Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Seirawan ChessA game information page
. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
📝M Winther wrote on Mon, Nov 17, 2008 01:43 PM UTC:
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 Hutnik wrote on Sun, Nov 16, 2008 05:05 AM UTC:
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.

George Duke wrote on Sat, Nov 15, 2008 11:19 PM UTC:
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.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Jun 16, 2008 06:36 PM UTC:
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.

📝M Winther wrote on Mon, Jun 16, 2008 07:24 AM UTC:
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

Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Jun 16, 2008 01:52 AM UTC:
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.

📝M Winther wrote on Thu, Jun 12, 2008 04:43 PM UTC:
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

Rich Hutnik wrote on Wed, Jun 11, 2008 09:14 PM UTC:
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.

📝M Winther wrote on Wed, Jun 11, 2008 05:04 AM UTC:
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

Sam Trenholme wrote on Tue, Jun 10, 2008 11:17 PM UTC:
I think the above link should be revised to be www.seirawanchess.com.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Fri, Mar 28, 2008 10:31 PM UTC:
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.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Wed, Mar 26, 2008 09:33 PM UTC:
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.

Sam Trenholme wrote on Wed, Mar 26, 2008 08:38 PM UTC:
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.


Rich Hutnik wrote on Wed, Mar 26, 2008 06:13 PM UTC:
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.

Sam Trenholme wrote on Wed, Mar 26, 2008 05:30 PM UTC:
You can buy Seirawan Plastic pieces for reasonable prices here.

richardhutnik wrote on Tue, Mar 25, 2008 03:23 AM UTC:
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:
Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Mar 24, 2008 11:50 PM UTC:
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.

George Duke wrote on Mon, Mar 24, 2008 04:49 PM UTC:
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.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Mar 24, 2008 01:23 AM UTC:
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.

Senorita Simpatica wrote on Sun, Mar 23, 2008 08:37 PM UTC:
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.

Graeme Neatham wrote on Sun, Mar 23, 2008 04:23 PM UTC:

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.


Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Mar 23, 2008 04:12 PM UTC:
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.

senorita simpatica wrote on Sun, Mar 23, 2008 01:02 PM UTC:
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.


Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Mar 23, 2008 03:50 AM UTC:
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.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Mar 23, 2008 03:48 AM UTC:
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.

25 comments displayed

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.