Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Another variant which may be better than Heisei.

http://pika.cs.nctu.edu.tw/lit/MillenniumShogi.rar

One modern variant of Chu Shogi, called Millennium Chu Shogi(¤d¦~¬ö¤¤±N´Ñ), is played on a more open board. 40% of the pieces are set aside at setup and held in reserve. Once during the game a player may drop one of these on any empty square as long as at least one friendly piece now stays in the enemy camp(promotion zone, the farthest four ranks of the board); otherwise only drop on his own camp(the closest four ranks of the board).  If dropped into the promotion zone, the piece must dropped as its promoted piece.

The set-aside pieces are the Lances, Coppers, Silvers, Side Movers, Vertical Movers, Reverse Chariots, Kyrin, and Phoenix. 

Captured pieces do not come back into play, and the rest of the game is played as in regular Chu.

I wrote an engine (called HaChu) that can play Chu Shogi under WinBoard (the Alien Edition, as it needs multi-move support for the Lion). The idea is that in the future it would also be able to play the even larger Shogi variants Tenjiku, Dai Dai, Maka Dai Dai and Tai. But currently it plays only Sho, Chu and Dai Shogi (and Shatranj and Makruk, which are very Shogi like). I packaged engine and GUI together in a special Chu Shogi release. It can be downloaded from

http://hgm.nubati.net/WinBoard-Chu.zip .

WinBoard uses mnemonic piece pictograms in board sizes 'tiny' and 'petite', and traditional kanji in other board sizes. (Your OS must have Asian language support for that to display correctly.)

The engine is pretty strong (but you can always handicap it by hefty time odds). I played it on the 81Dojo server, and is able to compete with the strongest Chu players there.

I declared the HaChu engine to be open source, so that it can be supplied by Debian for Linux. This begged for a Linux interface that could handle Chu Shogi, and unfortunately the 'mnemonic piece set' shown in the previous (Chu Shogi) comment is only implemented in WinBoard.

For XBoard I therefore used a representation with pictograms, (which a poll showed to be highly preferred by Chess players, despite their inferior neature), using as many of the 22 piece symbols that were already supported by XBoard. (But this was barely enough for the pieces in the initial setup. So I had to make some extra symbols for the promoted pieces, which are mainly slightly modified versions of the unpromoted piece that moves the same.

This is what I finally settled on:

Laziness prevailed in the cases of Blind Tiger (using the masked Horse that normally represents Nightrider), Reverse Chariot (using the Canon) and Go Between (using the Cobra); for the rest I am reasonably happy with how the unpromoted pieces look. The only new symbols used in the initial setup are the Lion, Ferocious Leopard and the standing and lying sword. The latter three were used in stead of XBoard's existing Falcon, Unicorn and narrow crown of the Grasshopper symbols, because the latter seemed more apt for designating some promoted pieces with unique gait. And swords seemed a very useful representation for the Vertical and Side Mover, as the way they point reminds you of the move pattern. (A similar argument led to the existing crosssed-swords symbol (the 'SMIRF' Archbishop) to represent the Phoenix, and the more roundish U.S. Marhall star to represent the Kylin.)

In the above picture the pictograms can be characterized as follows:

S . . S . S . . .
S . e e C C . C L
S . e e C C S S .
. . e e S S . . c

That leaves 14 new pieces that would have to be memorized (the Elephant counted double). If you already have used XBoard for Shogi, that is.

The CVP have received an email with a link to a "modern large shogi variant that seems to adapt chu shogi in ways that your readers may find appealing".  The page is in Japanese:

http://seesaawiki.jp/nari_shogi/d/%BC%EB%BF%FD

This is indeed an interesting 11x11 variant, which at first glance seems a cross between Sho Shogi (9x9) and Chu Shogi (12x12). It shrinks the board compared to Chu Shogi by eliminating the duplicats of Bishop, Rook, Horse and Dragon, and having only one of these each.

On closer inspection there are quite some extra differences, though. The Ferocious Leopards of Chu are replaced by (Shogi) Knights from Sho Shogi, which then promote to FL. The Pawns are really 3 different kind of Pawns, the ordinary kind that promotes to Gold, but also those that promote to Silver or Copper. Gold promotes to Bishop rather than Rook.

There also seem to be differences in the way pieces move. The Blind Tiger seems to move like an inverted Silver (not sure if it is still called a Blind Tiger; my reading of the kanji is not that good), and their promoted form ('Flying Stag') does lack the sW moves. Also the pieces to which Dragon Horse and Dragon King promote (Horned Falcon and Soaring Eagle in Chu) now move different, and seem to have the double-move sting in 4 directions in stead of 1 or 2 directions, respectively.

The Lion does not seem to be a Chu-Shogi Lion, but a piece with a 'sting' in 8 directions, which promotes to 'Vermillion Sparrow' (which moves as Chu Lion?). The Free King also promotes, (to Golden Bird, and I am not sure how that moves). The King promotes to an 'Emperor' (?), which is not like the Maka-Dai-Dai Emperor, though, but a KD.

I have a question for Adrian King.
I hope he reads here.

On Roger Hare's page, you are credited for the promotion rule, "if one of your pieces does not promote on the turn on which it enters the promotion zone, then that piece may not promote on your next turn unless it makes a capture on that turn. On subsequent turns, however, the same piece may promote whether it makes a capture or not, provided that it makes a move partly or entirely within the promotion zone".

I would be interested in knowing the origin of this rule, in particular the idea that promotability on non-capture would regenerate after ONE TURN. This is different from the rule described in George Hodges' Middle Shogi Manual, which states that such promotability only regenerates by MOVING THAT PIECE. This again is different from the current rules of the Japanese Chu-Shogi Renmei, which specify that the piece would have to leave the zone first. (In other words, non-captures can only promote when they enter the zone from the outside; moves entirely in the zone or leaving it can promote only if they are captures.)

So it seems there are three different versions of the promotion rules for the historic game.

Chu Shogi has never been "the dominant form of chess in Japan", let alone "for centuries". This is perhaps a mistake caused by confusion with Sho Shogi (Small Shogi), the 16th century name for the predecessor  of Modern Standard Shogi (still without drops), to distinguish it from Dai Shogi (Great Shogi) and Chu Shogi (Middle Shogi). These larger games were popular, but Sho Shogi was the dominant game, even before the introduction of drop rules. Also Chu Shogi is the youngest of the three (15th century), it didn't even have the time to be dominant for centuries, for at the beginning of the Edo period (around 1600)Standard Shogi, promoted by the shogunate, began to oust the larger forms, even though many large variants were invented (and certainly played) at this time

I don't know where you got that from. According to my information, Chu Shogi was already mentioned in manuscripts dated as early as 1350AD. A diary entry from 1424AD mentions a Shogi match played in front of the emperor, where one of the players was handicapped by a Free King. So that was certainly not referring to Sho Shogi. It was apparently considered so evident that 'Shogi' would mean Chu Shogi that the qualification 'Chu' was omitted. Tsume problems dating from 1675AD, 1697AD and 1746AD are all Chu Shogi problems; no historic problems or game records from Sho Shogi are known from that period or earlier.

All this is described in the Middle Shogi Manual, which was compiled in cooperation with the research group on the history of Shogi at the University of Kyoto. What are your sources?

If that's the Manual written by Hodges, I do know it. And you are RIGHT when you say it is first mentioned 100 years EARLIER than I claimed. I apologize. That makes it still younger than Sho and Dai Shogi EXCEPT when you argue that the Heian Dai Shogi was really a kind of Chu Shogi and The later Dai Shogi was the novelty. Dunno, you tell me!

But that the Yamashina family had a faible for Chu Shogi is meagre evidence for Chu Shogi ever being more popular than the smaller variant. On the other hand  the carpenter Minase Kanenari tell us  that between 1590 and 1602 he produced 618 sets for Sho Shog but only 106 sets for Chu Shogi (that's from the web). That also doesn't prove very much. Or does it? But I admit, I just thought that it was commonly accepted among scholars that at least in the 16th century and later Sho Shogi was dominant, and for earlier times we lack proper information. I never claimed Chu Shogi was not a popular game. Just that Sho shogi was more so.

I think when Hodges states, that Chu Shogi was the more popular game in the Kamakura period he overstretches the (few)sources we have about the game in this time. Historians do that very often. You should always reckon with that and being published by a University unfortunally does not prevent them from doing so. 

That the first tsumes and game scores come from Chu- rather than Sho Shogi I really doubt. But i cannot argue against, for I'm on holydays and the web is a very bad source for chess history. If it is right I would be very surprised.

Do you mean the game scores of Yamagata? But they are composed games, aren't they? The first scores of really played games i know are from the early 20th century, but i don't remember where i have that from.

Do you know the earliest game scores of Standard Shogi? I don't!

I was referring to the games Mori-Fukui, Kondo-Konishi and the handicap games Kuri-Masuda, Kuri-Sawada, and Mori-Matsumoto (2x). These are recorded in a manuscript from 1778, but it does not say when the games were played. The 50 mating problems by Ito Sokan I were published in the Chu Shogi Zushiki from 1697AD.

The MSM doesn't mention they are compositions. Why would anyone compose complete games? And even if they were, because people in those days would have such a strange hobby, it doesn't seem to make it less significant they composed Chu rather than Sho games, instead of playing them.

The MSM further states: "By the time of the Northern and Southern Courts period in Japan (1336-1392), Middle Shogi, played on a
board with 12 squares each way and with 46 pieces on each side, had evolved. In subsequent years it
enjoyed considerable popularity and our first clear record of the game dates from 1350." 'Record' here must not mean 'recorded game', but just a reference specific enough to recognize it unambiguously as Chu rather than Sho or Dai Shogi.

First published description of moves and rules is claimed to be the book "Aro Kassen Monogatari", volume 4, by prime minister Ichijo Kanera, dated 1476.

I believe you that they are actually played games. But you probably know that most of the extant game scores of European chess prior to the 19th century are composed games, especially in handbooks written to teach the game (for example ALL games of Greco are compositions). Also the oldest extant game scores of Chinese Chess are from such handbooks and are assumed to be compositions. So my assumption was not THAT farfetched. I do not know though if this "strange hobby" as you call it was common in Japan also.

And again, I never denied that Chu Shogi was a popular game. But I'm still not convinced that it ever was more popular than the smaller one.

So from which time are the first extant Sho Shogi game scores? Do you know that?

> So from which time are the first extant Sho Shogi game scores? Do you know that?

No, do you? You still haven't told me your sources.

BTW, just looking at the game suggests Sho Shogi would not stand a chance to rival Chu in popularity. Compared to Chu it is as dull as Shatranj is compared to modern Chess. In addition all historic variants seem to be based on Chu Shogi, and evolved towards larger size. If people would have thought the smaller game was better, you would have expected them to make variants based on Sho.

No I do not know any game scores of standard Shogi prior to the 19th century. And that's quite strange.

You must understand, true, I am not really sure about the situation in the Heian and Kamakura period. But in the Edo era, from the end of the 16th century on, if somebody said "Shogi" he meant the game on 9x9 squares. If he meant another variant, he had to specify. It was the most prestigious game in Japan after Go, which was - of course - the game of games. Shogi - the 9x9 game  - was promoted by the Shogunate, the government. Like in Go, the official title of Meijin for the best Shogi player was established and the annual castle tournaments were held, in the presence of the shogun or even the emperor, I'm not sure. At this time the names of the first great players are known. They all played the 9x9 game, not the bigger variants.

My sources? Are you kidding? That's so basic knowledge, you cannot dive into the history of Shogi for one afternoon without knowing that! 

And now to your statement about Standard Shogi and Shatranj being "dull" games and that just having a "look at the game" of Chu Shogi  suggests Sho Shogi would not stand a chance to rival Chu in popularity." and so on...

Now I have NO opinion at all which one is the "better" game. But you have disqualified yourself so much stating such a nonsense, that I really think that you do not know ANYTHING about what you are talking and just arbitrarily pick it from the web, and actually I do not feel like replying to you any more. Sorry, bro.

BTW, just looking at the game suggests Sho Shogi would not stand a chance to rival Chu in popularity. Compared to Chu it is as dull as Shatranj is compared to modern Chess.

This is a subjective claim, and Spengler Georg is right to criticize you for it. Saying something like this just doesn't prove your point. Besides that, the complexity of the game is a strike against it. Popularity is about numbers, and more people are likely to play a game in greater numbers if it is easier to learn.

In addition all historic variants seem to be based on Chu Shogi, and evolved towards larger size. If people would have thought the smaller game was better, you would have expected them to make variants based on Sho.

This is a more compelling point, though it will require some demonstration, and it still doesn't prove that Chu Shogi was more popular. Furthermore, modern Shogi is apparently a variant of Sho Shogi, and that became the most popular Shogi variant in modern times.

If Sho Shogi was more popular, then it followed the same trend seen in China, Korea, and the west of the most popular variant being a game of around the same size with similar pieces, and it better accounts for modern Shogi being more popular today than Chu Shogi is. But if Chu Shogi was the more popular game, it is the exception to the rule, and we are left wondering why its popularity declined in favor of a very different game. So it looks like the default position is that Sho Shogi was the more popular game, and if you want to claim that Chu Shogi was more popular, you will need hard evidence to back this up.

Well, I have given the reference to the hard evidence: the Middle Shogi Manual compiled by George Hodges in collaboration with the research group at Kyoto. It contains the references to the historic sources on which it bases its conclusions, which I have paraphrased here. The sources themselves are of course all in (archaic) Japanese, which I cannot read at all. But I have no reason to doubt Japanese academic research on this. 

In fact I have a lot more confidence in Japanese academic research than in some western clown that 'just knows things' without being able to tell where this knowledge comes from, and then blames others for his ignorance. But everyone can of course decide for himselve whether he rather believes a Japanese history professor or a bragging westerner, on matters of japanese history.

And the 9x9 game of course became only popular after the introduction of drops. That transformed it from the boring Shatranj-like game to the fast and exciting game Shogi is today.

Yonin Shogi is a 4-player variant of modern Shogi, so I suppose you mean a 4-player variant of Chu Shogi here.

I don't think that this would be a viable game. Multi-player versions of Chess are troublesome, because there is every incentive to not get engaged in battle: even if your tactics gain material compared to your victim, you in general lose compared to the idle by-standers. This does no longer apply when winning a battle actually gains you someting on an absolute scale, as it does in games where captured pieces can be dropped as your own.

So it is the drops that make Yonin Shogi an interesting game. And Chu Shogi has no drops. Of course you could allow drops in the hypothetical Yonin Chu Shogi, but Chu Shogi with drops is in itself troublesome, because of the very wide strength range of the pieces. I guess this could be fixed too, but if you change too much you will get a game that has so little resemblance to Chu Shogi that it would only be confusing to call it Yonin Chu Shogi.