[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
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?
I looked at the home page for Seirawan Chess
http://www.seirawanchess.com/
The new plastic pieces (Hawk and Elephant) look very nice. But, I would have preferred that these pieces kept their earlier names (as we see in Capablanca and Gothic Chess and many other variants) and that they kept logical designs which reflect their piece movement, as in Gothic Chess pieces. When I see an Elephant I think of the one from Shatranj, or even the modern Elephant... but certainly not a Bishop-Knight. Seeing an Elephant move like a Bishop or Knight seems terrible to me.
Initial impression I am getting from the designers of this is that they don't want to have anything to do with the variant community. I will hopefully be able to confirm, but apparently they don't want their game changed in any way. They also don't want their game anywhere near the variant community. This being said, IAGO/IAGO World Tour may be forced to come up with its own game with the Capablanca pieces, on an 8x8 board. The version would use gating, and the objective is have things set up so that the game can continue to evolve and adapt as needed. The game would belong to the chess world, to agree on how it is, and avoid falling into the trap FIDE has, where lines of play get spelled out too much, and it becomes draw-prone. My hope is that this version gets an ok to be accepted by IAGO by the designers, and they allow for variants off of it. But, if they don't, we will still use the drop. I am working up the rules now for this, and once dust settles, I can post it. One way or the other, I want IAGO Chess to end up being a leading game for the variant community to rally behind and make their own.
If the gating issue does not work you could always use the Trojan Horse method to get the Chancellor, ArchBishop, Amazon etc on to an 8x8 board. The end-result can be made to achieve the same effect (see Shatranj of Troy for an example of how the Horse works. However... you would not want to simply recreate the Seirawan game... it would need a different setup or different pieces to avoid plagiarism.
Actually, by using the Trojan Horse you could drop the Chancellor or ArchBishop or Amazon (etc)on a square other than the horse's initial starting point. You could also stipulate ... 'must be droped not passed the 4th rank,' or something like that if you wanted to avoid drops within the opponent's camp. The Trojan Horse method was introduce in my Catapults of Troy several years ago... I do not know if there are any earlier examples...
I like the definition, except (D) looks like a drop, rather than gate. Perhaps one could argue that pawn promotion is a form of gating, if the gating space is not empty.
You are correct about 'd' being a standard Shogi drop.
I am afraid that I have to agree with George Duke's well articulated POOR comment. RN and BN too powerful on an 8x8 board with only 8 pawns to 10 pieces. Disagree with George only in that I believe Omega plays excellent compared to this shoddy little variant getting a bit too much publicity. Here s an improvement using the drop concept in this game: use Joyce's short range war machine/knight and elephant/knight compounds instead for a more balanced game. So Excellent for the whole drop concept (though I would prefer that the player pay the price of 1 move to bring in a piece), and Poor in piece selection. I understand the enthusiasm of previous commentators of bringing in new pieces via gating but why use a knight compound anyway: Just drop a real Elephant (modern type) and war machine/wazir and maybe 2 ninja pawns - thats a bit more subtlety than just going crazy with powerful knight compounds.
Charles, wrote: '...why use a knight compound anyway: Just drop a real Elephant (modern type)and war machine/wazir and maybe 2 ninja pawns - thats a bit more subtlety than just going crazy with powerful knight compounds.'
Great comment! Especially when talking about an 8x8 board. I agree wholeheartedly.
I want to add a comment here regarding why work with Capablanca pieces first on an 8x8 board. A major reason is that these are the top fantasy chess pieces, and if we can get it to work right, MAYBE we stand a chance of them being massed produced, so we can have them go forth. Games like Grand Chess or even Random Capablanca Chess have a hard time being adapted, because they are not available. And I know that people want to use a larger board, but how available are those? 8x8 is available everywhere, which is why it serves as a good place to start getting something going. I will close here by saying that, 'Gee creating chess variant pieces is half the fun of doing chess variants'. Well, I would like to say, MAYBE FOR YOU. People would want results NOW and have it easy for them to get to things. If you listen to the arguments for Seirawan chess, you see why this approach is the best one, overpowered or no. My suggestion is to work on a way to do Capablanca chess on an 8x8 board AND MAKE IT WORK. Lead with this, and then we can go forth from there. I personally believe that drops and gating are essential here. We get this to work, then we can talk about being able to drop in weaker pieces and mixing it up. As of now, let's get this going first. I would suggest working together, unless you want to have the Capablanca Archbishop and Chancellor (or whatever you want to call them) called 'Hawk' and 'Elephant' because they are the only version of pieces you can by, followed up with the whammy that you can only play Seirawan chess, because they forbid you from changing the rules for your variants. You can't add new pieces, remove them or change how they move. This will cause Grand Chess to disappear, and do I need to add that Capablanca Random Chess will be nowhere? I ask everyone to look at the big picture here. On this note, I am looking fairly soon to get what I call IAGO Chess on here for review. I would like people to get involved with this.
Seirawan Chess is important because Yasser Seirawan is the leading USA Grandmaster at present time. About average research into background of uses of the introduced pieces is evident at the webpage. To its credit, Ben Foster's Chancellor Chess is cited, predating Capablanca's. ''Rather than being test of skill, Chess has become matter of knowledge and technique,'' the write-up says.'' and ''Capablanca almost had it right.'' Our ratings on SC have been deliberately mixed from Poor to Excellent, to confront the irony. Hutnik is correct in immediate Comment that, after 400 years, RN and BN are the ''top fantasy chess pieces'' -- at least in terms of public awareness, such as it is. Much irony there. We could dump about 9975 of the 10,000 invented (and re-invented, and stolen) chess piece-types as of 2008, and upwards of 25 solid piece-movement concepts would suffice -- definitely including Carrera's venerable Centaur(BN) and Champion(RN) themselves. Give them a pass into the 25 all-time pieces for historical significance alone.
'Seirawan Chess is important because Yasser Seirawan is the leading USA Grandmaster at present time.' Actually, no. Gata Kamsky is currently the top American grandmaster.
Thanks for the rating information, our meaning is, as spokesperson to general chess-knowledgeable public, Yasser Seirawan would be first to mind. Actual current ratings, always ballyhooed, seem increasingly obsolete or at least uninteresting, as aged forms become well-understood for anyone wont to memorize lines. There is the fact of more-or-less computer dominance, continually increasing, of even those highest rated in their rote play on 64 squares, manageable to Computer. Logical extension of the same idea shows that, so increasingly solved (like tic-tac-toe), FIDE Mad Queen is clearly already game for machines to play from now on against each other, the only innovators. Seirawan Chess site points out that those on the perimeter, having left OrthoChess for other interests, grow far apace of those participating. Whereas, a great new CV like any of Rococo, Centennial, Weave & Dungeon, Altair (or...) would take computers considerable time even to catch up; and we can also design scientifically ongoing Rules changes, or built-in artifices of other natures precisely in order to try stifling Computer systematically longterm -- advantaging more sentient beings constructively, not least tapping mental skills creative not so easy to avail. At other extreme, in order to have more than ten or twenty individuals eventually interested, one would need reduction from 10^3 or 10^4, or 10^6, possible number of CV Rules-sets and far different selection out of them than pure self-promotion, belligerence, phony reuse without attribution -- or even any attempt at finding priorities -- of longstanding Rules, pieces, names, methods, sizes, mechanisms, powers, helter-skelter. One person one game, that the diehard regulars -- or irregulars -- now happen to be discussing here for some tournament or other would be one small step in some reasoning direction.
George, what I am looking to have with IAGO Chess (I am looking to get on here sometime this week), is a better framework for having a version of chess that would continue to evolve, and draw new players in. It is a framework by which we won't run into the same laments over and over that drive someone to create a stand-alone fixed rules variant, and believe it is the answer. This is the approach taken historically. Instead it is a form that allows people to contribute to a community effort, in a framework that is meant to last. It allows a large degree of freedom, while having some standardization, and enabling a version of chess to emerge from a community that will meet ongoing needs. I personally believe Seirawan Chess could meet these criterions, but it appears that they the Seirawan group, at this point and time, has no interest in Seirawan Chess being the starting point for a continually evolving form of chess. In other words, it has the same flaws that almost every other variant does. It is a game that is done for personal preferences of the creator, either to stroke their ego, or their own personal tastes. This is demonstrated in things like, 'leave my game alone', and 'I would rather the name of the piece be something I like, rather than what the community is trying to settle on'. Purely selfish in nature, and of small mind. It gets away from how chess WAS and IS supposed to be, a game that evolves by the efforts of a community of players. IAGO Chess, on the other hand, will be something whose purpose is to serve the continuing needs of the community. The first iteration of the game, does what Seirawan Chess does, but is sufficiently nuanced to be a different game. In addition, it uses the Capablanca naming conventions. It is also mean to get the Capablanca pieces in circulation, so Grand Chess and Capablanca Random Chess, and others can finally get greater exposure. I do expect the C-Class (Classic or standard) versions to likely be adjusted by the community through practical experience. Also, to be kept fresh, the M-Class (Modern, evolving) version be one that people will be able to change just it starts to get played out.
I have never been a fan of the drop, feeling it to be an alien addition to the mechanics of chess. Promotion on the other hand is not, being a well established chess mechanism.
I therefore suggest using promotion as a better means of introducing the RN and BN. Thus, for example the Rook could promote to RN on making a capture, and the Bishop likewise but to BN. The idea could be extended further allowing the Knight to promote to, say, a Nightrider.
Using promotion also goes someway towards relieving the piece-density and power increases associated with dropping; more so if the number of each of the new pieces is restricted to one.
It is my belief figuring out the best way to get the NB and NR pieces onto game board, in the most logical way as a next step for chess, is worthwhile pursing. I suggest people give thought to it, and also think on how it would work, as far as being adopted I personally believe that piece promotion of every pieces really goes way beyond the norm of chess however. This is true for several reasons: 1. Tell me where you can acquire the pieces to do this? Saying, 'Well we can make our own' isn't something someone you introduce the game to, will actually do. 2. If people thing adding two pieces between queen and rook level is too powerful, how is having a rook fly down to the other side and promote, and the other pieces going to not be overpowered? 3. Is the main concern 'congestion'? If it is, then can't something be done with a drop or gating that it is limited to how many pieces are on the board? If you want to end up being really restrictive, you have it that you can't introduce a Capablanca piece until either the queen is captured from the board, or it is promoted? Anyhow, I suggest people check out this Zillions attempt to get Capblanca pieces into an 8x8 board: http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/43367?do=show;id=1492 I also suggest the Seirawan version be looked at and adapted somehow to the CV community, because you are running a distinct risk of Seirawan catching on, and permanently removing the traditional names for the pieces, plus preventing use of their pieces for any other variant except the ones that they approve of, such as Bughouse. I will say the point about gating is that it is a useful way to integrate new pieces into older games. If you don't happen to like it, or anything drop related, you are forcing chess to follow the same way it has always been, that being fixed positions, which means a game develops static lines and formation of books openings, which kills creativity. Chess has run into the issues it has that everyone complains about, because the opening is fixed.
One more thing about promotion as a method. It IS a form of a drop. It is just you end up removing a pawn from the board and dropping a new piece in its place.
I just wanted to state that I strongly disagree with this portion of Senor Hutnik's 2008-03-22 comment where he states:
'In other words, it [Seirawan Chess] has the same flaws that almost every other variant does. It is a game that is done for personal preferences of the creator, either to stroke their ego, or their own personal tastes.' -- end of that part of the quote --
But I, Simpatica, ask is it not expected that a game's creator(s) would create something that is to their own liking? Senor Seirawan is a Chess Master with many years of experience and with deep knowledge of chess and that his game idea should be welcomed. I believe Senor Hutnik's comment of 'ego stroking' is an insult to game inventors. I myself, have considered attempting to invent a game, but it seems difficult to me to come up with anything original... but let me add, it was (is) the desire to create a game... it is a creative aspect and I never considered ego as a factor here.
Senor Hutnik continued, 'This is demonstrated in things like, 'leave my game alone', --- end of this part--
'Leave my game alone' is a fine response from a creator. Games have rules. Imagine how chaotic a game would be if everyone tampered with the rules. Shatranj was stable, and can still be played today. When change came, Shatranj still remained intact, but eventially we saw a new game Chess, which in and of itself, is stable... as are its sister games of Japan and China. So I would say, yes, leave their games alone.
Senor Hutnik wrote on, '... and 'I [the inventor]would rather the name of the piece be something I like, rather than what the community is trying to settle on'. Purely selfish in nature, and of small mind.-- end of that part--
Here I do believe that traditional pre-established names should be used. I saw that Senor Seirawan uses an Elephant, for example... but it is not the Shatranj Elephant, it is not the Elephant of Modern Shatranj... and Senor Seirawan uses a Hawk... both these pieces (as he has them move) already exist... so,for the sake of consistency, why he not rename all his pieces? Why not call his King a Turtle? I am being sarcastic, of course. So, I do agree with Senor Hutnik about the name issue... but do not agree in his conclusion of 'selfish and small mind' ... why insult people?
Senor Hutnik continued: 'It gets away from how chess WAS and IS supposed to be, a game that evolves by the efforts of a community of players.'-- end of this part--
I disagree. I believe Chess, like Shatranj, was to be a stable game with fixed rules. When it comes to change, we have a variant. And that is what this great website is all about.
I would like to comment on some of the things that senorita simpatica said. I appreciate the feedback, so let me explain a bit what I mean: 1. I personally believe that Mr. Seirawan's game is welcomed, and I like it. But IAGO World Tour ran into problems with it. Because of the dislike of variants by one of the creators of the game, it means that they don't want to associate with any other variant. Secondarily, the impression I received was that they don't want any variants made of their game. It is fixed and changes are not welcome. In other words, if the variant community really liked it, but wanted to expand on it, as a variant, they are likely to be forbidden to do so. Yes, designers have every right to be as restrictive as they like with their design. But if they adopt a very restrictive attitude, where does that leave the variant community? Seirawan chess is a 'dead end' as far as the variant community is concerned. This is why the classic version of IAGO Chess exists and will have its rules produced. It is mean to belong to the world, and for them to use it as they see fit. 2. Let me comment on what I spoke on 'flaws'. I don't mean a game is fine in its own right. What I mean is that a game, unless it is an evolving design (chess was this until the say the 19th century), it will eventually get 'solved' and people get bored of it. Of course, variants are a way to keep things fresh. But the issues with variants is you usually never get enough players behind a single version in order to have it stick. There are rare exceptions of course. This becomes an issue when you have an association that wants to have champions at games, and promote and retain them. It also needs a way to systematize variants on the whole. It also needs standards of some sort. It would also need a game that is willing to be changed, so that it never falls to the being 'solved' issue that abstracts run into. The point here is to deal with it now, so that the game continues to remain fresh. 3. The idea of 'tampering with the rules' is exactly what chess had done for centuries. The game changed as the community had new needs. I believe there is room for a version of chess that does the same. Of course, such changes do need to be managed. The issue of just spinning of variants willy-nilly is the same thing you have in regards to variants. That is what a variant is, by the way. They are great for providing a diversion, but without some concern given to treating them more seriously, they are always going to not be viewed seriously. 4. I will argue that the changing of the names of the pieces was selfish, in regards to it was a personal preference done in order to appeal to personal tastes. Not quite 'small minded', but selfish (Ok, I can recant of saying 'small minded' in my prior quote). He wanted to have a distinct look to the pieces, and there apparently is little concern for the variant community. The argument about 'small minded' is that the person would want to do it alone as a stand alone variant. 5. As far as Shatranj being stabled and fixed, ask yourself how many people are still playing the regular rules of the game. They do variants, right? The question here is whether or not you want people to just abandon a game completely when they get bored, or there be at least one version of chess that is open to change with time, to support the needs of a community. I will also add here that the likes of Chess, Shatranj, etc... are NOT games that were created by one person. They are a community developed game that is the byproduct of evolutionary input. What I am saying about a chess I am looking at, is that I propose that a version be developed that will continue to change and evolve over time, without the intent on being close ended and permanently fixed. The game can remain relatively stable, and the changes be gradual. I will say that, so long as everyone is freelancing, and not working together, then the way it is now isn't an issue. But, if you want to jointly promote variants, and a range of chess, consideration to how to do this is important. IAGO and the IAGO World Tour are looking to eventually have chess variant champions, and a champion of the chess variant world. The question is, how does one do this if things are as they are now? Also, how does one end up doing a chess game that is in the Capablanca school, when one variant that is new tells variants to buzz off, and the other one got itself blacklisted from this site, due to threats of lawsuits. In all this, that is what IAGO Chess will be heading towards.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
/Mats