Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I support conceptual and propose additional subcategories:

a) historical

b) sci-fi

c) geographical

I'd like to suggest a multiple-board theme, either a set number (2,3,4 etc.) or perhaps just any number more than 1.

Ha .. Finally a contest ..

An example you might like for a game that uses one type of piece is Chad, by Christian Freeling.

This brings up the suggestion of having a confined King as a theme. The most obvious example is Xiangqi. Other examples I can think of are Seenschach, Sphinx Chess, and Congo (which is animal themed.)

Like Graeme Neatham suggested, a Multi-board contest would be nice. (Examples being Alice Chess, Bughouse, Tandem-84.)

However, I would also suggest that using triangles for cells would make a nice change. Not necessarily equilateral triangles or a flat board.

Also, using pentagons is also a nice change. Using the Cairo tiling for example.

You can specify a certain board for the game. Like the Crazy38's board or the board in The Central Squares, or an Icosahedron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icosahedron).

Congo, by Demian Freeling, is Animal themed. This is also a pretty theme for a contest.

Other suggestion: games that use a Royal piece that does NOT move like a King. (Either a specific piece, like a Queen, or the player is given the choice.) Examples are many for Queens and Knights. Horus by Peter Aronson uses royal Falcons. Some games use a stationary King. (There's a game in the Number 10 contest, which used a piece that can only move when in check, called the President.)

Speaking of Christian Freeling's games, a theme that immediately comes to mind is games without pawns. Another theme is that Pieces can't capture each other (unless in specific situations, like in Chad.) In Caissa, instead of capture, you swap places with the other piece. Usually the only piece that can capture is the Royal piece.

--

As for my vote, I vote for boards that use a fixed board, specifically the Icosahedron (admittedly, I have an idea for a game.)

I prefer the voting method to judge the contest.

I also opt for a voting method of judging, that way no-one need be excluded from entering. I would suggest each entrant should pick 3 games ordered 1st,2nd,3rd - 1st gets 3 points, 2nd 2, 3rd 1.

Additional theme suggestions:
- incomplete knowledge
- no FIDE pieces (including King)
- winning condition other than mate

I also support Abdul-Rahman Sibahi's suggestion of having a confined King (or other Royal piece)

Might I alsso suggest a contest with more than one theme? Say have 3 themes e.g. one Piece based (no FIDE pieces say), another special Criteria/Rule based (restricted King, say), and the third Conceptual (sci-fi/fantasy)

Each contestant could then enter any or all themes with the same or different games and have a vote in each theme entered. The theme winners would then be voted on by all contestants other than the theme winners to decide the overall winner.

Graeme, I like where you're going with this, but this explanation is a little bit confusing to me. Could I maybe ask you to try to clarify and elaborate, just a little bit, what you have in mind below?

Each contestant could then enter any or all themes with the same or different games and have a vote in each theme entered. The theme winners would then be voted on by all contestants other than the theme winners to decide the overall winner.

I'll try...
Suppose the contest has three themes - call them t1 t2 and t3. Each contestant may enter a game in each theme. This could be a different game for each theme (contestant designs 3 games) or a single game thst meets the conditions of all 3 themes (contestant designs 1 game that is entered into t1 t2 and t3) - or somewhere in between (designs 2 games, one for entry in t1 and t2, the other for t3). Of course a contestant does not have to enter all 3 themes - they may just design 1 game for entry in a single theme (t2 say).

Within each theme those contestants entered in that theme will vote for a theme winner (see my other comment on a suggested voting system). Of course you may NOT vote for your own design.
The theme winners will then participate in a second vote by all the contestants apart from those winning the theme, to determine an overall contest winner

I propose the theme of a draw- and tie-free chess.

If the mechanism of a game allows repetitions, one needs a rule to deal with them, and players have to keep track of the positions occuring in the game. This is not always easy. In an endgame with Queens, e.g., one might chase the opponent's King several times round the board. Then have fun remembering all the previous positions, not to overlook a repetition.

Also, if repetitions are possible, this usually means that the game can last an exponential number of moves. As an upper bound for the game length, one can count all legal positions with the given pieces on the board (with pawns remaining where they are), and the number is usually gigantic. To break such ties, the artificial and ugly 50-moves-rule (or something similar) is needed.

So I find it desirable to invent a Chess variant with a playing mechanism which can't lead to repetitions. A simple example would be that pieces can move only forward, as in the game of Breakthrough.

I. Number of Squares (Traditional)
 
 * Unknown starting board size.
 
 V. Piece Types:
 
 * Different pieces per side.
 
 X. Games with Drops
 
 * Captured pieces can be dropped or some starting pieces can be dropped
 
 XV. Confined King
 
 * As in Chinese Chess
 
 XX. Incomplete knowledge
 
 * Hidden pieces, pieces can only see where they can move?
 
 XXI. Winning Conditions other than mate.
 
 * Players can move any pieces and attempt to capture a rogue piece?

Thomas, I have invented a game that fits your description:

Advancing Chess

by Michael Howe

3/10/07

This game is played on a standard chessboard with one set of pawns and two sets of pieces per player.

Pieces only move forward, but capture as orthodox chess pieces.

Pikemen are like orthodox pawns, but can capture backwards as well as forwards.

Vicars can move and capture like bishops or one square orthogonally.

Castles can move and capture like rooks or one square diagonally.

Champions can move as either knight or king, and despite being represented by the king piece, are not royal and can be captured like all other pieces.

Queens and knights are as in orthodox chess, but can only move and capture forward.

Pikemen start on each player's third rank, and then a double set of chessmen are arranged on each player's first two ranks, the array being bilaterally symmetrical.

There is no castling, no en passant capture, no check or checkmate.

The first player to move a piece to the last rank so that it cannot be captured immediately is the winner. A player who cannot move loses.

The game is both tactical and strategic, with early fighting to gain material or positional advantage, and an endgame centered around breaking through the opponent's position to safely get a piece to the last rank. Draws are not possible! Queens and champions are the most valuable pieces, and are roughly equal with an edge to the queen. Rooks, vicars, and knights are the minor pieces, and their value depends on the position, but the vicar's long-range forking ability perhaps gives it an edge.

There are 5040 different possible starting arrays after accounting for left-right symmetry, which ensures that opening play will never become stereotyped.

A Zillions implementation also exists, though I will not be posting it here.

http://www.chessvariants.org/contests/10/vesquj/vesquj3.html

This is the game I was talking about, to quote:

'The President, as a modern head of state, does not lead the army to battle. In fact, the President cannot move unless attacked! If in check, the President may move by trading places with any piece on the same side except a Sergeant. (The military whisks her away to a refuge.)'

--

My vote, from the current list, ordered by preference :

A. Tony Quintanilla's suggestion (which is, in short, designing a mutator.)

B. Winning Conditions other than mate. (Losers, where you have to get mated.)

C. A game with Triangles as cells.

D. Specific type of Board : The Central Squares.

E. Multiple Boards. (1+)

My vote: Alternate pawns and kings.

Rationale: There are hundreds of variants where the pieces are new but the king and pawn structure is the same.

My suggested design parameters: Could be played on an 8x8 board, with a standard chess set. The design must use alternate kings and pawns, may use alternate queens and/or rooks (including optional inverted rooks), and may not use alternate bishops or knights.

I'd also like to state that I am a big fan of rules/variants that reduce the chance of a draw.

Cavebear

3 more suggestions:

• Simultaneous moves
• Incorporate non-chess gaming element(s) - e.g. dice, cards, quiz questions, gaming chips
• Boundless boards e.g. Circular, Toroidal, Spherical

I'm planning to extend this process for a few reasons. We are having a very interesting discussion here about what forms of variants to work with and I think we should be allowed to have a pure discussion without so much pressure to choose. I need time and help to put in place the polling technique. Many people are doing various summer recreational things and don't have as much time as they would like to think about this contest.

Graeme and Cavebear, thank you for your additional suggestions. I will update the page shortly to include them. On the subject of Simultaneous Chess, John Kipling Lewis has been working on a very interesting such variant for years which he discussed with us once on the chess variants yahoogroup and I'll hope to post some information about that soon.

Thanks to everyone for all your suggestions. Keep them coming.

Thanks to Michael Howe for sharing his variant here.

Another theme idea: having unequal armies on the light and the dark squares.

A player might have pieces of type A, which can move only on light squares, and pieces of type B, which move on the dark squares.

The opponent may have the same types and numbers of pieces, so that the armies are equal over all. The opponent might also have his A-pieces on light and B-pieces on dark squares, so that the A-pieces fight each other, and also the B pieces, but an A piece can never meet a B-piece. It's also possible to make the setup vice versa, so that on any square color the A-pieces of one side fight the B-pieces of the other.

What about a pseudo-historical chess variant contest? That way the Short Range Project variants could have their own contest.

P.S. I think that a love themed variant contest is an interesting idea, seeing that chess has played a part in some romance stories.

P.P.S. I have always wondered what a Cupid piece would be like.

P.P.P.S. I therefore suggest that the contest be to design a chess variant which is pseudo-historical and/or love themed, but the Cupid piece, if there is one, is not too powerful in order to represent the fickle nature of love.

I like the idea of a contest, though I can only come up with ideas for about half the themes. How about a category for 'Contest Entries That Never Materialized' - either the game or the contest never materialized, but now you've got this game... I, too, have a 45-square entry, and a 64 square version that I re-worked it into when I realized there was no 45-square contest, and it languishes, maybe justifiably. 

Thomas, the game you are suggesting sounds very much like Dada, by Abdul-Rahman Sibahi.

JCRuhf, Jeremy Good has 1 cupid piece in a game; it moves in a heart-shaped pattern, I believe. I'd like to suggest another. This cupid would prevent any adjacent pieces from making a capturing move, but not a non-capturing move away from cupid's influence. This piece should probably have a generous movement capability, at least that of a queen, maybe an amazon or zig-zag general. One version might be unkillable; it can only be banished by capture. A captured cupid would then be returned to the owner to be dropped on any subsequent move.

A 45-46 SQUARES CONTEST will make up for lost time in the small board category. Next year we could have a 47-48 SQUARES CONTEST.

A LARGE (144-256 SQUARES) CONTEST allows the somewhat popular board sizes of 12x12, 16x12, 16x16, etc. Also 6x6x6 and 4x4x4x4 in higher dimensions.

Hi, I just want to add this comment about new users and this contest. I am
a new user, and I submitted a variant about a week ago and I have never
heard a response. the email was chessvar@yahoo.com. I hope this is the
correct place. 

Regarding the contest, could you not also pick variants that already exist
in  the website and submit them to the relevant categories? For example, I
have a variant that I will like to send for the site itself. I don't
really know how applicable my variant will be for any of the categories in
the contest. But since the entries are going to be 'judged', then should
not the entries already on the website (if relevant) be judged too?

A chess variant the can not end in a draw, and that does not give the first player (nor second player) any noticeable advantage

The idea is this: One complaint people have about FIDE Chess is that the game has too many draws. Another complaint is that white has too much of an advantage. My proposed category is to design a chess variant where draws are impossible, and where the inventor of the variant demonstrates that their variant does not seem to give either player an advantage.

This is a little tougher category to invent for than to, say, invent a 56-square variant, so more creativity is needed with the inventors.

I propose another category:

A variant that computers can not be programmed to play well

In this category, the inventor has to make a variant that they can demonstrate is difficult for computers to play. Multimove variants and other variants where there is a high branching factor are obvious candidates, as are variants where it is not easy to calculate who is ahead (Can this be done?)

What do people think of these categories?

- Sam

There are four different types of kings Peter Aronson lists in one of his comments about Anti-King Chess. An interesting contest would be to design a game where all four kings play a role.

Here is another idea for a contest: In 2004, Robert Abbott, inventor of Ultima, posted a comment to our section on Rococo, suggesting two new pieces he calls 'triangulators' which coordinate with each other to capture any pieces that reach the apexes of triangles formed by diagonals that trace through them. He suggests adding them to Rococo. Peter Aronson, co-inventor of Rococo, responded to Abbott's suggestion that the proposed new pieces, applied to Rococo, 'don't pass the clarity test' and they have the limitation that they couldn't capture pieces near or at the corners.

A diamond shaped board such as this or this would empower these triangulators. It would be a good idea to have a contest to see who could design the best game using Edward Abbott's triangulator pieces.

Frequently, for me, the value of a game doesn't become clear until the third or fourth time playing it. I noted that Gary Gifford didn't enjoy his first game of Tripunch but did decide he liked Tripunch very much after playing it twice. I think we should make a requirement that each person judging a game play two versions of it, one as black and one as white.

Of course you do have your occasional variant that is not even meant to be played, but the inventor should specify that he doesn't care whether the game gets played before being judged.

I think this phenomenon of judging games without playing them is usually mostly unfair, like someone who says they don't like chess itself at all, but has never even bothered to learn the rules or play any games of it. A lot of people don't learn to like chess itself until a year or two of trying to figure out how to play it. Like my 8 year old daughter. It's a process.

Frequently, for me, the value of a game doesn't become clear until the third or fourth time playing it. I noted that Gary Gifford didn't enjoy his first game of Tripunch but did decide he liked Tripunch very much after playing it twice. I think we should make a requirement that each person judging a game play two versions of it, one as black and one as white.

How about having 'played on a board of 45-47 squares' and/or 'pseudo-historical' and/or love themed maybe with a short or medium overall range 'Cupid' piece, that is, a 'Cupid' piece with no or very few unlimited range moves as the theme of the contest. That way we could have a 48-50 square contest next year.

Mr. Joyce, I like the idea of a cupid that prevents an adjacent piece from capturing other pieces when exiting its influence, but your suggestion for its movement capability (at least that of the queen) is way too generous considering that love is fickle. However, if you really want a piece that symbolizes the true power of love, I'll say that the variant may include an 'Aphrodite' or 'Erato' piece the movement capability of which is only limited by reason.

Two weeks ago I proposed a 45-46 SQUARES CONTEST, to make up for lost time in the small board category, perhaps followed by a 47-48 SQUARES CONTEST next year. Another reason to hold these contests with pairs of numbers is that some numbers are more suitable for chess boards. The number 47 is prime, while on the other hand, 48 gives us both an 8x6 board and a 7x7 board with a missing central square.

I think it would be a shame to let go of the tradition of squares. Now, I'm a little confused by some of the comments that have been made here on that subject. Was there a 45 square contest that was initiated and then dropped midway? If so what happened to the entries? Or has there never been a 45 square contest initiated?

Joe Joyce suggested having two tournaments, one a continuation of the consecutive sets of squares contest and one another type or combination of types. I like that idea too.

Jeremy, there never was a 45 square contest; Hans stopped having birthdays, apparently. Be that as it may [if he managed it, I'm jealous!], a number of people have expressed some interest in such a contest. I, too, like David's idea: run a 45/46 squares contest. I'd say run this contest - the 45/46 Square Contest - now, while we're trying to figure out which contest[s] to run. This'll give you practice, and everyone a chance to get their contest muscles toned. Work out the details as we get the entries - email me, I'll help.

As far as judging, if we can't scrounge up a qualified panel of judges, maybe we could use a work-around. If we could post all the entries anonymously, the entrants could judge everyone else's stuff without knowing whose work it was,  theoretically. Or you could split the entries into 2 parts, and let the players from each group judge the other. The 2 winners would be judged by all the remaining entrants. Surely we could manage something that would be reasonably fair, in the absence of a panel of judges, who would also, ideally, get the entries anonymously [might want to have a format for the entries to help erase obvious personal styles]. 

That's about it, Jeremy. Just declare it open, and we're off! ;-)

Send entries to chessvariants@gmail.com.

I will post them on the site as anonymous entries (and I'll help anyone who requests help with anything I can.)

[Or maybe not, but I'll post 'em.]

I hope we can decide on the other design contest by October First.

I think Joe's idea of splitting the entries into two groups and letting the groups judge the other is a fine idea.  The 10th anaversary tournament was that way (but with 4 groups, and you picked your favorite game of each of the other three groups.)  I don't like the anonymous games idea.  For one thing, you couldn't post your own works, and for another, we could well guess some of the author's works as their styles are quite distinctive.

But, if you go the judge route, I'm happy to be a judge.  I don't feel any particular need to sumbit an entry.

I second the nomination of Greg. Thanks, Greg, for volunteering.

The reason for anonymity? To attempt to rule out personalities. The best judges in the world would be subconsciously biased toward friends and against those disliked. It's easier to be objective with anonymity, is all. It's certainly not required for objectivity, though. It's just easier. And it reduces after-the-fact emotions; it's much harder for someone to say relationships played a part in the judging. In my opinion, it's more professional and it reduces the possibilities of strange occurrences. 

With a little work, telltale styles can be pretty much eliminated. First, create a simple format, and a simple form to go with it. A board picture showing initial setup, standard piece icons and basic movement descriptions, a telegraphic [sparse] listing of rules, the minimum info required to play the game correctly is all the judge needs. The designer can follow games being played, and contact Jeremy if there's a problem.

Or not. ;-) Enjoy!

I take it that, in line with previous n-square design contests, the term square is to be interpreted as meaning cell, and is not meant to exclude, for example, hex, trig or multi-dimension based boards?

Joe says:

With a little work, telltale styles can be pretty much eliminated. First, create a simple format, and a simple form to go with it. A board picture showing initial setup, standard piece icons and basic movement descriptions, a telegraphic [sparse] listing of rules, the minimum info required to play the game correctly is all the judge needs.

I'm not sure I agree with this. For one thing, is not the presentation part of what is being judged? Also, authors often put information about the philosophy behind the design, which helps one to judge the game. For example, in my games I usually talk about how I've attempted to balance the values of as many different piece types as possible, or at least tried to make their relative values difficult to determine. This would be a telltale sign of one of my games, but it isn't fair to eliminate that information. Finally, I think most designers want to present their works in a particular way. I know for myself that if the rules of the tournament required a uniform, bland, minimilist presentation, that would guarantee that I would not be placing an entry.

And if we go the judge route, I hope there would be at least 2 other judges. I would hate to have to pick the winner by myself. I have preferences in the type of game I like to play and it would be difficult to look beyond those. A judge panel, each rating each game based on several criteria, numerically, and ruling based on mathematical total, would seem to be the most fair (as in figure skating.)

Jeremy, previous contests seem to have had about a 5-month submission period. As this is a 'pre-contest' contest I would suggest a 3-month period - a deadline of 30-November.

This should give sufficient time for the 'contest' contest details to be decided, which could then have a 5-month submission period running from 01-Dec to 30-April

I'm going to sneak in just under the wire, starting this after 11:00 pm 8/31. I'd like to propose a serious contest to design a classical chess variant, specifically the one George W. Duke and I discussed briefly in recent comments. I doubt we will find the 'next chess', but it's quite a worthwhile contesy and many people here are very chess oriented. From my 8/27 comment to George on just what 'the next chess' should look like:

'George, what are your criteria for games that are sufficiently chesslike to be in contention? Does the board size range from 8x8 to 10x10, or only 8x10? Must all the FIDE pieces be maintained totally intact under any circumstances? Is there a minimum and maximum number of pieces? Of pawns? I certainly have no objection to discussing, assisting with, or designing some games under these constraints; in a sense, it's a contest. Many of us like contests. Lay out the rules, and some of us will enter.'

His answer was:
'Constraints of Joe Joyce remind us of over-four-years-ago Luotuoqi nominations and the game that was designed on 8x8. That effort was whimsical. JJoyce's proposed contest could be instead a group effort at a
serious '10x10' that nobody really seems to get right. Do it by Committee, like Luotuoqi, answering each JJoyce question in turn, and once three or
four agree, that will be the form approved: (1) Minimum # pieces (2) FIDE or not, and so on, as in Joyce 27.Aug.07'

So I propose the entrants first must vote on the specific parameters of the contest, then all have some limited time to design and enter a game.

Ah, Jeremy, I was away when the time was extended. Now I have a chance to expand a bit on the contest idea.
Gary, great to have you back. Been agreeing with everyone, got nobody to argue with, so thanks! ;-) Great line you posted!
'With enough constraints, a design no longer is a design, but a mandate.'
My counterargument could be that without constraints, there is no design, only chaos, but instead I'll just lay out boundaries to the idea, and we'll see if they're tight enough to give all the designs a coherent theme, but loose enough to prevent everyone from being forced to design the same game [like we don't design the same games over and over again without anyone forcing us to... :-) ] 
The contest is to design a sufficiently chesslike variant that it could be 'the next FIDE chess'. Examples of reasonable contenders in this category would be Fisher Random, Carrera/Capablanca Random, Grand Chess and Falcon Chess; shogi, shatranj, large variants, multi-movers and such are not.
Specific constraints that could be decided: 
* board size - 8x8, 8x10 and 10x10, or only 10x10? 
* must all the FIDE pieces be maintained totally intact? 
* is there a minimum and maximum number of pieces? Of pawns?
I think this would provide a reasonable balance between freedom and constraint.

Joe: You mention lack of constraints and chaos.  But, given the choice of (a) design a chess variant while abiding by numerous restrictions or (b) design a chess-variant - I would pick 'b.'  That is essentially what we have been doing at CV and I do not see the 'chaos' that you mention.

You stated that, 'The contest is to design a sufficiently chess-like variant that it [sic] could be 'the next FIDE chess'.'  I think this is wishful thinking.  There are many excellent Chess-like games, like the Fischer Random Chess, for example... yet Fide Chess just keeps hanging in there.  We can try, of course to create the next evolution of Chess...  But, when the boards are made waxed and polished... when they sit proudly in the sunlight with their pieces casting shadows while waiting for the logic of their masters... well then, we have our game.  But I truly suspect that Chess will remain supreme.  

As a side note, when I played Roberto's Maxima I had a great appreciation of it and could easily picture that game as the chess variant for future generations... yet such a future is far away and likely not to happen.  Time will tell... but as we all know, Fide chess is quite endurable.

I must admit I am not clear about this contest.  On one hand I was getting the notion that there was a 45/46 square contest with freedom to design rules and pieces; on the other hand, I see a chess constraints contest which was having dimensional restrictions still being discussed.  

Perhaps there are two different topics going on within the same '2007-2008 Chess Variants Design Contest' heading? 

I made a board in anticipation of a 45/46 squares contest... I've not added pieces or rules because I am very much in the fog as to what is allowed.  Are the 45/46 squares even allowed?  Are there two contests planned?

The other is of a nature yet to be determined but you can fully participate in that determination. It can have lots of restrictions or just one and there are many choices ['dimensional' is just one possible restriction which may or may not be instituted] and choices about how many restrictions as well. I'd like to create a poll for this in the nature of the MAM Condorcet polls.

Thomas, the contest split into 2 contests, the 45-46 square contest, which is now complete, and a nebulous design contest that actually did die a silent death. There have been discussions about a contest, but they have not actually coalesced into a contest. 

To actually have a contest, you need a few things. One is a decent theme, or a central reference point, for the contest. Another is a workable method of judging the contest. A third is a reasonable number of contestants. 

I am certainly willing to hold contests. But I'm not willing to be reduced to begging for help judging ... again. ;-) The 45-46 square contest started with me being a contestant and ended with me not only being the main judge of the contest but also an editor here. I may be slow but I don't need to get whacked upside the head more than twice to know that the next contest I get involved in is going to have a very different set of groundrules. :-)

That being said, the floor is open to all. What do we do? How can I help?

I changed the itemid for this page from MP2007-2008chess to MS2007-2008chess, because MP is reserved for Game Courier presets. I also added a contest pseudo-directory to the semantic URLS.