Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I only have your word about the unpleasant correspondence you allegedly had with someone involved with Seirawan chess; unless they threatened a lawsuit or what not, I would just brush it off as them having a bad hair day.

One can view the B-Class version of IAGO Chess as an attempt to have an 'open-source' variant of Seirawan Chess, using the more traditional pieces, and also framing the rules so they are more variant friendly.  The fullness of the rules is a framework for integrated variants into IAGO also, so that is a plus.  There is only one new rule added that is more of a statement of what variants should be, make sure your pieces and rules mix.  In other words, don't do like standard chess that can theoretically allow people to have 8 queens, but only provide one with the game.  And do regular chess rules say anything about flipping a rook to give you another queen? 

At this point, I am not worried about Seirawan Chess.  I will be going with IAGO Chess.  If Seirawan Chess people happen to want to do anything with IAGO, they are free to get involved.

I have added a link to www.seirawanchess.com. I must still have a link to my homepage if I'm going to publish my Seirawan chess program. Were they given the patent?

Seirawan chess, I think, has a huge flaw in 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. It is the same problem if you position a bishop at, e.g., c4. Then black can develop his bishop to e6 and simultaneously guarding it by placing a Hawk on c8. 

While bishops are immensely important for the positional qualities of chess, it is not good if they can be neutralized easily in the opening.

/Mats

M Winther, how many Seirawan Chess games have you seen actually played?  I find with IAGO Chess, which is like Seirawan Chess, the Bishops don't disappear too fast.  Not sure why you argue that the do disappear too fast with Seirawan.  A bishop fianchetto is just one of the types of opens you can do.  I don't see why bishops are diminished that much personally.

In IAGO Chess, the game, you can also drop a Cap piece besides gating it in.    It is also not part of castling, and there is less of a rush to get the Cap pieces in.  Maybe that makes for a difference.  If you don't gate in a piece in Seirawan Chess, you may not be able to get it into the game.

Of course, I test all the games I implement. I haven't made a final judgement, but I remember that it irritated me very much that it was so easy to exchange a bishop which is trying to activate itself. But maybe it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters if Seirawan chess becomes popular among amateurs. It certainly works. But I think that e.g. Gustav III's chess is better, or to have the Seirawan chess set implemented on a Gustavian board, perhaps with the new pieces in th extra corners and not in a mirrored position. I haven't looked closer on IAGO chess, but why don't you forbid entering a Hawk on the bishop squares. Then the bishop's exchange problem is solved.

Mats

IAGO Chess (the game) doesn't forbid pieces entering anywhere, because entrance of pieces can be delayed.  When Zillions ran it, it would sometimes delay until the end game.  When you enter pieces in early, you lose the ability to enter them later, as needed.  Your concerns about bishop fianchetto, I can see as something that you may give up as a result of gating.  It is not a big deal to myself personally.  

As for losing the bishops, I don't see it at all.  Maybe the way Zillions worked with yourself it happened, but how does one go down BOTH bishops when only ONE of the Cap pieces has the bishop movement.  Even in games where I allow players to put down a Hawk (Cardinal), Elephant (Marshal) or Queen in the start space, instead of just the Queen in IAGO Chess (C-Class), it didn't seem a problem at all.

To me it is a concern because I don't like games that tend toward wood-chopping. Positional aspects must be strengthened. The super-knights are very technical, anti-positional, pieces. In this environment one should retain every positional aspect possible. I haven't tested your IAGO chess although you sent me the zrf because I have been so busy. It would be easy for you to prohibit simultaneous gating of the Hawk and bishop movement, however. I am sceptical of free introduction of pieces, i.e., that the player can wait as long as he wants. Generally, a game must have restrictions so that strategical problems are created for the players. There ought to be a strong current in the game toward resolution. If he can wait as long as he wants with the introduction of a heavy piece, then an immensely strong defensive force is always in prepare, while he can introduce it on so many squares. Thus, no matter how good the opponent plays positinally, he cannot achieve a strategically won game. He can only win tactically, and then the game is lopsided towards the tactical. (I know I really shouldn't criticize your variant without having tested it, but here it seems so obvious). 

I have introduced another method in Alternative Chess: 
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/alternativechess.htm
In this variant one can also choose to have both the super-knights as extra pieces, but introducing them is compelled, while one must do it on the second rank where a pawn is situated. Introduction can only occur simultaneously with a pawn moving two steps. It is strategically very dangerous to wait, because introduction will weaken your pawn chain drastically, especially if you introduce the piece on g2/g7, for instance. In this way the game has a strong current in that the pawn's double-step creates an aggressive game and also weakens the pawn chain. While the opening proceeds, the squares (unmoved pawns) where the extra pieces can be introduced become fewer and fewer. Soon the opponent can predict where the piece must be introduced and can take preventive measures. In this way, introduction of external pieces becomes a positional and strategical problem. One must alsways strive, I think, to create a problematic game, because chess players want to grapple with problems. 

It's no wonder that Chinese Chess is the world's most popular game. The problems start immediately in the opening. Three of five pawns are unguarded and are soon attacked, big problems concerning the development of pieces starts immediately. If the rook isn't activated in three moves it is said that the game is lost (but thats an exaggeration). There is no time to wait. Should one have an extra powerful piece to insert at any time, in the endgame even, then Chinese Chess would have been defunct, because then the player can solve his problems in a stroke. So I am sceptical about delayed introduction on any empty first rank(?) square.

Mats

When the game 'IAGO Chess' (contrast with The IAGO Chess System, which is a way to systematize all of chess, and has the game IAGO Chess in it), it was meant to address issues I saw with Seirawan Chess:
1. The 9 queen problem.  It is theoretically possible to have 9 queens in chess, but they don't supply 9 queens.  This may seem ok to people, if the idea of flipping a rook (not in the rules) is used to signify a queen.  The 9 queen problem becomes worse, when you try to add even a wider range of pieces.  Exactly how does a physical version of the game handle this?  As I see it, it is not able to.  This hinders the adoption of chess variants, and chess continuing to evolve.

What IAGO Chess states is that you are limited to your piece mix.  Due to the sheer firepower added (3 queen level pieces) available.  It also addresses the issue.

2. I have issues with the case of where you may not be able to get pieces onto the board from reserve, if you just only allow for gating as a way to get them onto the board.  All reserve pieces should have a chance to get onto the board at some point.  Not allowing this means that reserve pieces are merely an extension of the opening game.  This hinders the depth of the game.

3. If one is going to work on 'The Next Chess' (Seirawan would fit into this), as opposed to a gimmick (or unplayed variant), it should represent the fullness of the chess experience.  Things should lend towards maximization of options, so that continued play can show what should or should not work.  From EXPERIENCE of play, of MULTIPLE people, consensus should be reached.  For this reason, IAGO Chess (in the IAGO Chess System) is set up how it is.  It is meant to be played and seen from multiple eyeballs.  The IAGO Chess System framework allows people to adjust their own game, and take out what they want or don't want.  The idea is to get enough games close enough playing, so we can see what will work.  This is critically important.

My take on what happens is people have pet projects they label a 'Chess' as if it is supposed to be a full-blown game, one that joins a flood of other games, and it is a discrete item that doesn't lend to the body of language at all.  What should be derived is what people collective decide to play, that can collectively lend to the experience.
---------------------

In all this, I do have much respect for the pieces and suggestions you have.  Even your recommended form of displacement in Alternative Chess, I believe is something that should be played.  However, I think what you have in Alternative Chess, is merely a rules tweak that can be applied when there are reserve pieces in play.  Labeled as a full-blown game, it gets boxed in and not played.  Same goes with your 'Reformed Chess', which I see as a mutator for chess, rather than a full-blown game.  Same with all your neat pieces.  These pieces should be put in Alternative, IAGO or Seirawan, or some other form that uses part or all.

What is needed is a community to play with a range of mix of rules and pieces, and a framework to manage this.  Arguing over Seirawan, IAGO or Alternative ends up not advancing anything.  PLAY should dictate this, as the use of your 'Reformed Chess' pawn.

If this is not done, we aren't going to have 'The Next Chess' (the proper adaptation of chess which reduces the number of draws and makes the opening less stale).  We will have a variant community that is continued to be divorced from the normal chess community.

And, as far as 'IAGO Chess' goes, I suggest the IAGO Chess System be looked at, and what is in it, as far as specific game rules, be proposed and adopted.  IAGO Chess (the game) can be modified as play and experience dictates.  Let that be what the community deems to be 'The Next Chess'.

To sum up, we need a whole lot more PLAYING and less PROPOSING of ideas, and adoption, and community that will play these.

Hello George.  

You may touch on why such had happened.  I believe because the Chess Variant community can't agree to common standards, and it is an excess of 'every man for himself', with the CV site being a shrine to self-indulgence, the end result has been a breaking down of the community.  I believe the variant community should be the vanguard of any game community, to act as play testers of how a game evolves.  When they aren't in this position, being booted out as freakish and disruptive heretics, for the lack of a better word, then then the game community itself suffers from stagnation.  You see elements of it even today.  There needs to be dialog.

I need to also add here that when the variant community spins off a variant that demands players invest in new boards and a bunch of new pieces, before such has been shown, that is yet another issue.  Also, when the variant community demands players throw away everything they know, causing chess players to discard their knowledge, in order to play, you don't get crossover.  You end up being nothing more than a freakshow to them.  Oh, they will look at all these games here, and saw, 'wow, that is odd', but won't play.  They may sneak over and try an established variant, that is old (say go from Chess to Xiangqi or Shogi), but that will be on the side.  It is a reset of their knowledge.

Anyhow, people are free to contact the Seirawan people to see why they feel as they do about variants.

Creating chess variants can be compared to creating chess problems, or solving crosswords. It's a challenge for the intellect and it's  not intended as a challenge against Fide-chess, (although a discussion about a reformation of chess will always continue). It is a mathematical passion, similar to chess problems, which is fantasy chess positions, far removed from standard chess. It is a distraction, and it satisfies a somewhat understimulated intellect. The idea that every chess variant creator suffers from megalomania, and expects his variant to be embraced by the chess community, is bunkum. As long as it is remains a peripheral activity in one's life, like solving crosswords, then it cannot be regarded as self-indulgence. I, for one, have no expectancy that anybody is going to try any of my ZoG programs. But since I enjoy programming and testing them, then it's no harm to publish them.
/Mats

Rich, you can't regulate creativity. We've had this discussion before. IAGO as an entity has no need for regulation in the CV or any other community. Its purpose is to push abstract strategy board games. Chess in any form is a quintessential representation of such. I got interested in the idea of creating an IAGO way back when, got involved, and have paid attention ever since. I can say a few things about it.

Everything IAGO could possibly want from the CV site is already happening - slowly. And messily. Examples: the 'Track 1' and serious 'Track 2' game discussions. I will point out these are a constant source of new games that will challenge even the best chessplayers in a tournament. They are exactly what IAGO wants for tournaments, because they have all been playtested and examined for problems by some very creative people. Further, I will point out that the game out of the 10 or so games I've discussed as the best 'next chess' game is Fergus' Eurasian Chess. The only game I'd rule out of an IAGO-sponsored tournament of all the games I discussed is Black Ghost [sorry George - but I do think all the others are fine for not merely a CV tournament but an abstract games tournament] because it unbalances the game to black. I don't think it's a fair [enough] game. 

There are people here doing things from working on making CV kits to creating the new interfaces we are and will be using. But it's the free choice of everyone involved. IAGO is not a leader taking us to a promised land. Instead, IAGO is a librarian, who should be able to assist people in finding games by providing information and easy directions. Rather than make the rules, IAGO uses rules already made by others. While it may showcase some games in tournaments around the world, it's meant to direct people into the wide world of abstract games. You yourself were the one who put together the IAGO database of about 1000 games playable against human opponents over the internet. That's a card catalog for abstract strategy games you've made. That's a service, one that IAGO performs as part of its function. Being useful and user-friendly should be the main goal of IAGO.

The CV site is meant to be mostly glorious chaos, as far as I can tell. But chaos spontaneously organizes into patterns, and this is where IAGO will get its infusion of games from. However, while IAGO can get its games from the order found here - George and I aren't working together for nothing; we both see theoretical and practical benefits from The Two Tracks and other such ideas - the site gets its life from the chaos it sustains. 

By attempting to push everyone in a particular direction, you will only get people to push back, even if they want to go that way. And many if not most of us are far too individualistic to go any way but our own. Yet if it's an interesting path IAGO offers, many of us will walk it to see what's there. [Push, and you find people roll rocks onto the path...] 

In trying so [too] hard, you make it difficult for the rest of us to talk about IAGO - it's overkill. I'd love to run an IAGO tournament featuring chessvariants [and other games], in New York or Baltimore or Cleveland or Boston or Albany or... but we have to get people there. I'd like to be able to feature Next Chess games and a prize or two, and pull in some people who visit the site. For that, we need more positive feelings and fewer negative ones. Ahem. I don't want people using the IAGO banner as a dartboard while I'm standing by it waiting for the ScoreFour tournament  at NonCon, for example. And as an editor of this site, I have to be extremely careful of conflicts of interest, among others. As I have a standing policy of preventing or ending conflicts [not heated discussions] onsite as I am reasonably able to, I find it nicely ironic that in this I can and will say as little [more] as possible, being both a very early member of IAGO and later the junior editor here. It seems I may be obliged to both comment and not comment. I think the football game is still on...

George Duke asks:

Why does regular Chess have on the order of 10^4 to 10^6 times more followers than chess variantism does?

Followers want leadership, and the Chess world gives them that. Chess variants attract a kind of pioneering individual who is averse to being a follower. We're the Daniel Boones of the Chess world, scouting ahead where the masses of followers still fear to tread.

I think CVers share in the blame for their isolation and outcast status, because the prolificist way of making CVs has only come to fruition since 2000 with Internet facility. As a result, excellent games like Rococo do not get played.

I dealt with the outcast status bit in another message. I was going to answer that Rococo is doing fairly well. 21 games of it have been completed on Game Courier, which is better than most games, but 16 of those games were played by you. Most of the ongoing games of Rococo are also yours. So why isn't it doing better than it is? And is proliferation the cause of this? I'll deal with the first question first. There are a few reasons Rococo is not so popular. (1) Its inventors are not actively promoting it. (2) Its an Ultima variant, and I expect most Chess variant players prefer games with capture by displacement. In fact, while David and Peter were working on Rococo, I began working on my own Ultima variant, but I found myself so uninterested in Ultima-style games I never bothered to release it. (3) Rococo is too recent to have ever gained much of a following.

Now for the second question. Is proliferation the cause of people not playing Rococo? If we look at the games doing better than Rococo on Game Courier, most are older, more established games. A few are newer. Of these, one has been heavily played by its inventor, and a couple more seem to have achieved some genuine degree of popularity. Would people play Rococo more if there was less proliferation? I can't answer that. But I think it is unlikely that it would be played much more. Several of the players on Game Courier are game inventors trying out their own games. If they weren't here proliferating, they might not be here playing games either. And many others here are playing a large number of different games. It seems that Game Courier attracts people who are interested in variety and creativity. Yes, there are a lot of games, and if there were fewer games, some might get played more than they are now. But all this affects is the popularity of individual games. The important thing is that many games are being played, many more than were being played in the 1990's. This is good for Chess variants in general even if it spreads the wealth among games instead of more easily enabling a selected few to rise in popularity.