Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Hello, George. I've been thinking about commenting for a few days now, and
think I have organized my thoughts sufficiently to say what I mean without
much fear of misinterpretation. 
First, this is a good title, I hope [and expect] the discussions on this
topic will live up to high expectations. If everyone excersizes a little
thought and care [and some restraint], we should do quite well.
Second, I'm glad you realize that although I believe the next evolution
of chess will be toward augmented linear sliders [I figure at least 2:1
odds on that, and probably a fair bit higher], I personally do not like
that direction, and would wish to see something different. I do think that
Gary [with BW and RF], you [with B-moa and R-mao], or Carrera [with NB and
NR] will have the last word on the next official change.
Third, you are right and wrong in your assumption that I didn't read your
91.5...Variants before posting my reply. I read it when you first posted
it, and skimmed it during the initial discussion. I did not read it
directly before my last post on that topic. But after I saw your follow-up
comment, I read it again. I understand exactly what you're saying there; I
did the same sort of thing with TooLarge. My conclusion stands unchanged. I
believe it is statistically 'unlikely' that 91.5 trillion possible combos
of pieces and setups will all be good games - there are going to be lots of
dogs in there. There will be trillions of cases where pieces and placements
will be mismatched to the extent they damage the game. There will be
trillions of cases where they won't be mismatched, too.
Fourth, I did presets and started roughing out rules for my recent
suggestion[s] for 8x8. The URLs are:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/8x8-variants
for the rough rules - still rough and it'll take me a bit before I can
clean them up [though, as it's a wiki, others could participate].
The 2 presets [ShortChess and Falcon King Chess]are:
[http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DShortChess%26settings%3DfutC1]

[http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DFalcon+King+Chess%26settings%3DfutC2]

'This game has been independently invented several times.'--page 1, David
Pritchard's ECV 1994. A new dimension of Proliferation is the doctrine of
re-inventing the wheel of JJoyce. He has enunciated his doctrine for a
year and welcome him to explain it here. It says that proponents of
proliferation may re-create as their own prior-existing forms. Thus,
'prolificists' are not liable for finding relevant prior art. The
doctrine has precedent in earlier CV 're-inventions'. Fischer Random
Chess(1990's) is nothing but a revival of Baseline Chess and Randomized
Ch., types around since early 19th C. FRC is the 10th or 20th
reincarnation otherwise including Free Ch. and Permutation Ch. also.   Another example, Chessgi, named by Ralph Betza, actually dates to year 1827.  Peter Aronson says that he found Jumping Chess, or close types to it, have appeared frequently not much different.  The Page 1 (no less) reference above of ECV is about Absorption Chess, under letter A, an immediate theme running through 1994 ECV. Prolificists now loosen standards further to avoid study of others' work and go on with their
cranking out endless initial arrays. Several attempts met with resistance
to look at 'Proliferation' in years 2004-2005. Re-inventions are
just one part of it: the pointless so-called designing of starting set-ups one after another ad infinitum.

Since I am cast in the role of Proliferator-in-Chief, partly because I
often use sloppy language and am at times obscure from expressing a rather
strange sense of humor, but also because I very much do favor a totally
free expression of ideas in design, I will do my best to uphold my end of
the argument. That's 'argument' in the sense of debate, of discussing
an issue in terms of pro and con, not in the sense of antagonism.

With the stage set for the opening act, let's briefly introduce the
principals. I have been a boardgamer, all but exclusively a wargamer, for
over 45 years. I enjoy playing rather complicated games, and I very much
enjoy game design [this means I haven't made any money at it]. Three
years ago, I found this site, discovered chess variants, and found they
are a truly wonderful medium for game design. But I approach variants from
the aspect of a wargamer [and wargame designer], not from the perspective
of a chessplayer.

George has stated he's been involved in chess variants for decades [I
believe the earliest date he mentioned I recall is 1985.] He is, from what
I see, the proponent of a 'two-track' system of design. One track is
light, even frivolous, design, where some fairly small number of games are
made and played just for fun. The other is serious, and is basically an
investigation into the way[s] FIDE can be modified [as little as possible]
to take it out of the hands of the computers and put it back into the hands
of the grandmasters. He personally knows a great amount of history and was
closely involved in the growth and development of the original
chessvariants community. I'll end this post here, asking George to make
any additions, deletions, or corrections he deems proper.

In this debate, I'll attempt to take up George's points reasonably
systematically and give coherent answers. His first statement is:
'It [the re-invention of the wheel concept] says that proponents of
proliferation may re-create as their own prior-existing forms.'
I find this a somewhat leading statement, but after some consideration, I
will accept it as the most radical expression of my opinion.

I will rely heavily on my own small body of design work, such as it is,
for several reasons. [Ego, for instance.] By referring primarily to my own
work, I'm not dragging anyone else into a discussion they may well not
want to be in. I have a far better grasp of the reasons and thinking
behind my own work than anyone else's, and am far less likely to distort
or in some way misrepresent that background. And I believe I have
[created] some concrete examples of the proliferation George is
referencing.

Part I: Hyperchess/Chesseract/Sphinx Chess
My first design was Hyperchess, a 4D variant. This was not a re-creation,
but a totally independent creation that sprang from an attempt to better
understand the 4th [spatial] dimension while I was a college student. I
hand-drew a simple piece of '4D' graph paper, then, while studying its
properties, thought it would make a great chess board. An initial game
followed, revised off and on over the years. Four decades later, my son
got me online, and I found Jim Aikin's Chesseract, using the same board,
a very similar knight, and the same general principles, but still a
totally different game, and much more complex. I also found the CV site.
I'd been finishing up the game, managing to solve the slippery king
problem after roughly a year of trying, and got it posted. 

The first comment the game got was from LLSmith, who compared it to
VRParton's Sphinx Chess, a game almost identical to mine. To that point,
I'd never heard of VRParton or Sphinx Chess. Had I known of Mssrs Aikin
and Parton's games before I started/finished my version, I may not have
posted it*, and very likely would never have solved the slippery king
problem. I will be most immodest here, and say that my version is better
than the other two. I believe I independently invented a better wheel
here. As it's a 4D game, few will care how good it may be, but I invite
all to compare the games and comment if they so choose.
*That was the first 'lost chance to reduce proliferation'.

Thanks, are there war games at all in this page since your next but last
Comment mentions war games? Chess-Battle would not be a war game as well
as a Chess game? Just asking for simple clarification. I went to a gamers' convention a few years ago that was mostly war games, so I sort of
understand and have an opinion whether there can be a hybrid
Chess-Wargame. I notice prolificists tend to review their own productions
and not Comment, analyze or rate others' much. Don't get me wrong, I
like to listen myself; but others especially relative newcomers might want your expert perspective on other material. How do you like Chess-Battle? Or would you consider that a trick question to evade? Just a quick look-see
and Comment on Chess-Battle, an old Russian game none of us have a stake
in, might find some common ground. Thanks and will be getting to your CVs, you know, with so much material I have not finished appraising one single
JJoyce CV yet. We do not have to stay strictly on topic,
'Proliferation(and the senselessness of it: a guide for new readers)',
but agree with JJoyce, since it's a debate, to be systematic, after this
Comment.

click link (top of page), go to The Chess Variant Pages
(2008 EDIT: the Search www.chessvariants.org feature is now working)
Under Other chess variants:, Wargames And Hierarchical Games
will lead to Kriegspiel and 30 other games.

'It [the re-invention of the wheel concept] says that proponents of
proliferation may re-create as their own prior-existing forms.'

Part II: Shatranj
My first 'successful' design was accidental. During a game of shatranj
with RLavieri, we began discussing the 'shortcomings' of some of the
pieces. I said I thought the game would be much better if the alfils also
had a ferz move and the general also had a wazir move. DPaulowich was
following the game [Tournament II] and made a kibbitz comment that
encouraged me to write up my extremely minor changes with promotion rules
and submit that as a variant, to my mind a very modest one. Well, I did
[and there went the second lost opportunity to cut way back on
proliferation - but don't blame David, it's my fault] and it was
well-received [that means people actually played it, unlike my 4D
designs]. 

This was the start of my examination of shatranj - the game, not the
history. Step by step, I gained a better understanding of the 'original'
chess pieces/piece-types. I continually invented and re-invented shatranj
as an ever-longer series of games, and with the reasonably successful
ShortRange Project as good evidence, I believe it can be truthfully said I
have made shatranj my own in a totally unique way. [Told ya ego was in
there.] This is an opinion [as everything expressed here], and as such, it
is only as good as its backers. Again, I invite comments, good, bad, or
ugly, from all who wish to express them. But I hope to have nudged the
field of chess variants toward a better appreciation of shatranj and its
possibilities.

Oops! Well, George, I've been rather busy today, so didn't see your last
post until well after I added mine. I'll take up your comments in rather
haphazard order. I just ran through the short list of my comments, and
found I'd commented on about 50 or so different items by others; mostly
games, but a few pieces, ideas, and other things. Every actual rating
[noticeably less than 50] has been good or excellent. I'd guess 80% or
more of my comments have been positive; I don't like to tell people I
don't like their creations.  I've also made comments in private emails,
instant messages, and with game moves. But I do talk a lot about my stuff,
and use it very heavily for examples. I gave some good [in my opinion]
reasons for this a couple posts ago. [Also, I don't like to discourage
people.] However, if someone should give me permission here, I'd discuss
their work where I could. 

Chess Battle; heck, I may just surprise you here. I am very conservative
in my approach to chess variants. Personally, I don't like rifle capture,
pieces that are invulnerable to all or most enemy pieces, and gimmicky
pieces like planes. I also don't much like mamras, wusses, or anti-kings.
SO right off the top, I think it is a poor game. However, been wrong
before, will be again, so would have to play the game before I could rate
it anything, since I can't give it a default 'good'. Because I don't
like something doesn't mean it's not a good idea. I will, quite likely,
design things that will use one or more of the 6 pieces I just panned,
assuming I think the design is good. Kriegspeil I find to be good, though
I've never played it - I like the idea a lot. Most of the 'wargame'
variants I looked at tonight, I did not like. But I am working on wargame
variants of my own. I just want them to be obviously chess variant
simulations of wargames [unless they play very well].

Are many of the following points true? Hard to tell.
(1)Prolificists(15+CVs), when they rate others' CVs do not evaluate, and
when they evaluate do not rate.
(2)Prolificists are almost exclusively from USA and UK (recurrently in
objective, scientific worldwide opinion polls the two 'overseer', or
aggressor, nations)
(3)Prolificists' own game write-ups are longer than average
the more space for interesting annotations.
(4)Despite their engagement in the field, Prolificists have less knowledge of Chess history and CV precedent, for the time they put into it, than
Inventors who claim 1 or 2 CV novelties. (Example: Historical expert John
Ayer has no own Inventions)
(5)Prolificists actually play their own games less than average.
(6)Prolificists' Rules write-ups tend to fall at extreme either very complete or very sketchy. (For ex., RBetza either gets carried away in detail or offhandedly describes in one sentence an alternate)
(7) Prolificists are nowhere welcome except at Chess Variant Page.
(8) Prolificists are especially unwelcome at Xiangqi or Shogi websites, since there is no corresponding obsession of their adherents to toy and tinker their Rules ad infinitum. (Suppose we do it for them)

(9) There is no corresponding addiction either on the part of Scrabble-tm
enthusiasts, or Monopoly-tm, or Bridge, or Checkers, or Mahjong, or
Diplomacy, or Bowling, Badminton, Baseball.
(10) Take the last one, Baseball. What aficionados would welcome 3000 BVs, Baseball Variants? In combination, 100 feet(bases), 10 innings, 10 players, 10 hours(games), 10 seconds(pitch), 1.0 kilo(bat). (instead of 90 feet, 9 innings, 9 players etc.) A variant 'double run' scored might take, let's see, running from home to second then to first to third to home. 2 runs(points) not 1! Hey Ralph Betza, viva free expression.

David, I quote:
'Talking about chess variants is more complicated than playing them!'
Not against you! And welcome to the ranks of the proliferationists - I
counted, you've got 15 listed games.

George, you're light-years ahead of me in this discussion. Your point 9 -
on Monopoly - almost everyone I know who played Monopoly had some variant
they preferred to play - paying some money to the 'Free Parking' square,
so whoever landed directly on it would get that $$$; borrowing money from
other players, selling back a hotel or a house or two to the bank, not
mortgaging; double payday for landing directly on 'Go'; changing the
initial requirement of having 1 property on all 4 sides of the board
before you can buy any others... I have a diplomacy board where the
largest area in Russia is split in half, and a city is added to one of the
halves, modifying the game for 4 players to play 2 countries each -
positions of a player's 2 countries determined by handicapping the
players. Baseball - the pitcher's mound has been raised and lowered, the
distances have been adjusted between the bases, I believe [not recently]
and to the mound. Ball and bat weights and compositions have been changed,
as has the strike zone. In fact, each umpire has his/her own strike zone,
and the pros play to those zones. As people get bigger, stronger, faster.
and quicker, these things will change again. Yes, these changes are minor,
but they go on all the time - ditto football, basketball...

In going through the entire list of contributors to this site, I found 22
people who qualify as prolific, having posted 15 or more games. As far as
I can tell, roughly half are from the US, the others primarily European.
There are some others who will become prolific soon, unless circumstances
prevent it, notably Abdul-Rahman Sibahi [Saudi Arabia] and Graeme Neatham
[UK]. Countries are listed where I could do so. My apologies for anyone
left out.     
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa ?
Peter Aronson US?
Christine Bagley-Jones Australia
Ralph Betza US?
(zzo38)A. Black ?
Fergus Duniho US
Gary K. Gifford US
Charles Gilman UK
Jeremy Gabriel Good US
David Howe US
Joe Joyce US
Roberto Lavieri Venezuela
Jared B. McComb US?
A. Missoum ?
Joao Pedro Neto Portugal?
Vernon Rylands Parton UK
David Paulowich Canada
David Short US?
Sergey Sirotkin ?
Larry L. Smith US
M. Winther Sweden?
Namik Zade ?

Or there are an intermediate category and complication. MWinther groups
almost all his CVs together as 'Bifurcation pieces', like 'FC91.5...'
does group related forms together, so MWinther's belongs more within not
willful 'Proliferation' category but another, call it 'Methodical
Multiform', as the sheer number is not the whole point.  (All your ? at 'US?' can be removed I think: Aronson, Short, McComb, Betza all US.  Interesting list.)

George Duke wrote in his 2004-09-24 Grotesque Chess comment: 'In effect David Paulowich has invented or covered in his Carrera Chess comment 21.9.04 all the possible arrays by 'Carrera Random Chess' and its obvious extrapolations.'

So my personal chess variants count may exceed 700,000. See this PBM Game Log for the rules of Pairwise Drop Chess (in the Kibbitz comments). See Victorian Chess for my recent comments on CapaChess history.

Editor Joe Joyce made the most comments and did the most work in this 2007
thread. It was classic discussion. Joyce stated, ''I found 22 people who
qualify as prolific, having posted 15 or more games.'' Developments since
 include my ''91.5 Trillion..'' Comments' creating all of 10^50 CVs by way of taking Mutators in combinations of no more than
32 at a time. Also, current year 2008 sees increasing characterization of
what prolificist CVers do as artwork, artistry, aesthetic art-forms and as such not
major art like sculpture or painting, but minor like orthogonal basketweaving
or needlepointing. The conservative viewpoint, held by millions in the majority, would be that only one Chess as Game, Sport and Science -- or 10, 20
distinct variations of it -- would ever be accepted at a time as 
expressive of the zeitgeist, and worthy of full scientific and mathematical treatment. David Pritchard holds to that, saying disparagingly in Intro ''most CVs should be consigned to oblivion.'' H.J.R. Murray holds to that, scoffing, ''Of the making of these games, there can be no end.''

I'd originally started a comment, on a related topic, last Friday, but a
thunderstorm fried my internet connections. Courtesy of a borrowed laptop,
I can take up this subject of proliferation again, in a courteous way. 

I first wish to say that this topic is cross-threaded with a few others,
so one would need to read through a few threads from that time Mr. Duke
refers to in the last post here, to understand everything we were and are
discussing. 

Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Smith that this is a place for
proliferation. In fact, it's *the* place for experimentation with all
forms of chess and chesslike games, and even not so chesslike. Now, would
Mr. Duke like me to censor the things that come to the CVPages? [Hmmph. I
would suspect that it's rather fortunate for some that I am not the
censoring type. ;-) ] What sorts of things should I remove? 

Lol! Everyone, including me, has candidates I should remove. But you
don't burn the books in the library because there are too many, or even
some you don't like. You categorize and catalog them. Then you can easily
find the ones you will tend to like, and avoid those you probably will
hate. What we really need is a good librarian-variantist to organize this
site. 

Do chess variants form classes? If so, what are they? Are new, or any,
classes appearing now, at this time? Can we foresee new kinds of
games/variants? Or should we stop looking? :-)

Another thing to keep in mind is that even a 'bad example' is still an
example. Bad ideas can be used to build better ones.

And criticism of any development should be based upon careful analysis.
Such criticism should also include positive input leading to improvement.

I completely understand that everyone has their preferences, and thus they
will be more likely to respond positively to those games which they enjoy.
But for those forms of play which they do not enjoy, they should be careful
not to let their prejudices rule their thinking.

I sincerely hope that all my past comments at this site have been both
positive and helpful to its members. I would wholeheartedly apologize to
any who I have unintentionally offended.

Proliferation is a problem if we want CVs to be played. Many actually do
not and want artwork instead. Betza was that way sometimes, frequently
saying after a several-pages article words like, ''I have not actually
tried this game but it looks pretty good.'' Swell for Betza with his
panache, but not so good for the rest of us. To combat proliferation,
different standards could be suggested. Making a CV and before posting,
think carefully first. Would you be willing to present it to a
Grandmaster, or Grandmasters, in a brief talk 5 or 10 minutes? State to
the audience whether it is Track One or Track Two. Or suppose the audience
is only the local college Chess club. I always try to word even Comments as
if someone connected to grandmasters or others of stature were listening. After all,
even GM Yasser Seirawan made a contribution, and Milan Vukevich gave
Hawaii speech ten years ago on variant fairy pieces. Think of each new CV
as being shown casually or to some extent formally to Kasparov, Kramnik,
Anand, Polger or their surrogates or spokeswomen. Then if realizing it is
not so good for an important audience, there will be some restraint in
publishing willy-nilly, or more effort beforehand. That's just one offhand idea
of new standard. More important, to be developed later, is simply finding
the precedents, the priorities, the related art for your ''new CV,'' and how to go about it.

The fact that we are Chess variant developers should indicate that we do
not often 'play by the rules'. And you want us to cede our authority and
creativity to those who we are rebelling against.

Any developer of Chess variants who enters this arena believing that their
creation will somehow 'change the world' of Chess is simply deluding
themselves. We do this for the pure enjoyment.

Occasionally, we get lucky, or inspired, to develope a game which attracts
a number of players. But rarely does any developer realize any monetary
gain from this activity.

And keep in mind that the players of the Mad Queen variant(FIDE) are
actually a minority in this world. XiangQi and Shogi have more players.
And they also have developers of variants in their countries.
Unfortunately we are restricted from easy access to these creations by the
language barrier.

George,

I get the impression from your new post on proliferation that what you
mean by it is not the mere release of lots of variants but rather the
release of many untried and untested variants. If that's what you mean
by it, then you should watch who you're calling a prolificist. I am not a
prolificist by this definition of proliferation. Ever since I took up the
hobby of creating Chess variants, I have programmed and playtested nearly
every game I have released prior to releasing it. (The main exception
would be the games in my Experiments in Symmetry article, which arose
from an argument with Derek Nalls rather than from an interest in playing
them.) I began with Cavalier Chess in December 1998, shortly after getting Zillions of Games. Where possible, I have routinely written ZRFs for my
variants, and since developing the GAME Code language for Game Courier, I
have been programming my new games for that platform too. I have never
created a game simply as a work of art. I create games for the sake of
playing them.

I can appreciate the need for game inventors to slow down and think their
games through before releasing them. My recommendation is that people
program and playtest their games first. Programming a game helps to
clarify thinking about the game, and it helps the game inventor write the
game rules in full detail. Playtesting a game is essential for evaluating
whether a game should be released, for identifying what should be changed
in the game, and for trying out new ideas as the game develops.
Personally, I am leary about letting non-editor members make their own
pages on this site. While it makes less work for the editors, which is
good, it encourages people to release games before thinking them through.
If there is an upside to this, it is that they can benefit from peer
review and find other people to help them playtest their games with Game
Courier.

If proliferation leads to an enriching of the variant playing experience,
by providing variety to a common set of rules, so that the variants act as
scenarios in a larger framework, that is great.  If a variant leads to yet
another game joined into a pile of other games, then this isn't helpful
at all.  It ends up being yet another voice squawking for attention. 
Rather than enrich the play area, it distracts.  And this is true, whether
such is seen as 'Proliferation', 'Muliform', 'Ramalamadingdong', or
'George' :-P.

So, in light of this, I had been requesting the variant community come up
with a framework to integrate the essence of variants together, with all
their variety, so people can focus on playing in the framework, rather
than feeling they are jumping from one area to another. 

I am NOT saying this framework is meant to replace the flowering of
variations.  It is meant, however, for a way for people to sample and
taste the world of variants, without feeling the need to reinvent the
wheel.  The framework allows people to have their play seem fresh, rather
than getting stale.  And the framework should also allow a place for the untested and untried to get tested and tried by a playing community.  The framework could also clear a way for the variant community to have a world champion over its games collectively.  Have this happen, and you have increased credibility.

So, my take is proliferation that leads to enriching of a framework is
fine.  That which results in fragmenting and noise, is a problem.

Nothing prevents each member from composing a list of variants which they
believe 'outshine' all the others. This can be used to create a quick
link page titled 'So-and-so's Favorites'.

And if a submitted variant is discovered to be flawed or a replication,
simply inform the developer. Any recognition of a flaw should be
accompanied by friendly suggestions of correction, rather than simply a
panning comment. The same applies to unintentional replication, allowing
the developer to either re-tract the submission or make appropriate
adjustment to differentiate.

Rather than attempting to create an atmosphere of rivalry and
vindictiveness, the members of this site should be supportive. We are all
brothers and sisters in the world of Chess. And our attitudes should be
based upon the love of the game.

We can still trounce each other royally while playing these games. ;-)

Well, let me cement my status as one of the main villains in this thread by
saying that I've posted games without playtesting them. Just because it
was the only way I could find a playtester is no excuse. I sometimes
suspect David Howe set the CVwiki up for people like me to put all our
absurd games in, protecting the main site. If so, it worked, to an extent.
A number of people have posted games and discussions on games there. The
ones that work sometimes cross over to the main site, but maybe not; there
are games with presets there found nowhere else. How do we tell what's
good and what's not?

Classification of variants is a tricky proposition. As George has noted
recently, a lot of designers can often/sometimes be recognized from style
alone. Classifying by designer is pretty easy, and if you like a
particular designer's work, it's useful to you for finding games you'll
likely enjoy. A favorites list in shorthand. 

Classifying by piece-types seems like one good general category. Leaping,
sliding, long range, short range, multipath, inclusive compound pieces...
phew! And we're just getting started. What about all the pieces with
special powers? Cannons, grasshoppers, immobilizers, leaders, followers,
compound, multisquare, and on and on. How do you even classify the
pieces?

Board size. Dimensionality. Victory conditions. It's getting the taxonomy
of an ecology, classifying a game, as compared to the much easier task of
classifying a species or a piece. Practically impossible, but if we
don't, or don't try, what's left? Recognized Variants, contest
winners/finalists, official Game Courier Tournament games - all these
games would be playable and likely decent games even if you personally
didn't enjoy them. Then you explore and network. 

Suggestions anybody? We seem to need some higher-level sorting schemes.
Does that cover the basic options, George?

If proliferation leads to an enriching of the variant playing experience, by providing variety to a common set of rules, so that the variants act as scenarios in a larger framework, that is great. If a variant leads to yet another game joined into a pile of other games, then this isn't helpful at all. It ends up being yet another voice squawking for attention. Rather than enrich the play area, it distracts.

Not only do I completely disagree with these comments, I also find them highly offensive. There is no need for a larger framework, and if someone creates a new game that people enjoy playing that is good enough. New games do not have to fit into a larger framework to have value.