8x8 board; a specific square(4,6) is one at opposite corner of '4,6 rectangle' -- Charles Gilman's 'Gimel'. Thus, CVPage, ever recycling known quantities, by Gilman's 'From Ungulates Outward' transposes problem-theme Classic Angel into following (including non-pre-established names): 12 Wazir, 22 Ferz, 13 Dabbabah, 23 Knight, 33 Alfil, 13 Trebouchet, 24 Camel, 34 Zebra, 25 Giraffe, 35 Satyr, 45 Antelope, 46 Gimel, 56 Rector, 27 Flamingo, 67 Parson, 44 Tripper, 55 Commuter, 66 Quitter, 14 Cobbler, 15 Quibbler; also unnamed 16, 26, 36, 17, 37, 47, 57, 77.

Piece-values: for pieces of Rook value+, first find Pawn-equivalence.
8  K___P___P___P___P___P___P___P   A = Angel, leaps to any square reached
7  P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P   in n King moves(Conway), n=7 8x8
6  P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P   P = Black Pawns     Why 'any value>
5  P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P   1.0' & then assign 60.0? Because A
4  P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P   on 8x8 sets up in illegal position(!)
3  P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P   and so not properly rated. Arriving
2  P___P___P___P___P___P___ ___a   anyway at '60 pts.': 60 Black Pawns,
1  P___P___P___P___P___P___P___k   White goes first h2-f8 Checkmate.
   a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   If instead Black moves first,
g3-g2 Check (ignoring activation of Angel's simultaneous check by special
rule that Angel must move) and after h2xg2, f3xg2, capturing Angel, Black
is to win. So equivalence of 60(or 59)Pawns and one Angel(58 or 60)
8  P___P___P___P___K___P___P___P   Unlike Angel, Angel-prime(n=6) is bona
7  P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P   fide piece on 8x8. Legal initial,
6  P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P   no promotion of course. 47 Pawns beat
5  P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P   A-p and King, but remove several
4  P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P   forward Pawns and A-prime soon finds
3  P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P   a square six removed from King,
2   ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___    checkmate, proving A-p 39-41 points.
1   ___ ___ ___a___k___ ___ ___

World's first binary computer? Chessboard 64-square uses Rook and Bishop
moves. [Addition algorithm: depict each number to add across a rank by
'R' counters, then use Rook moves to slide all the representations to
Rank 1; right to left, replace any and all 'doubles' by one to left, 
  ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___    continuing until each first-rank square
  ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___    is binary 1 or 0, where a 'Rook' is 
  ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___    '1']  Bishop-like multiplication to
  ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___    left shows chess-computer-abacus' 19x13
  ___ ___ ___b___ ___ ___b___b 1  operation (differing procedure than for
  ___ ___ ___b___ ___ ___b___b 1  Addition).  After placement, Bishop-
  ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___  0  counters are to move diagonally left
  ___ ___ ___B___ ___ ___B___B 1  downward. Moves become b d4-a1,
128  64  32  16  8   4   2   1     b d3-b1, b g4-d1, b g3-e1, 
 a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h     b h4-e1 and b h3-f1, making first Rank now:   B___B___ ___BB__BB___B___B___B  and again replacing the 'doubles' with  just one to each pair's adjacent left:
           B___B___B___B___ ___B___B___B  =   11110111  = 247(base 10)
          --Method of John Napier in 1617 'Rabdologia', including also
Subtraction, Division and Extracting Square Roots on chessboard, improves
Middle Age calculating methods: 'bank' deriving from German counting
board, Rechenbank.  Scientific American 1985