[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is now on Boardgame Geek: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/35433
I happened to update the terms and conditions for use. Please provide feedback here. My attempt is to make this as flexible as possible for people, while preventing the effort to use this to fragment, and not create a center point of focus, which is essential to its success.
Also the B-Class and C-Class were fixed.
All goes well, I will be looking to submit a Zillions adaptation (the zip file should contain two adaptions of IAGO Chess) next Friday. I will keep people posted on this. I will also look to do an V-Class/X-Class Zillions version of this that will contain multiple variants off it. One thing I would be interested in playing with is an 8x8 version of Grand Chess, using the basic rules to IAGO Chess. Please send me a message if you would like to get the Zip file early to play around with.
Joe, I think you are fairly close. What IAGO/IAGO World Tour is trying to do is have abstract strategy games, as a collective whole, go through what poker has become, so we have a large-scale version of the poker craze, or what was seen in the 1970s with Chess. But it will pick up variants along the way. The point is to create an environment favorable for growth. This is also meant to coordinate with large scale abstract strategy games associations that are covering games with tens of millions of players worldwide to. As for what IAGO Chess is (aka, the IAGO Chess System) is maybe it is best to think of it as 'Chess in IAGO' rather than 'IAGO Chess'. It is meant as a way for IAGO to integrate variants and coordinate them playing together, to actually be an extension and support for the Chess Variants site. IAGO World Tour Enterprises (this is the business name for the IAGO World Tour) will be looking to promote the chess variants site, its tournaments, and so on. For this, the IAGO Chess System is meant to facilitate that in multiple ways, including having a version of Capablanca Chess on an 8x8 board that will be designed to integrate the world of Chess Variant pieces into it. The intent of that is for the community to help evolve it. It is meant to mainstream the variants community, by acting as an official body to give them credibility. It is something that my hope would be people give their two cents into to have it go right, not just stay on the sidelines and complain about this and that. And yes, one of the object is to finally get some real pieces for the variant community to have to facilitate their adoption. I would definitely like to have world championships of chess variants in physical locations somewhere, and having the real pieces helps. Getting an IAGO Store for sale would help also. But, of course, there will need to be a community that gets behind all this. Production runs of pieces will cost thousands of dollars to get going. As for why it is needed, please look around now and ask yourself if you are honestly happy with the state of things. Do you like things being small time and not able to acquire game equipment anywhere? Do you like actually having to make up game boards on the fly? And if you try to show them to people who don't play chess variants, do they actually want to play your game?
Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Apr 3, 2008 01:12 AM UTC:If I may, I'd like to explain what I see IAGO as, and as attempting to do. First and foremost, IAGO [the International Abstract Games Organization] is an organization for the promotion of abstract strategy games; it is a marketing venture in that sense. [Richard, please correct me here if I misstate your aims and goals.] Its goal is to provide encouragement to the abstract strategy board games communities and designers, to organize groups to hold tournaments and other events, to provide cross-advertising of these events and their results, and to act as a hook for people who enjoy abstract games. If I see a game in a box with an IAGO logo on it somewhere, I will be more likely to buy that game, and I will certainly look much more closely at it than another non-logoed piece of merchandise, because I know that logo means there is a game in that box that uses skill and strategy rather than luck and random chance to determine the outcome. Rich is trying to organize the 'indies', the smaller groups of gamers, into an umbrella group that, because it has a large size, can command more of what those indie members want from the marketplace. Sure, we all play CVs online here, but when I visit my friends or family, and want to play my latest design, I cannot play a 'hotseat' computer game for a hour or three, where the participants have to wait around, sitting down and standing up over and over again to make moves in the game - no one will put up with it, not even me. So I have computer-printed boards, several chess sets in various sizes and styles, and colored twist-ties and rubberbands to use to represent pieces. Guess what - about once every 2 or 3 years, one of my brothers will [reluctantly] play one of these games with me. I want real chessvariant pieces. If IAGO works the way it's supposed to, and is supported by enough of the CV community, we can get some decent, reasonably priced variant pieces, from major chess retailers, without having to buy entire chess sets to get a couple of pieces. This post is overlong already - continued if anyone wishes to discuss it further, but this is a little bit of what I see IAGO is for.
At this juncture I find myself agreeing with Singh.
I cannot help but to ask
'¿ What does IAGO Chess give to us that CV site does not already give?
CV site offers unlimited games, continuous new games, and a means to play them. I see nothing that really seems to be new in IAGO Chess... lots of categorizing... not sure what that is all about... not sure how it helps anyone.
Singh, can I give you the perspective that the IAGO Chess System comes from? It is a framework for an attempt to integrate variants into an association that promotes abstract strategy games, and insure that the play doesn't deadend so chess that is played is stuck in the margins. It is meant as a practical solution, not as some, 'WOW that blows me away as new'. It isn't meant to blow anyone away, but work. That is its intent. Anyhow, if your view is one of that it will happen, and we can't do anything about it, so don't try, then that doesn't fit anywhere into the IAGO Chess discussion. What I will say is that, in order for what you suggest to happen, it has to get there incrementally, and in a framework that will allow it. A sudden jump isn't going to happen. People won't jump all at once to something new, and abandon what they know. It will have to happen in an evolutionary manner. If you care to explain how FIDE Chess framework would enable that, please state how. If you actually have any ideas to explain how it can come about, please state them. If you just know this, but can't state, then I would say to feel free to be a player in what develops, as a recipient, and leave it sat that.
You miss my meaning of 'paradigm'. I meant it in a far larger sense than in chess variants. I meant that the future of man and of what will succeed man will bear little resemblance to the present. I think people should play the variants that interest them now and not worry about future-proofing chess because that cannot be done. If people play and discuss the games they find interesting the future will work itself out. IAGO chess does not seem to add anything to the discussion; it seems to me to be largely a matter of classification of extant chess variant ideas, something I find unnecessary.
Singh, I will add your comment to the Unsticking Chess thread and reply there, regarding the paradigm. As far as The IAGO Chess System goes, may I suggest people give it thought as being one of the pieces to the new paradigm, and happen to come up with their own suggestions, modifications of what the IAGO Chess System says, or point out the flaws? At least discuss this. On this, I welcome people to comment about the different aspects of it. These being: 1. The classification system for types of chess. 2. The use of drops and gating to get new pieces on the board, and setting up the board to start. 3. The basic rules on how it uses drops and gating, and how the C-Class transforms to the C-Class, then to the M-Class, and and then is able to produce a V-Class version/variant of the M-Class rules. I welcome feedback, people to adopt, reject, debate, etc... I will say, however, my wish is that people not ignore this completely.
Not a member, so responding to 'Unsticking Chess' here. Regarding: 'doing all of the above should likely buy chess another 1000 years' In my opinion, not even close. As soon as someone designs a computer smart enough to improve itself, processing power explodes exponentially. The future is going to be way, way different than anything we can imagine using the current paradigm.
As of this point, the name of the pieces have been changed. The Archbishop is now a Cardinal and the Chancellor is a Marshall. The Empress piece is called an Amazon, but may get chanced back to Empress. The use of Cardinal and Marshall allows flexibility in the naming of the Amazon/Empress piece, as per the community collectively agreeing to it.
Note that I changed the documentation to differentiate the specific game rules in the IAGO Chess System from the IAGO Chess System itself as a framework to manage change and the varieties of chess.
This is a sample game run by Zillions against itself at C-Class IAGO Chess. C-Class allows players to place Chancellor, Archbishop or Queen in the Queen space before game begins. This starts off C-Class with 9 starting configurations before the players begin the game. In this, it is Chancellor against Chancellor. One configuration I have seen pop up off and on is White Chancellor vs Black Archbishop start. My take is the Archbishop provides a strong defensive configuration. I have found running it a bunch of times that within 2-3 turns, the opening book explodes in a wide range of possibilities. The game (jump to the end to see whether white or black wins): Turn 1, Initial Placement 1. (Place Reserve Chancellor onto d1) 1. (Place Reserve Black Chancellor onto d8) Turn 2 and on, movement. 2. Knight b1 - c3 = Knight 2. Black Pawn d7 - d6 3. Pawn e2 - e4 3. Black Knight g8 - f6 4. Knight g1 - f3 = Knight 4. Black Knight b8 - d7 (Gate in Reserve Black Queen onto b8) 5. Pawn d2 - d4 5. Black Knight d7 - b6 6. Bishop f1 - d3 6. Black Bishop c8 - g4 7. O-O 7. Black Pawn e7 - e5 8. Bishop c1 - e3 8. Black Pawn c7 - c6 9. Bishop d3 - e2 9. Black Bishop f8 - e7 10. King g1 - h1 10. Black Bishop g4 x f3 11. Pawn g2 x f3 11. Black Queen b8 - c8 12. Pawn a2 - a4 12. Black Queen c8 - h3 13. Rook f1 - g1 13. Black Pawn e5 x d4 14. Bishop e3 x d4 14. Black Rook h8 - g8 15. Rook g1 - g3 15. Black Queen h3 - e6 16. Pawn a4 - a5 16. Black Knight b6 - d7 17. Bishop d4 - e3 17. Black Knight f6 - h5 18. Rook g3 - g1 18. Black Queen e6 - f6 19. Pawn a5 - a6 19. Black Pawn b7 - b5 20. Rook g1 - g5 20. Black Pawn g7 - g6 21. Pawn h2 - h4 21. Black Knight d7 - e5 22. Chancellor d1 - g1 22. Black Knight h5 - f4 23. Bishop e3 x f4 23. Black Queen f6 x f4 24. Chancellor g1 - h3 24. Black Chancellor d8 - e6 25. Rook a1 - g1 = Rook 25. Black Bishop e7 x g5 26. Pawn h4 x g5 26. Black Pawn f7 - f6 27. Pawn g5 x f6 27. Black Chancellor e6 x f6 28. Rook g1 - g3 28. Black Queen f4 - c1 29. Bishop e2 - d1 29. Black Chancellor f6 - f7 30. Chancellor h3 - g1 30. Black Queen c1 x b2 31. Knight c3 - e2 31. Black Rook a8 - b8 32. Chancellor g1 - e1 32. Black Queen b2 - a1 33. Pawn f3 - f4 33. Black Knight e5 - c4 34. Rook g3 - d3 34. Black Knight c4 - b2 35. Rook d3 - d2 35. Black Pawn b5 - b4 36. King h1 - h2 36. Black Chancellor f7 - h6 37. King h2 - g2 37. Black Chancellor h6 - g4 38. King g2 - f1 38. Black Queen a1 x a6 39. Chancellor e1 - f3 39. Black Knight b2 x d1 40. Rook d2 x d1 40. Black Rook g8 - f8 41. (Drop Reserve Queen onto a1) 41. Black Queen a6 x a1 42. Rook d1 x a1 42. Black Rook b8 - b7 43. Chancellor f3 - d4 43. Black Chancellor g4 - h2 44. King f1 - g1 44. Black Chancellor h2 - h3 45. King g1 - g2 45. Black Chancellor h3 - h4 46. King g2 - g1 46. bKing e8 - d7 47. Rook a1 - a6 47. Black Chancellor h4 - g4 48. King g1 - f1 48. Black Rook f8 - c8 49. Chancellor d4 - d3 49. Black Rook c8 - c7 50. Pawn e4 - e5 50. Black Pawn d6 - d5 51. Knight e2 - d4 51. bKing d7 - e8 52. Rook a6 x c6 52. Black Pawn a7 - a5 53. Chancellor d3 - c5 53. Black Rook c7 x c6 54. Chancellor c5 x c6 54. Black Rook b7 - e7 55. Chancellor c6 - c8 55. Black King e8 - f7 56. Pawn e5 - e6 56. Black King f7 - g7 57. Chancellor c8 x e7 57. Black King g7 - h8 58. Knight d4 - c6 58. Black Chancellor g4 - f6 59. (Drop Reserve Archbishop onto a1) 59. Black Pawn d5 - d4 60. Archbishop a1 x d4 60. (Drop Black Archbishop onto g8) 61. Chancellor e7 - f7 61. Black Archbishop g8 x f7 62. Archbishop d4 x f6 (White Checkmate win)
By the way, for those who want to fiddle around with Capablanca pieces on an 8x8 board at this moment, feel free to check out this Zillions adaptation of different ideas throughout the years (IAGO Standard Fantasy Chess, aka Capablanca 64): http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/76178?do=show;id=1492
My experiences running IAGO Chess (near B-Class, without the recycling pawn promotion) a bunch of times on Zillions, to give a general feel how play lines up: 1. The non-static opening makes the game feel like it starts out in mid-game providing players a lot of different ways the game can go. It is real hard to say that there is opening lines. The way IAGO Chess works, with both the gatings and drops, is you can have a game where one of the Capablanca pieces (Chancellor, Archbishop) can remain off board until even mid to late game. Yes, it FEELS like regular chess when you start, but then the game can take a bunch of unexpected turns, which makes it good, in my opinion. 3. Yes, the board is a bit more congested, but you still can engage in positional play. Some games have a much more open board, others tighter. There is still a lot of tactical play. Range of pieces drop a bit perhaps, but then this congestion balances the new power in the game. What I will say is that it is more like the midgame lasts longers because more pieces are on the board. Because the power pieces gate into the back row, the back row will be a bit more full. The power pieces don't come out until they are justified to do so. 3. I have seen times where the game is slow plotting, and then everything breaks loose as the pawn structures begin to get blown away. The end game will often end up with very out of balance positions and one or more rook level or higher pieces floating around. More of the pieces also mean your pawn structure will tend to be protected more, creating stronger lines. I will say a byproduct is the end game usually has more pawns in it, with holes in the line. 4. My biased verdict on it is that I believe this works as a solid chess variant, and robust enough for people to make needed tweaks. Of course, it is my game, but it has held up. I would suggest people get ahold of the Zillions adaptation once it is out, and try it themselves, and see what they think. Even if you don't play the AI, do watch some games. It should hopefully be out in a week or two. All goes well that is. If it goes real well, B, C and a version of M-Class (two variants of M-Class that is), should be available. In this the Empress/Amazon will be added into the mix.
A sample game of IAGO Chess run with Zillions playing both sides. This game didn't use the drop feature of IAGO Chess. Feel free to review any who have Capablanca chess sets. I will look to get a version up in Zillions once I am comfortable with it (I need to tweak the promotion rules for the pawns). It is close, but I wanted to get this up now for people to see how a sample game goes. And yes, Zillions does it usual Knight happy opening. However, this doesn't always happen. I will be posting in another post my experience watching Zillions play a bunch of times. 1. Knight b1 - c3 1. Black's Turn: Knight g8 - f6 2. Knight g1 - f3 = Knight 2. Black's Turn: Pawn e7 - e6 3. Pawn d2 - d4 3. Black's Turn: Knight b8 - c6 4. Bishop c1 - f4 = Bishop 4. Black's Turn: Bishop f8 - d6 (Gate in Archbishop to f8) 5. Knight f3 - e5 5. Black's Turn: Knight f6 - d5 6. Knight c3 x d5 6. Black's Turn: Pawn e6 x d5 7. Rook h1 - g1 (Gate in Archbishop to h1) 7. Black's Turn: Pawn g7 - g5 8. Bishop f4 - g3 8. Black's Turn: Rook h8 - g8 9. Pawn e2 - e3 9. Black's Turn: Queen d8 - f6 10. Rook a1 - b1 10. Black's Turn: Rook a8 - b8 (Gate in Chancellor to a8) 11. Queen d1 - d2 = Queen (Gate in Chancellor to d1) 11. Black's Turn: Chancellor a8 - b6 12. Knight e5 x c6 12. Black's Turn: Pawn d7 x c6 13. Bishop f1 - d3 13. Black's Turn: Bishop c8 - g4 14. Pawn f2 - f3 14. Black's Turn: Bishop g4 - f5 15. Bishop g3 x d6 15. Black's Turn: Archbishop f8 x d6 16. Bishop d3 x f5 16. Black's Turn: Queen f6 x f5 17. Archbishop h1 - g3 17. Black's Turn: Archbishop d6 x g3 18. Pawn h2 x g3 18. Black's Turn: Chancellor b6 - c4 19. Chancellor d1 - c3 19. Black's Turn: Pawn b7 - b5 20. Pawn g3 - g4 20. Black's Turn: Queen f5 - e6 21. Queen d2 - d3 21. Black's Turn: Chancellor c4 x c3 22. Pawn b2 x c3 22. Black's Turn: Queen e6 - h6 23. Pawn a2 - a4 23. Black's Turn: Pawn a7 - a6 24. Pawn e3 - e4 24. Black's Turn: Pawn d5 x e4 25. Queen d3 x e4 25. Black's Turn: King e8 - f8 26. Pawn a4 x b5 26. Black's Turn: Pawn a6 x b5 27. King e1 - f1 27. Black's Turn: Rook b8 - e8 28. Queen e4 - f5 28. Black's Turn: Rook g8 - g6 29. Pawn c3 - c4 29. Black's Turn: Rook g6 - d6 30. King f1 - f2 30. Black's Turn: Pawn b5 x c4 31. Rook g1 - h1 31. Black's Turn: Queen h6 - g7 32. Pawn c2 - c3 32. Black's Turn: King f8 - g8 33. Queen f5 - c5 33. Black's Turn: Queen g7 - g6 34. Rook b1 - b2 34. Black's Turn: Queen g6 - d3 35. Queen c5 x g5 35. Black's Turn: Rook d6 - g6 36. Queen g5 - h4 36. Black's Turn: Pawn h7 - h6 37. Rook h1 - e1 37. Black's Turn: Rook e8 x e1 38. Rook b2 - b8 38. Black's Turn: King g8 - h7 39. King f2 x e1 39. Black's Turn: Queen d3 - e3 40. King e1 - f1 40. Black's Turn: Rook g6 - e6 41. Rook b8 - b1 41. Black's Turn: Queen e3 - d3 42. King f1 - g1 42. Black's Turn: Queen d3 x b1 43. King g1 - h2 43. Black's Turn: Queen b1 - a1 44. Queen h4 - h5 44. Black's Turn: King h7 - g8 45. Queen h5 - h4 45. Black's Turn: Queen a1 x c3 46. Queen h4 - d8 46. Black's Turn: King g8 - g7 47. Queen d8 - b8 47. Black's Turn: Queen c3 x d4 48. Queen b8 x c7 48. Black's Turn: Pawn c4 - c3 49. Pawn f3 - f4 49. Black's Turn: Pawn c3 - c2 50. Pawn f4 - f5 50. Black's Turn: Queen d4 - g1 51. King h2 x g1 51. Black's Turn: Pawn c2 - c1 = Chancellor (Promotion) 52. King g1 - h2 52. Black's Turn: Chancellor c1 - f1 53. King h2 - h3 53. Black's Turn: Rook e6 - e3 54. Pawn g2 - g3 54. Black's Turn: Chancellor f1 - f2 55. King h3 - h4 55. Black's Turn: Chancellor f2 - h1 (BLACK CHECKMATE AND WIN)
Hello George. Thank you for the comments. I would to comment on what you wrote: 1. I am sure drops, in all their glory, are not new, even drops into a zone. I do like the term 'back-rank gating' to describe how Seirawan and IAGO Chess do it. Seirawan is an optional version twist of what is actually in the commercial Chess variant Bosworth. What is done here with IAGO Chess is try to have the rules acknowledge this, and have a default position of providing a restricted version of drops and gating. I will say it is NOT new. It is just done there, with B-Class IAGO Chess as a way to acclimate people to it. On this, it should be noted that B-Class isn't the only version, and it is NOT meant to say that one can't use a larger board. It is just the natural next step off standard chess, that makes for a readily available board, and the need to just add two new pieces (I would go with the Empress/Amazon) as a third, to cover the M-Class version. This is meant as a STARTING point. Let me add here regarding what the back-rank gating and drops in IAGO Chess provides (Seirawan, at this point, appears to be a strictly as is, and not to be changed): A. It allows for players to experiment with new pieces. B. It allows a handicapping system currently missing from chess. By using this version of gating, one could then mix up the reserves what pieces can come into the game. You don't change your default position on the board, BUT you are able to change it in the reserve. C. Rules governing how drops and gating in IAGO Ches can be modified per each variant in it. Some could get rid of both. Others can use one or the other. And other rules can even change how either or both work, making gating or drops restricted to a single space, or having gating tied to a piece in particular, that acts as a transport vehicle. 2. In regards to switching, which recently popped up in Reformed Chess with pawns, I am fully in favor of it as a Mutator that can be used in V-Class (or possibly M-Class). It is a great thing to add to mix things up. I don't believe it should be codified though. I also believe you can play a version of chess where it may or may not be in the game.
Rich Hutnik mentions zones to introduce pieces within 64 squares. One meaning of 'zones' would be like F. V. Morley's or Sibahi's. Morley's book 'My One Contribution to Chess' from 1940's adds two corridors 6 squares each along the sides, making 76 squares, but there are no pieces there in the array -- modest and undisruptive like elementary back-rank 'gating'. Now Abdul-Rahman Sibahi[unlike his 64-square Energizer] adds similar zones, only 4 squares each behind the initial set-up, making 72 squares, to accomodate RN, BN. Under 'Falcon Chess Variants Several' Preset at Game Courier is 'Falcon Chess with Chancellor & Cardinal'. So, before Seirawan Chess, and other than Betza's Tutti-Frutti and Karakus' Perfect, is attempt to put RN and BN on fewer than 80 squares, like that one approved for Sibahi. Actually there are RN & BN on < 64 squares as well, if we can recall some of them(Gilman may have done this, certainly some Gilman's have RN, BN at 64-79). Another CV with ongoing drops is Altair. There Roberto Lavieri accepted my characterization of the vertical-translation capabability of about half Lavieri's piece-types as particularizing drops, since they go to any square of one other rank(3 away), regardless the piece's inherent movement; but they are already on board. Interesting game Altair. In a sense, it is held up as one of the all-time top 3 in mentioning Rococo, Centennial, and Altair together. Of course, a few years ago, we had Switching Chess in there, not so well liked anymore, partly because already invented, it turned out, excepting King switching. Really why would not Switching Chess solve all problems to do away with overuse of rote practice? It has 64 squares and would be easy even to switch one piece over to an adjacent occupied square, and instead an off-board piece onto that arrival square, with the piece thus substituted leaving the board to make room for the probably-new type(other than RNBQ) in regular move by such 'Off-Board Switching', according to availability. As if combining Pocket Piece with Switching practice on same and sure 64 squares.
I noticed that the original rules for gating were wrong. They have been changed: (a) Gating: These pieces may enter the game via gating (piece in reserve comes in and takes start space of piece that started in back row, as that piece vacates its start space). [Mutable] Gating is NOT meant as a way to swap pieces out. It is meant as a way to enter a new piece into the start space of a piece as that piece vacates it. By the way, I have been comments IAGO Chess is not original, does what has been tried before, is to restrictive, and also too ambitious. I was also told I needed to do more of a 'baby step' before attempting this. Please understand that this is meant as a framework for future work, and I am open to suggestions people would have for it. It is also meant as a way for IAGO to classify chess variants so we can have different champions over the games. In other words here, it is meant as an incremental solution to the needs of IAGO and the chess variant community. I suggest people to PLEASE input here with your ideas. Don't just blow this off as nothing special. But, that is your choice in the matter. I will add that I am trying to get a Zillions adaptation done.
I believe I have found another game that uses gating for getting pieces on the board. The game is Bosworth. Please comment: http://www.otb-games.com/bosworth/rules.html This doesn't appear to be a new concept. Only this case, it is required every turn.
22 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.