[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Seirawan Chess
. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]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.
It was reported, possibly relayed through IAGO, that Seirawan and his contingent ''want nothing to do with us,'' want nothing to do with Chess Variant Page, implicitly meaning proliferation the impression being given. If true, why is that? Is there an inevitable and unbridgeable divide? Forget Chess professionals. Why does regular Chess have on the order of 10^4 to 10^6 times more followers than chess variantism does? 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. Problem themes, the way of problemists, were much better at reaching and creating the Chess-loving audience. That was because T. R. Dawson published in mainstream British Chess Magazine, Betza was Chess Master before he got addicted to proliferation, Vukevich was GM for problem-solving, and so on. In other words, there was normal cooperative interface and converging interest in subject matter. It came about because of careful selection of material by the fairy chess champions, Dawson, Parton, Boyer, Loyd, Betza, with respect for their audience, and sensible outreach to OrthoChess enthusiasts.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
I think the above link should be revised to be www.seirawanchess.com.
I have to say that most recent correspondence with the Seirawan Chess people has resulted in a permanent tabling of IAGO having anything to do with the Seirawan Chess, until things are said to be different.
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 don't think the Seirawan guys are going to patent Seirawan chess; it is impossible to stop anyone with their pieces from playing another game with them, such as the closely related Energizer Chess, or any of the 8x10 or 10x10 variants using two Seirawan chess sets and a custom board.
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.
The Seirawan pieces are available there. But if the Seirawan camp is going to forbid variants done off their games, then the variant community won't be able to use them. That is one of the reasons for IAGO Chess.
You can buy Seirawan Plastic pieces for reasonable prices here.
Anyone want to confirm whether or not Bosworth uses the same type of
gating
that Seirawan does? Only difference is that Seirawan chess makes it
optional. Here is a link to Bosworth off this site:
George Duke, thank you for the comments. I just wanted to add a few things in response: 1. I think you are getting the idea of what is attempted here. I believe starting with a few, and then growing to 25 works. 2. The Seirawan drop (version of gating) is as you described. It is one of the least disruptive versions and a natural evolution in chess. In addition, it provides a way to get more piece into chess. Other attempts, outside of a limited zone drop into start areas (at start or during the game), doesn't expand the opening book, causes the initial piece balance of pieces to change, or changes the initial pawn structure. When you go to a larger board, you end up with the complaints about the knight losing power, pawns unprotected, or being forced to deal with the name that shall not be named, for legal reasons. The larger boards also don't add a way to make chess expandable. either, although it extend the life of chess. Drop and gating ends up making for a way to bring new pieces into just about into chess, in the least disruptive way. 3. I am of the belief that the consensus method, which is an evolutionary one, determined from a lot of play is the best at making changes. It is how chess managed to grow and evolve over time, surviving the migration to mad queen. Other methods force things, and aren't natural. 4. I am not going to say a static/fixed opening lacks creativity. What I will say is that it creates a community that is used to a fixed configuration, and makes it hard to adapt to any needed changes, although changes can happen and does buy you a bunch of times (a few hundred years maybe). The fixed position in chess results in any changes to chess now being marginal. There is no smooth way to experiment and while keeping the foundation in order. I believe gating and drops, even if restricted a lot of ways, offer a chance to do this. Even if such is used before game begins, it helps. Let's just say that Chess960 is in the drop family, for example. It is just that where the pieces are dropped occur before the game begins, and not in the control of the players (done at random). 5. I know people might be upset about the whole 8x8 board as a start. This is done for pragmatic reasons. It doesn't mean you only have to use that board, but it makes it easier to get people to migrate over as a starting point. What is looking to be done with IAGO Chess is to allow a variant class to have larger boards and so on. As for there being 9x10 of Chinese Chess, and 9x9 of Shogi, I will say the IAGO Framework can work with these games to create an IAGO Chinese Chess and an IAGO Shogi. 6. IAGO stands for International Abstract Games Organization. It is mean to give all abstract strategy games that don't have an association for them a home, and coordinate efforts between games that do. This whole Capablanca on the 8x8 board came about due to issues it ran into looking at ways to do Capablanca chess, and finding out there was rejection on the Seirawan chess people to have anything to do with the IAGO World Tour, and the chess variants community. 7. Yes, I have mixed feelings about Seirawan chess. I like the game alot. I believe that it could serve as a foundation for a LOT of chess variants and be a basis for a migration path for chess. However, the word from the Seirawan chess people was 'get lost and keep your chess variants away', so it was time to move on. End result is you see an interest in Seirawan chess, but also the idea to be similar to Seirawan, but friendly to variants and also provide a migration path and frameworks for chess to evolve and bring all variants into IAGO. Let me sum up the one new rule brought into Chess via IAGO Chess: Thou shall have your piece mix match up with the rules, and not force people to flip a rook and then require it to be a queen only (gee, what happens if someone wants 3 knights on the board?). There are other elements in the base rules, that are recommended, but mutable for variants. If you want to see the rules to IAGO Chess, they are up on chess variants, and can be found here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste Feedback is definitely welcome, as is playtesting so we can make tweaks as needed. I suggest people start off with B-Class or C-Class rules first, before doing tweaks. I am hoping to get a Zillion adaptation done soon for this. Need to figure out how to do the gating for the game.
Agreeing with Graeme Naetham about drops, yet we find Seirawan's 'drop' the best available, being so modest and not disruptive, and the over-all method softens further if requiring Queen captured first. For Hutnik's 'community methodology', absolutely RN and BN are the ones to start with. Because on an all-time list of 25 pieces, there would be R,N,B,K,Q,(Western two-step-once Pawn),(hold Falcon that mathematical complement to 'RNB' in abeyance), Berolina Pawn, RN, BN... That makes nine or ten piece-types, and we are preparing the other 16, to total 25, for separate thread. Now the idea that 'static lines kill creativity' may only apply up to 8x8 or so. At Centennial Chess' 10x10, it is hard to see stock lines developing much even over decades. So, it may be peculiarity of just-slightly-undersized board. After all, Xiangqi goes on 9x10 and Shogi 9x9. There are the sizes then: 64, 81, and 90. Which would become overanalyzed first? It is obvious. Forcing 64 itself on the community is only for convenience of not having to use a Checkers 10x10 board. Hutnik's iteration method (C-, M-class) is correct or ideal, a simulation of culture. In fact, it negates both democracy and fiat. That third way, neither democratic nor authoritarian, requires consensus, concept occasionally in real geopolitics. What is 'IAGO' anyway in words? ///Hutnik seems oddly a spokesman for Harper and Seirawan's game at same time he distances himself from it.
Senorita Simpatica, thank you for your comment. Will see how it goes. The objective of IAGO chess isn't just a variant, but a framework by which Chess can evolve over time, and have variants integrated. It will need to be tweaked of course. The variant is the starting point, using the framework, as a way to introduce the Capablanca pieces onto the boar. Graeme Neatham, I have tried to fit your suggestion into the framework of IAGO Chess. Hopefully this will work, and you can see a multitude of approaches that will help mitigate congestion and overpowered issues. Feel free to check it out and comment. My only concern now regarding the approach you have, is that it doesn't create a variable and deep opening book. This is one of the advantages Seirawan Chess has, and IAGO Chess has. The promotion is good as a way to break through at the end game, to close things out, but the opening is still the same.
Senor Hutnik: Thank you for taking time to clarify the position of yours. It is now easier to understand where you are coming from and I now have a better picture of things. I wish you well with your IAGO Chess.
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
The future of chess, I suspect, is on computers and the internet within the virtual cyber-realms created by software. Any initial lack of physical pieces should not hinder the popularity of a variant.
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?
Surely a Rook promoted to RN is a less powerful outcome than a Rook and newly dropped RN ?
3. Is the main concern 'congestion'? ...
The main concern is surely playability? Unless a variant plays well it is unlikely to gain a following, however well it is promoted.
I will say the point about gating is that it is a useful way to integrate
new pieces into older games. As is promotion.
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
I am not forcing chess into anything, merely suggesting a way for using RN and BN within an 8x8 board. Besides, neither 'drop' nor 'promote' will change the fixed nature of the starting position. The only solution to that is to introduce non-determinism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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 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.
You are correct about 'd' being a standard Shogi drop.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
I implemented this feature (optional extra piece) in Alternative Chess.
/Mats
/Mats
Chess isn't complex enough in today's computer age. We need a more complex game. But as I pointed out, we needn't abandon traditional chess. If a player in the first move 'tables' the extra piece (e.g. Swedish Cannon), then the game will be played with a later possibility of extra piece entry. If both players, in the first move, refrain from 'tabling' the extra piece, then the game will be traditional. In this way there is a choice, and chess keeps its link to history. /Mats
I agree, at least in part. Removing either or both is probably necessary to prevent Scrabblization, but may not be sufficient.
I would guess, though, that their removal would prove sufficient as I suspect the causes of Scrabble's Scrabblization are not to be found in Chess.
Since Scrabble has neither determinism nor perfect information, it seems that removing those elements from chess won't necessarily prevent Scrabblization.
Scrabblization is surely the fate of any game that is deterministic with the players having complete information - given that it is played and studied long enough and widely enough.
If so, and if it is a problem, the only long-term solutions are to either restrict player information or remove the determinism. But is the game we are left with still chess?
I rather doubt that we're going to address the problem of the future of chess. It will either evolve into something new and worthy without anyone's planning it, or it will go softly into the night as checkers and bridge seem to be doing. The chief problem chess faces, in my opinion, is Scrabblization. By this I mean that chess has become a game like Scrabble, in which an enormous amount of rote memorization has become almost as important, or perhaps even more important, as strategic and tactical intuition -- and this is especially so for one making the move from casual amateur to serious tournament player. Like lovers of checkers and bridge, experts who have invested that effort are emphatic that they're glad they did. But that doesn't attract others to follow after when there are plenty of other strategy games without so much 'book' where they can hope to excel just by having a knack. This is just my partly-informed opinion based on remarks I've heard from better players, so I readily admit I could be completely off-base -- I'm no expert at chess. But if I'm right, then chess has gone so far down the road toward Scrabble that, at this point, I'm suspicious that those who are experts have acquired a distorted view of the game during their years of study. Reading whole books devoted to variations on a single line of play, memorizing openings out to twenty moves, is certainly not what the inventor of Chess had in mind. This is why I think something like the random-array or (better still) the player-selected-army variants are the likeliest future for chess, if it's to have one at all.
So how can we address this problem of the future of chess? Not all players are attracted by Fischer Random, either, although it's a good training variant. Firstly, the standard position has a great advantage. White's position is slightly better so that he can develop an initiative. It is simply the most harmonious and best position of all 960. Secondly, an important part of chess is to prepare your own variants, and to acquire specialist knowledge of certain variants. This is all gone with Chess960.
Nevertheless, even if the problem only concerns professionals, it's necessary for us to address the problem. We can't allow the professionals to dictate the future of chess because then chess will become overly technical, like the examples of Chess960 and Seirawan Chess. This is obvious also among the grandmasters who want a shortening of the time limits, something that will also increase the technical aspect of chess.
Probably most chessplayers want a standard position to start from, and not too much anarchy. We must question whether it's possible, then, to improve Seirawan's suggestion, and introduce pieces that are less tactical than those super-knights. The Swedish Cannon is an interesting piece that introduces new tactical themes (there are, of course, many alternatives). Its value seems to correspond to a bishop. To simply introduce a single external piece by way of pawn-relocation could be a way of vitalizing chess. Between the rounds one can alternate between standard chess and the new variant: Swedish Cannon Chess
/Mats
Nevertheless, even if the problem only concerns professionals, it's necessary for us to address the problem. We can't allow the professionals to dictate the future of chess because then chess will become overly technical, like the examples of Chess960 and Seirawan Chess. This is obvious also among the grandmasters who want a shortening of the time limits, something that will also increase the technical aspect of chess.
Probably most chessplayers want a standard position to start from, and not too much anarchy. We must question whether it's possible, then, to improve Seirawan's suggestion, and introduce pieces that are less tactical than those super-knights. The Swedish Cannon is an interesting piece that introduces new tactical themes (there are, of course, many alternatives). Its value seems to correspond to a bishop. To simply introduce a single external piece by way of pawn-relocation could be a way of vitalizing chess. Between the rounds one can alternate between standard chess and the new variant: Swedish Cannon Chess
/Mats
The problem with the Elephant (Chancellor) and the Hawk (Cardinal), which are known from Capablanca's Chess, and hundreds of other variants, is their tactical intricacy. They are super-knights, and in this capacity they can create a maximum of new threats: eleven enemy pieces can be exposed to new threats in one single move. A knight can threaten seven pieces (not counting the square from which it came). A queen can create six threats (not counting two on the diagonal/orthogonal from which it came). A bishop, and a rook, can create two. A Korean or Swedish Cannon can create three.
We know that amateurs have great problems with the knights, because of their notorious capacity of making double-threats. So how will they fare with eight knights on the board, four of which are super-knights? The Elephant and Hawk are ideal for professionals because they can make use of their tactical superiority, instead of having to slowly grind down their weaker opponents in long positional games. But will such a game really be attractive to amateurs? In practical endgames, especially, these pieces are practically unforeseeable for the weak player. I'd wish they had opted for pieces with positional qualities. Although these pieces are attractive, their intricacy make them inaccessible to the amateur. For this reason I am surprised to see how many variants exist that employ these pieces.
/Mats
We know that amateurs have great problems with the knights, because of their notorious capacity of making double-threats. So how will they fare with eight knights on the board, four of which are super-knights? The Elephant and Hawk are ideal for professionals because they can make use of their tactical superiority, instead of having to slowly grind down their weaker opponents in long positional games. But will such a game really be attractive to amateurs? In practical endgames, especially, these pieces are practically unforeseeable for the weak player. I'd wish they had opted for pieces with positional qualities. Although these pieces are attractive, their intricacy make them inaccessible to the amateur. For this reason I am surprised to see how many variants exist that employ these pieces.
/Mats
Perhaps it's about the same piece density, then, because Seirawan Chess has two pieces more. A Tutti Frutti zrf can be downloaded from the Zillions site, here. As Seirawan Chess is defined it's not particularly good, because the bishops gets removed too easily. These two variants are probably better. But one thing amazes me, namely the immense popularity of the Archbishop and Chancellor. Seirawan Chess has a co-author, namely Bruce Harper. Video clips of the Seirawan Chess simul recently held is here. They plan to create Seirawan Chess tournaments. What's so strange is that they cannot see the variant's obvious flaw. /Mats
Ralph Betza's Tutti-Frutti Chess(1978) and Karakus' Perfect Chess(2000) are also in the subset of those putting RN and BN on small 8x8 with all the other pieces, and they even add familiar Amazon(RNB) by just dropping one R, N and B. That's a lot of power density, whereas Seirawan Chess goes for higher piece density after a few moves, a slight tilt away from those two.
It has to do with physical pieces: the elephant and hawk are
sculptural. They are depicted here. /Mats
sculptural. They are depicted here. /Mats
My only objection to this game is the names of the pieces. Why not choose the universally known names (Archbishop and Chancellor) and settle with it ?
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2007 01:22 PM UTC:The problem of patenting the unpatentable is unlikely to go away any time soon. We have the perfect example in a Carrera/Bird/Capablanca variant that has been patented in the US. To anyone who has a bit of knowledge of chess variants and history, the patentee's claims are patently false and absurd. Unfortunately, good lawyers and bad law support this ridiculous position, and you could get badly hurt and certainly seriously harrassed for having an unauthorized Zillions implementation. I feel a proper response is to utterly boycott such products and encourage others to do the same. The only other useful response would be to mount a serious legal challenge to the ability to patent games, but this is impractical and undoubtedly Quixotic. Thank you for the information. I, for one, will never play this game unless and until it becomes freely available.
Yasser let me know that the intellectual rights of Seirawan Chess are “pending” as patents and trademark issues are worked out. If the intellectual rights are approved the game will be “commercialized”, including a book and program. Right now they are getting the physical pieces produced. It wouldn't be correct of me to publish my Zillions program, then. But it is a little curious since everything about the variant is traditional. /Mats
I have now implemented a variant which doesn't allow piece entry when the bishop moves. This is done in order to make it more difficult to exchange bishops. /Mats
I am sceptical of this variant because the bishops will tend
to get exchanged too easily (by moving one's bishop from the initial square, offering exchange, while simultaneously guarding one's bishop with a hawk. As the bishop (especially when
fianchettoed) is the positional piece par excellence, I think this
game will be lacking in many positional qualities, especially since
the Elephant (N+R) and Hawk (N+B) are such tactical pieces. Something that will
help to remedy the problem is to restrict the entry squares of the
Hawks. My suggestion is that the Hawk should not be able
to enter on the bishop files, and, perhaps, the Elephant should not be able to
enter on the knight files. In other words, the external pieces should only
be able to enter when king, rook, or queen moves. (Trenholme implemented the same pieces on the Gustavian board. Perhaps it's better.)
/Mats
/Mats
Excellent concept. Sounds interesting. (I wonder when where Seirawan first published this variant.)
This variant employs a new(?) way of introducing extra pieces on the standard board. It is also described here. My Zillions implementation plays it well. This method can also be used in other variants. Seirawan advances it as a possible way of playing chess in the future. What do you think of it?
/Mats
/Mats
63 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.