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.

As a proliferist, I totally understand that when a new member joins the
site they may post quite a number of variants which they have either
collected or created before their arrival.

I have quite a number of games which I have not posted here. Some because
they are just not quite finished, others because they may be a little
silly and some people often don't get the punchline.

Rather than just creating minor variations of the Mad Queen, which there
are quite a large number, I often concentrate on variants of other forms.
For example, simple games which resemble the ancient wargames like
Latrunculi or wargames that may be very abstract or games that attempt to
anticipate the future of wargaming.

And it surprises me that there are those who, rather than finding
amusement at this site, seem to only discover frustration and irritation.
Maybe it is a state of mind.

Just keep this in mind, the Mad Queen is simply a variant of Chess. Yes, a
very good one but still just a variant.

I think the joy of inventing a Chess variant is the joy of being able to develop opening, midgame, and endgame theory for the new game and new rules.

This is why I only have invented a single chess variant, but I made it one I extensively tested using Zillions before making public, one where I developed some opening theory, and one that I spent hours having the computer play against itself in computer-vs-computer games (usually two different programs playing each other) to creating interesting mating positions.

I personally prefer quality over quantity; 90% of everything is crud, but I think it's better to make just a single variant where it's fully fleshed out: The game includes a game courier preset, a zillion's implementation, in addition to a clearly written description of the rules. Ideally, the game should have some theory established, such as the value of the pieces in the variant, some opening theory developed, and even some mating problems.

I agree with the need to put quality over quantity. I discovered last night
that Charles Gilman has now created over 180 games. How many of these have
I played? Zero. I have occasionally looked at some of his games, but none
have ever appealed to me. Given that he has not written a single ZRF or
Game Courier preset for any of his games (except maybe for one co-credited
with Tony Quintanilla), I can only assume that he is not making use of
these tools to prototype and playtest his games. Looking at the games he
has played on Game Courier, I count only five. I wonder if he plays his
games much at all. I'm under the impression that he will publish any new
game idea that pops into his head. This is classic proliferation. But it
hurts his own games more than it hurts the games of others. Putting out
more and more games doesn't much improve the chances that someone will
eventually play one. What would help is spending time on development and
presentation, so that people are more likely to want to play his games,
and spending time on providing means, whether through Zillions-of-Games or
Game Courier, for people to play the games.

I would say that MiniXiang was inspired and well worth the presence of the
other contributions.

• Making sure the variant has a Zillions and a Game Courier preset
• Calculating the value of the pieces in the variant
• Coming up with some mating problems from actual games played in the variant, either human-vs-human, human-vs-computer, or computer-vs-computer
• Coming up with some opening theory for the game

It sounds a lot like what I am already doing. Except that I usually do not
bother with ZoG, but configure Fairy-Max to play the game, or make a
dedicated engine by adapting Joker. For on-line play I am developing the
Internet Chess Server now. Using the material-imbalance-self-play method I
have, for instance, determined the piece values for Capablanca, Knightmate,
Great Shatranj, Falcon Chess, and Superchess. I have tens of thousands of
comp-comp games on file for these variants, which could be filtered for
interesting checkmates (e.g. early in the game). Only opening theory is of
no interest to me; even my normal Chess engine plays without opening book.

I have an idea.

For those who believe that all variants must be thoroughly vetted, they
might start by submitting theirs to FIDE for consideration.

Get back to me on the results.

Isn't that a bit like having Ron Paul vetted by Hannity and Colmes? Any
vetting of Chess variants has to be done by people who are seriously
interested in Chess variants. FIDE's main interest is in preserving the
integrity of Chess, not in entertaining alternatives to it. The main point
I was making earlier can be summed up like this:

If you neglect the development of your games, and you neglect the
presentation of your games, and you neglect to provide software to play
your games, and you neglect to play your games yourself, you're liable to
find that other people will neglect your games too.

So I encourage game inventors to invest time and attention into
development, presentation, playtesting, and providing ZRFs or Game Courier
presets.

I've read through this thread a few times now, and have some idea of what
to say. As always in a large group of people, we have positions that can be seen as polar opposites, and enough people of either persuasion to keep some interesting conversations going. As an aside, is there a third way that can accommodate both of these positions and deal with their issues?

Sam, you have expressed the position of one pole better than I could ever
hope to. And set out a plan of action that would concentrate the bulk of
games played here on 1 single variant at a time. HG's work has given
values for the pieces that are workable and consistent, so all you really
need for any Capa setup, such as Schoolbook, is some opening studies.
Wouldn't these be far more quickly and effectively done if you got some
playtesters together and ran several full-kibitz opening-variations
playtests of the same game? The object would not be to play games, but to
test out possibilities in openings. I do not mean to just push wood, but
for each player to look for the best moves and counter-moves in a
designated opening, and examine all the interesting possibilities of the
first 10 moves, say. 

Play one version out, then go back and follow up on something you thought
of but didn't do. Then do it again. Play a different opening against each
other playtester at the same time. You will rapidly gain a vast amount of
data for analysis, and it will be gathered from as many different
perspectives as possible. I see that as a solid and fruitful project for a
few people that can provide some real data for comparisons. If you organize
it as a 'Potluck Playtest' session, then each playtester may bring his or
her own game, and playtest that game with everybody else, while also playtesting each game everybody else brought. 

But there is Larry Smith's point of view [the one which goes: 'games are
fun - more games, more fun'], which I'd like to expand on. I enjoy more
than one game, and more than one form of game. I also really enjoy
designing games. [I was an automation expert in the post office, so I did
more than my share of endless variations on one theme. ;-) I prefer to
expand my horizons.] I like interesting new pieces, if I can understand
and use them. I like new board shapes that work. I like good fusion games
like Graeme Neatham's Save the Standard, a cross of chess with Tafl.
There are a lot of reasonably simple games that fuse 2 genres and so might
offer a gateway for many or, more likely, some fun for the handful of
players who encounter these games. 

The best of these are the cutting edge, the source and inspiration for new
ideas, innovation in chess. Some like innovation, some don't; it's a
question of taste.

It would be interesting to start a committee to review the games at this
site. But we would really need to be considerate while doing so.

Yes, we can use mathematical formulae to quantify various aspects of a
given variant. Being careful not to carry over prejudices from one to
another. And all evaluations must be taken in the context within which
they are being derived.

And I can quickly see an initial area of debate. This being the value of
pieces. It must be kept in mind that this can take many forms. One piece
could be valued one way in a particular variant and might receive another
value in another variant. Overall rules can have a dramatic effect in this
regard.

And the approach to these reviews should not be to prove or disprove any
particular preconceived preference for the game. But simply to categorize
the various aspects and thus help others to make their own personal
determinations.

For example, a game may have a rather large number of potential turns.
This can be noted. But whether this is a positive or negative aspect
should not be the goal of the review. Some people enjoy long games(see
RPGs).

And if there are discovered 'errors' in the examined game, we should
offer assistance in repairing such. Let's not be simply critics but offer
positive feedback.

And if we play-test these games, there should be a fair number of games
played. I would opt for at least twenty, but some might find this rather
tedious. But to really get a good feel for any particular game, it might
be necessary to play it at least a hundred times(gasp).

And the data from these reviews could be used to expand the categorization
at this site. Thus helping people quickly discover those games which appeal
to them.

Might I suggest that we start with the Recognized Variants at this site.
This will give a nice baseline to work from when tackling the remaining
games.

Joe Joyce writes:

As always in a large group of people, we have have positions that can be seen as polar opposites, and enough people of either persuasion to keep some interesting conversations going. As an aside, is there a third way that can accommodate both of these positions and deal with their issues?

On a site devoted to variety, you're likely to find a variety of opinions. My position is in the middle and so may be the third way you're asking about. I believe quantity and variety of Chess variants is good up until it starts to compromise quality. When someone is sacrificing quality for the sake of quantity, he needs to slow down and pay more time and attention to developing the game before releasing it to the public, to playtesting the game before asking others to play it, to writing a clear and detailed description of the game that is good enough for a programmer to use to program the rules of the game, and, as far as he's able, to designing graphics and writing software for the game. One thing I want to stress is the importance of moving beyond the idea stage to working out your idea, playtesting it, modifying it as needed, and presenting it to others only when you're satisfied that it is good and ready. When you buy a recipe book, you expect that the recipes have previously been tried and tested and that they are not just a bunch of ideas people have for what might taste good. It's important to pay the Chess variant audience the same consideration that the recipe audience expects from cookbooks.

I would not echo Sam's recommendation that people focus on only a single variant -- unless that is what they want to do by their own choice. I certainly don't focus on a single variant myself, and I'm not liable to in the future.

I would not worry too much about presenting the game to GMs or other people of stature in the Chess world. They are not the target demographic of most Chess variants. But I would recommend the following. (1) Write a clear and detailed description that covers all the contingencies in your game. If you're not able to program your game yourself, gaining the interest of a programmer is an important step toward increasing interest in your game in general. (2) Make effective use of graphics. Include a graphic image of the setup, graphic images of individual pieces with your piece descriptions, and, as needed, movement diagrams and any other diagrams that might be needed to help describe how your game works. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Even if it is possible for a person to understand your game from a text description alone, graphics can speed up comprehension and elicit interest in your game sooner than text alone could. Also, some people are just more visually minded than others. By combining a good text description with good use of graphics, you will more effectively reach a wider audience.

I have to second what Fergus has said about CV gamepage submissions:
'I would recommend the following. 
(1) Write a clear and detailed description that covers all the
contingencies in your game. 
(2) Make effective use of graphics. Include a graphic image of the setup,
graphic images of individual pieces with your piece descriptions, and, as
needed, movement diagrams and any other diagrams that might be needed to
help describe how your game works.'

In general, at a minimum, you should provide a graphic image of the setup
and images of each piece in that piece's description. There are always
exceptions, but the easiest way to create the necessary graphics,
including movement diagrams, is by making a Game Courier preset for the
game. 

However, if you're like me, then you didn't have a clue, either. My
first games have no diagrams because I can't actually make them - but
look at my last game pages - I did those myself, because I got walked
through the process enough to understand what to do. Then, in trying to
explain how to do it to someone else, I put some simple instructions
together on the CVwiki, that walk you through how to do totally basic,
non-rules-checking presets. It's called a Preset Primer, and comes with
examples: 
   http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/preset-primer
Don't expect great writing. If you get stuck anywhere in it, just ask for
a better explanation. But 2 people have successfully used it, and they're
the only 2 I know about that tried it. So far, so good. It could be
expanded a bit. All comments, questions, criticisms welcome.

Occasionally, I have offered my modest talents to create Zillions
implementations of a developer's game. Particularly when the game catches
my interest.

But I have found a few which resisted this form of quantification. Whether
because elments of the game exist beyond the playing field(for example,
those games which require referees) or the conditionals were just too
complex(for example, Nemoroth).

But I must admit that simple variations of the Mad Queen do not often
appeal to me. Why? Because I think they are trivial? No. I just find
them often a little boring. This is totally my own problem and should not
be construed as condemnation of those form of play.

But, every now and then, while attempting to implement a particular game I
run into conflict. Usually regarding the aesthetics of the game. My
suggestion to anyone wanting someone else to program their variant is to
either provide graphics up front or accept those which the programmer has
access to. Creating new graphics can be a time-consuming effort.

And I also have an un-written rule. If a developer shows little tolerance
for others, I will not assist in this effort by providing some illusionary
basis to justify their attitude. This has happened before and I've
promised myself not to allow it to happen again.

BTW, I am still trying to implement Nemoroth. I have a file dedicated to
this project. Every now and then I get an idea and try it out. But so far,
I have not accomplished this task. In fact, I might just return to this
project soon. Maybe time has given me a new perspective.

I think looking at a Capa 8x10 setup is probably the best chess variant to deeply analyze. These particular avenue has been pretty deeply analyzed, with a pretty good idea about the value of the pieces and what not. I think it's important the opening setup has no controversy; I like the original Carrera setup (RANBQKBNCR), but Embassy chess (RNBQKCABNR) can also be worth looking at.

- Sam

I know that for the unspeakable variant a lot of opening theory already
exists, but I don't trust it, as those who have been playing the Capa
variants seem to have been consistently underestimating the value of the
Archbishop. The Capablanca position, for instance, is often mentioned as
unplayable for black, due to the thereat Axi7, where the A-fork on Ch8 and
Rj8 gains white the 'Unspeakable exchange' , A vs C (often in exchange
for a Pawn elsewhere on the board). Joker80, however, often allows this as
black, as it apparently feels the half-open i-file for its Rook is
sufficient compensation for this 'exchange', which it values close to
zero. IMO this puts any existing opening theory on very shaky grounds.

There is no greater waste of time than to develop theory for chess variants that hardly anyone plays. It would be a great waste even when it concerns Fide-chess. This activity should be a peripheral pastime in one's life. People should try to find some better outlet for their intellectual energy than developing theory for chess variants. They could read a good intellectual book, for instance, or make something useful of their energy. The creativity involved in inventing a variant is another thing because it is a form of mandala creation. It fulfils a psychological function. But to try to turn this into a serious science is a waste of life.
/Mats

I, myself, don't trust anything to do with or associated with said
unspeakable variant.

Mr. Muller: What is your favorite Capa opening setup? Do you prefer the
Carrera (RANBQKBNCR), Embassy (RNBQKCABNR), or some other Capa opening
setup?

Okay, I don't play FIDE chess, so let's discuss this thing about opening
theory. As I understand it, opening theory is when you memorize a whole
bunch of opening positions, and the best continuations from each one. I
have [and always have had] a terrible memory which explains in good part
why I don't play FIDE. But since I don't [always] play completely
randomly, I must have some guide. That guide is opening principles, and
basic military ideas. 

One of the things I've seen written about Fischer Random Chess is that
after several turns, you can't tell it's Fischer Random. This would seem
to imply there is some leveling effect. It says that people can get to a
standard sort of midgame and an absolutely typical endgame no matter what
they start out with in FRC. How, and why? Because everyone uses the same
general principles of mobility, economy of action, taking of space,
building of defenses and attacks, and all are familiar with the standard 5
chesspieces and the pawn. Opening theory is fine if one wishes to
specialize in one game and beat everyone at that game. Opening principles
and familiarity with many different [types of] pieces are what allow
players to successfully play a wide range of games. 

I'd rather see a discussion of general opening principles and the effects
of different sorts of pieces on a game than a study of one or a few games'
many possible opening moves. I'm not opposed to that sort of study, and
could see it as a benefit, if it did a range of games, comparing and
contrasting them.

On another page, it came up that Ralph Betza, Charles Gilman, and Mats Winther are the three CV inventors who have invented the greatest number of games. Within this context, Mats Winther wrote, “Fergus, it's not so many variants, really. Most of my variants are variations on a theme, often in the 'modest' category. In many cases the variants are very similar, but with a different extra piece. However, this makes a great difference in practical play. In nearly every variant a new piece is introduced. So I am really prolific in the creation of new pieces, introduced into variants that are guaranteed to be playable, close to standard chess. But I have not been particularly creative when it comes to variants of great originality.”

This is noteworthy, because it helps answer the question, what do the most prolific CV inventors share in common? These three all share a strong interest in pieces. Ralph Betza is perhaps best known for his Betza notation for pieces and his game Chess with Different Armies, which introduces a host of different pieces to the chessboard. Charles Gilman has shown strong interest in pieces through his many articles attempting to categorize and name pieces. And, as Mats Winther has confessed, he is primarily a piece-maker.

It is also noteworthy that the approach to creating CVs described by Mats Winther is the opposite of my approach. He begins by creating pieces and then makes a game to put them into, whereas I focus on creating games and invent new pieces only as my games require them. This difference is like the difference between focusing on the trees or focusing on the forest. My approach is like focusing on the forest, while Winther's, and maybe Gilman and Betza's too, is like focusing on the trees.

So my hypothesis is that a greater interest in pieces over games leads to more games, because the piece inventor wants to use each of his new pieces in a game, and since the game serves mainly as a vehicle for using the piece, development time is reduced by not putting a lot of craftsmanship into the game. In contrast, my method of crafting games around themes or ideas produces fewer games, because (1) carefully crafting a game takes more time, and (2) ideas for new games come less frequently than ideas for new pieces come to those whose focus is on pieces.

In addition to pieces, he has also brought the Gustav board back, something I never heard of until seeing it mentioned on his page. I think the Gustav board is a good way of introducing new pieces to FIDE chess without having the new board affecting the game too much, and without somewhat clunky ideas as gating (Gating makes sense when you want the game to be just as much like FIDE chess with new pieces as possible; but the Gustav board is more intuitive and makes for simpler rules).

One can argue 'Why design games that no one plays', just as one can argue 'why analyze games no one plays', and in both cases the answer is the same: Because it can be an enjoyable way to pass the time. If the act of creating a game brings pleasure to someone, it doesn't matter if that game is never played by anyone.

Fergus, I am actually interested in the actual strategy and tactical
finesses that a certain piece introduces. It is the dynamics of the
chessboard that interests me, and not so much the setup variegation, or
the board shape, etc. There is a lot of creativity going on in all the
invisible aspects of chess. Even grandmasters are surprised sometimes,
when they see something new. Focusing on new chess pieces in a more or
less traditional setting has this effect. On the surface not much is
changed, but in reality a new world of variations are created.
/Mats

Sam, the Gustavian board has some interesting characteristics. It would
probably work if the popular Capablanca-knights are placed in the corners,
similar to Gustav III's Chess, which is excellent. One aspect of the
Gustavian board is that the king can move to the extra corner square and
launch a pawn storm on the same wing, without leaving the king exposed. 

It is also true that one must use different setups also in modest
variants. On the Gustavian board one cannot always place the extra pieces
in the corners. Luckily, it works fine to place the knights there. For
some reason, on the Gustavian board, unlike on the 8x10 board, the knights
aren't weakened, not even when placed at the extra corners.

Introduction of an extra piece by dropping can be done by pawn relocation,
either one or two steps forward. The new piece is placed either on the
first or second rank, depending on piece type. For instance, in order for
the Perier cannon to function reasonably well in this context, it must be
input on the first rank, and the pawn relocated two steps (not one).
Although it is a lazy way of creating a new variant, it isn't wholly
trivial. 
/Mats

This site has at least 26 people who have posted 15 or more games.
Apologies for anyone left out, and for the question marks by 3 names, as I
do not know their countries of origin or residence. And there are a number
of other variantists that do not post, or post much, on the CVPages;
Christian Freeling [Grand Chess] is one name that springs instantly to
mind, and there are others. [I guesstimate there are roughly 100 living
prolificists right now. Considering history, and what's been lost from
it, I'd estimate there have been on the order of 1000 prolificists so
far. Hmm, given a total human population throughout history of not that
much more than 10,000,000,000, it seems roughly one in ten million people
is a chess variant prolificist.] The topic of style has come up.

What are the styles of prolificists? Here are the 26 names, 24 copied from
earlier in this thread, and 2 recent people added from memory, all
contributors to this site. Fergus Duniho has noted that the three most
prolific, Betza, Gilman, and Winther, design pieces primarily, while he
[Fergus] designed entire games, and it was this comment that really got me
started thinking on the topic of styles. So, with foolish optimism instead
of great trepidation, let us open a discussion on styles. We can always
hope to learn something.

Adrian Alvarez de la Campa USA
Peter Aronson USA
Christine Bagley-Jones Australia
Ralph Betza USA
(zzo38)A. Black USA
Charles Daniel USA
Fergus Duniho USA
Gary K. Gifford USA
Charles Gilman UK
Jeremy Gabriel Good USA
David Howe USA
Joe Joyce USA
Roberto Lavieri Venezuela
Jared B. McComb USA
A. Missoum ?
Graeme Neatham [UK]
Joao Pedro Neto Portugal
Vernon Rylands Parton UK
David Paulowich Canada
David Short USA
John Smith USA
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi [Saudi Arabia]
Sergey Sirotkin ?
Larry L. Smith USA
M. Winther Sweden
Namik Zade ?

Allow me to confess my sins. ;-)

I approach Chess from the background of abstract game design. I look upon
it simply as a form of wargame. Over the centuries it has gravitated
toward particular elements which many confuse as absolute parameters for
this potential wargame. But are there limitations, or are they only what
we impose ourselves?

Many of my creations have a theme. This is primarily people are attracted
to games which exhibit an atmosphere of fantasy. It appeals to their
imagination.

Of course, there are those which are merely humorous. These are just for
fun. Not meant to be taken seriously. But they often do show some signs of
tactical and strategic play.

I also like the games of Asia. This being possibly the birthplace of
Chess, and it is interesting to see their approach to the wargame. Thus
several of my creations have had an oriental flavor, though a few could
just as easily been rendered in the western mode. But that goes back to
theme.

I like interesting playing pieces, but I don't start with simply the
creation of such and attempt to make it fit a game. I start with the game
as a concept, and work the various elements until they 'fit'. Sometimes
this results in new pieces, and sometimes even different conditions of
play.

I often like to ask the question, 'What is Chess?'  And I can receive
just as many answers as there are people. Though, unfortunately, many
westerners have been heavily indoctrinated by the Mad Queen variant
believing it represents the entire world of Chess.

But permit me to answer that question. 'What is Chess?' Simple, 'Chess
is War.' And war can take many forms. Thus the wargame of Chess can have
many forms.

Particularly if we let it.

What Larry describes is very similar to my own methods for creating Chess
variants. Many of my games began with a theme in mind. Clockwork Orange
Chess began with the idea of translating the conditioning of criminals
used in A Clockwork Orange into Chess. Metamorph Chess grew out of
watching Transformers: Beast Wars, Fusion Chess is a successor to Sentai
Chess, which was inspired by Power Rangers in Space, and Assimilation
Chess was inspired by the Borg in Star Trek: TNG. Caïssa Britannia was
inspired by the British monarch being a Queen. Some of my games grew out
of the constraints imposed by design competitions. The small variant
contests got me to try out various boards, which led to worthy games such
as Voidrider Chess and Hex Shogi. The 32-turn contest led to Wormhole
Chess, one of my best received variants. Insights into what is possible
have also inspired games. I created Storm the Ivory Tower after I realized
that the pieces in Chinese Chess could be distinguished by qualities other
than direction of movement, meaning that they could all be adapted to
Smess without losing their individual character.

An important part of my method is that I don't stop once I have an idea.
Instead, I take that idea and work out the details. For example, Wormhole
Chess began with the usual Chess pieces and closely resembled Parton's
Chesire Cat Chess. I had not yet learned about Parton's game, but it
seemed to me that the usual Chess pieces did not take best advantage of
the rule changes made to this game. I decided to replace the riders with
leapers, whose movement would be more affected by the loss of spaces.

Another important part of my method is reliance on tools. I routinely use
Zillions-of-Games or Game Courier to prototype my games. I normally rely
on Zillions to playtest my games before releasing them. By programming the
games I release, I make sure to cover all the fine points of the rules in
detail.

I too use Zillions to 'test' some games. Though it can be rather limited
as an opponent.

But I've recently dedicated some thought to creating a Chess Variant
System which could be used by players to compose real-world games. I
initially intended to apply this system to 3D Chess, but it just as easily
could be used for 2D games.

It will consists of various elements which can be assembled to whatever
game the players intend. And these elements can be obtained in whatever
quantities which the players desire.

I've already announced this system's development at the
ThreeDChessFederation site. I've given it a release date of Jan 2010. But
I hope to have it constructed well before then.

I do not really expect a lot of requests for this system. So I'm
primarily creating it for my own use. But I do intend to offer it. And at
reasonable prices.

Fergus Duniho considers Ralph Betza, Charles Gilman, and Mats Winther the
most prolific. But I think that, although I may not have the most games, I
have the highest 'production rate'. Will he consider adding me to the
list?

Well, I do consider you one of the most prolific of prolificists, but I
don't consider it a compliment to call anyone a prolificist. I reject the
term for myself, reserving it for those who keep spinning off ideas without
putting time and effort into producing something of substance and quality.
George Duke, who coined the term, has routinely used it as a term of
disparagement as he has tried to exhort against proliferation. I'm
raising my voice against proliferation too, but I want to make it clear
that there is more to proliferation than quantity of Chess variants
created. It has more to do with the sacrifice of quality for the sake of
mindless quantity. As for Betza, Gilman, and Winther, what I think I said
was that they have created more games than other CV inventors have. I am
fairly certain that Gilman is a prolificist, but I will withhold judgment
on the others for now. Betza has been known to put time and effort into
some games, and Winther programs his games. These are positive qualities I
encourage in CV inventors.

Although I have stated previously (and still maintain) that -
 
'The inverse relation that inescapably exists between the quantity and
quality of the games comprising a collection has been conclusively proven
to me by labor-intensive experience.'

http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/descript.pdf
See 'worldview and games'- page 40.

- I expect few others to share my borderline-fanatical goal of discovering
and implementing a single, best or virtually-perfect chess variant.

At least, I recognize that many prolific game designers hold the logical
viewpoint that the most practical, achievable method to contribute to the
chess variant community lies in striking a balance between high quality
and high quantity backed with years of sustained effort.  Admittedly, I am
too selfish to put my name on (or at least, leave my name on) any game
creation that does not satisfy my highest, current standards of quality. 
In other words, I create game(s) for the chess variant community AND me. 
It is important (to me) not to leave me out of consideration.  I wish more
game inventors thought and acted likewise.

I consider myself a reformed prolificist who became a single-game
perfectionist in 2005.  By the way, that single game switched on me
recently in response to an unexpected, theoretical breakthrough ...

Spherical Chess 400
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots

I strongly hope I got it right this time.

I respectfully caution all prolificists (whether they approve or
disapprove of the term) to be mindful that unless they are successfully
creating the very best, original chess variants in every class of games
they publish, then definitively they are only contributing to a 'number
pollution' of good games (presumably).  Furthermore, it is not possible
to create a best chess variant in any class without a foundation and range
of theory, experience and ingenuity to enable you to correctly see and
surpass the limitations of all of the pre-existing, best games within that
class.

If I can achieve this (i.e., creating a best game within a class) just
once, then I will be proud.  Obviously ... if any of you prolificists can
achieve this 5-10 times, then you have the right to be much more proud
than I.  Some of you who have 50-100 games (or more) in your catalog are
probably confident that you already have achieved this 5-10 times (or
more).  I hope so yet I remain skeptical that any of us have achieved this
even once.  I don't think some of you fully understand or respect what we
are up against by being creative with combinatorial game theory.

One of the things I'd like to look at in piece design is just how pieces
are used, and why it [piece design] is done. I believe there is a clear
difference between designing pieces and designing groups of pieces to be
used in one game. And there is another difference if themed pieces are
designed as a series of games. The best example of this is undoubtedly
Betza's Chess with Different Armies different armies. Using the same 8x8
board, he created several 'equal but different' armies. Each army has
its own theme, and they are [more or less] equally balanced against each
other. 

So, rather than being 'just' piece creation, Betza had a theme that ran
through several games, and the pieces were merely individual expressions
of the overarching idea. I will argue that my own series of shatranj
variants is similar, although I certainly do not claim such lofty goals as
Ralph was shooting for. I got dissatisfied with the weakest pieces in
historic shatranj, and started thinking of ways to 'correct the
problem'. Modern Shatranj was fun, and it got me thinking about
shortrange leapers, but by itself was pure piece design. Great Shatranj
was also initially a 'piece design' game, but it evolved away from being
just a place to showcase 2 nifty pieces. Every game after that in the
series was deliberately designed as part of an examination of 2 things:
shatranj-like pieces of steadily increasing power, and
a different history of the evolution of shatranj, an alternate reality, as
Graeme Neatham said, where shatranj evolved away from, instead of toward,
today's western [FIDE] chess. 

How good are they? Betza's CwDA idea was outstanding, and I will not
presume to judge any individual army. My shatranj games fall between good
and excellent. I think the idea behind them was excellent, but I think the
best game in the series by far is Opulent Lemurian Shatranj, designed by
David Paulowich [another prolificist]. That is a truly excellent game, and
better than any of mine.

Derek Nalls raises a good point. It is important to create Chess variants for yourself, not just for the chess variant community. I once saw a documentary on the Looney Tunes cartoons, and one of the things I still remember is that the cartoonists said they made the cartoons for themselves. To this day, the old Looney Tunes cartoons remain classics, while many other cartoons made for a mass audience are best forgotten. An important thing to remember is that the most-played games are the ones actually played by their inventors. If you don't think enough of your games to play them yourself, you shouldn't seriously expect others to take up playing them.

The point on which I would disagree with Derek is on the need to create one perfect game. I believe in pursuing quality, which is achievable, but not in seeking after perfection, which is elusive and counterproductive to variety. I enjoy the variety of having different Chess variants. They provide room for different strategies and tactics, and I enjoy the freshness of trying out games I haven't played before.

I generally agree with Derek when he writes, “I respectfully caution all prolificists (whether they approve or disapprove of the term) to be mindful that unless they are successfully creating the very best, original chess variants in every class of games they publish, then definitively they are only contributing to a 'number pollution' of good games (presumably).”

But I do take some issue with what follows, “Furthermore, it is not possible to create a best chess variant in any class without a foundation and range of theory, experience and ingenuity to enable you to correctly see and surpass the limitations of all of the pre-existing, best games within that class.” Classes can be defined narrowly or broadly, and some games may fall into multiple classes. For example, should my game Hex Shogi 91 be considered a member of the Shogi class, the hexagonal class, or the Hexagonal Shogi class? If you define classes narrowly enough, many a new game might be considered in a class of its own. In that case, your new game would be the best in its class by default, and I would urge CV inventors to go beyond striving to make a game the best in its class to doing what they can to make it hard for anyone else to make a better game in its class. In other words, don't just try to do better than what has been done, try to do better than what might be done later.

The pursuit of the 'best' or 'perfect' game of Chess is a lofty goal.
But I fear that it may be impossible to attain.

First, there are just too many variables. The potential dynamics of this
wargame has the possibility of reaching infinity. Consider just the wide
variety of pieces, then add the potential playing field and finally all
the possible in-game conditions. I think you will begin to visualize the
enormity of the challenge.

Of course, there are break-over points. Such as, a game which is too large
and complicated for current intellects to grasp. But that does not take
into account the evolution of the human mind. So, who knows, an extremely
large and complicated game at this point might in time find a receptive
audience in the future. ;-)

And there is no way to truly judge a game except through play. A critic
can use mathematical evaluation in an attempt to quantify the game, but
this leaves out various aspects which resist such. For example, fun. A
game can be considered mathematically 'perfect' but contain little or no
enjoyment.

One game which I truly enjoy is Nemoroth. Is this game mathematically
'perfect'? The conditionals are so convoluted that most players easily
make errors while playing. But that is its appeal, the ability to master
this game is a challenge in itself. The 'fun' of this game is not graded
toward 'contentment' but 'aggravation'. The Marquis de Sade would have
loved this game. ;-)

Nemoroth is a game which I always recommend to someone new to Chess
variants. Since it can utilize the pieces from a Mad Queen set(with a few
extra tokens), it is easy to try out. And it quickly unclogs the cobwebs
from their minds.

The 'best' that any developer can hope for is to create an enjoyable
game. And this can be accomplished in various ways.

Other people enjoy inventing new pieces and making a variant based on those pieces. Betza enjoyed this; he also enjoyed finding a mix of pieces just as strong as the FIDE pieces so one could have balanced games with different Chess armies. Other people enjoy combining themes of various variants to create something using a new theme.

For me, I like a variant where we quickly get out of the opening book and in to the 'street fighting' of trying to do tactics better than your opponent. I also like opening analysis of a variant, for the sake of opening analysis (not that said analysis is useful; then again opening analysis was not really useful in FIDE chess until the 20th century).

This is why I like Capa/Grand Chess variants; with two more pieces almost as powerful as the queen on the board, the games get very tactical very quick. Just like 'mad queen' chess before people discovered boring defenses like the Sicilian defense.

And, there are a lot of Capa opening setups one can choose from making it so there is never a chance of the opening getting stale. But that doesn't stop me from having done some opening analysis of my particular Capa openeing setup.

So, I generally don't invent variants because I find more joy in playing and studying variants already invented, and because there are already a lot of possibilities, even with the modest Capa variants.

- Sam

At the risk of making myself very impopular on this site:

To me, inventing Chess variants is like 'inventing' integer numbers.
Make a string of some 100 digits, and the odds are overwhelming that you
are the first ever in this universe to have mentioned this number. OK, so
you can marvel at your own private number, but who cares? Pritchard was
quoted to say: Ït takes about 10 seconds to invent a Chess variant, and,
unfortunately, some people do'.

It is just like with the numbers, it had better be very special in some
respect that you point out, or it cannot be considered an invention at
all. The axioms of number theory already imply the existence of all
integers, and states that there is an infinity of them, so the fact that
you can name a few that no one ever mentioned before adds absolutely zero
to what was already known. AFAIK, there is no website where people can
post large numbers they invented. Prime numbers are already a bit more
interesting, but still so common that it makes little sense to post
everyone prime you discover. Unless it is the largest prime ever
discovered so far. (Did you know that about 0.45% of all 100-digit numbers
is prime?) Some numbers are very interesting, though, and entire books
could be written about their deep mathematical properties. This applies to
numbers like pi, Euler's constant gamma, the base of natural logarithms e.
(They are not integers, though, but the analogy would work just as well for
real numbers.) 

IMO, it is much the same with Chess variants. The 'axioms' of a royal
piece, translation-invariant piece moves and replacement capture imply an
infinite set of Chess variants, and the fact you can mention one (or a
hundred) explicitly is as meaningless as designing a hundred huge
integers. A Chess variant is only worth mentioning if it it has some very
special properties not found in most other variants, or solve some
problems found in existing popular variants.

With Chess pieces the situation is similar. A Chess variant can be
worthwile as a vehicle to exercise a novel piece, but only if the piece is
interesting. But also novel pieces can easily be uninteresting
run-of-the-mill constructs. Merely bringing up novel combinations of the
Betza atoms does not make a worthwile piece. Breaking the eightfold
symmetry gives even more pieces that could be useful on boards of limited
size, but so what? It woulkd only be of interest if it creates some
interesting irreversibility in play (such as with the Pawn), or a weird
color-boundedness not seen in other pieces. Or some intersting end-games,
where it is difficult, but nevertheless possible, to mate a bare King. New
capture modes or other side effects of piece moves could be interesting,
but have the disadvantage to make the piece less 'Chess-like'.

To demonstrate that a variat you designed has any such properties that
could make it worthwile does require a lot of analysis effort.

To me, writing computer programs is like 'inventing' integer numbers.
After all, every computer program is just a long string of ones and zeros,
and that's just the binary representation of some integer. Likewise,
anything you can store on a computer -- such as books, pictures, audio
files -- these are just the equivalent of integers too. Surely, there must
be no creativity in writing novels, drawing pictures, or composing music,
because these can all be stored as computer files, full of nothing but
ones and zeroes, and any string of ones and zeroes is just the binary
representation of an integer.

That would be a valid comparison, if you would not restrict yourself to
WORKING computer programs. I completely agree that there is virtually zero
interest in computer programs that are merely random sequences of
instructions. (Or, if we are considering programs in a high-level
language, and we would restrict ourselves to programs that actually
compile, programs that are obtained by randomly applying the production
rules of the grammar describing the language to generate a valid
program.)

It is the fact that a computer program does something that would make it
different from garbage. Or the fact that a book tells a story, rather than
just being a jumble of random words. An extremely small fraction of
possible programs or possible books fit that requirement indeed. These are the jewels of information tschnology or litterature, like the Mad-Queen game is a diamond amongst the Chess variants.

The hard part is fleshing out the variant. A reasonable Zillions implementation can be done in the course of an afternoon. Once this is done, the game can be play tested. I have done this, and have concluded some ideas I had just don't make the games I like to play.

What Mr. Muller has done is far more impressive. He has written one of the strongest chess variant playing programs out there, and has done a lot of extensive research about the real value of some of the fairy pieces on various boards.

I like to see a variant fleshed out: Sample games, some basic opening theory, some mating problems, so people can get a sense of how to play the game before sitting down and playing the game. This is a lot more work than inventing a new kind of piece, which is why I think the type of real research Mr. Muller does is comparatively rare.

- Sam

Thanks for your kind words, Sam. Note it is in no way my intention, though, 
to belittle work of others, and praise my own. Obviously I could not even start 
programming if the variants I program for would not have been invented and singled 
out as 'jewels' by other. I never invented any worthwhile Chess variants myself. 
And I certainly don't think Mad Queen is the only diamond in the Chess-variant 
universe. There are many variants that I do like very much, and there are many 
wonderful pieces beside the orthodox 6 as well. But they are rare, as they 
should be, as it is the rarity that gives objects their value.

I liked, for example, Fergus' 'Storm the Ivory Tower', because I think it was really cool to do something with Smess' idea of making the board affect how pieces move, and it was nice to integrate this idea with some ideas in Chinese Chess. In addition, when people pointed out they didn't like the graphics, Fergus went to all of the effort to make a whole bunch of different graphics available in the Zillions preset.

I also think Mats has come up with a lot of interesting ideas and pieces, and I like how he always makes Zillions implementations and even tries to improve Zillions' gameplay.

- Sam

'Overall, the literature of chess variants demonstrates a random
scattering of 1000's of the infinite possible, stable [not in every
case!] arrangements of gameboards, pieces, rules, etc. Despite the
constructive intentions, hard work and abstraction by their various
inventors, statistically it is as if the population as a whole which
created this class of games did so with little guidance of intelligent
design. Virtually all of these games could have instead been randomly
generated by a computer program designed to intentionally create chaotic,
messy chess variants. This is the fate of all work undertaken without
correctly applying the most important game-design principles.'

Symmetrical Chess- Description
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/descript.pdf
See section 'blueprints for incredibly bad inventions'- page 5.
_________________________________________________________

Although I prefer to colloquially express a permutations analogy 
['arrangements' is the keyword clue] instead of a number theory analogy,
there is an implicit overlapping and agreement of ideas.  I am especially
convinced of Muller's observation that 'invention' is commonly used in
an exaggerated or false manner within chess variant literature.  In my
opinion, 'discovery' is usually a much more appropriate and factual word
although I consider even its usage in some cases to be melodramatic.

For a hypothetical example ...

1.  Imagine that a person flashes thru all of the 12,000+ opening setups
of CRC (discovered by Reinhard Scharnagl) and notes which ones, by quickly applying simple quality criteria, are especially stable.

2.  This person eventually completes a short list of, for example, the 24
best (by his/her criteria).

3.  This person arrogantly and irrationally imagines himself/herself to be a prolific, genius inventor who has earned fame- not merely a discoverer.

4.  This person dishonestly applies for and receives US patents for every
one of his/her 24 favorite opening setups of CRC that were not already US
patented ... albeit by carefully, intentionally not mentioning CRC at all
to the patent examiners.

5.  This person takes the fact that he/she holds fraudulently-obtained US
patents for most of his/her 24 favorite opening setups of CRC as proof
that he/she is indeed a prolific, genius inventor.

[Of course, any resemblance to any real person(s) in this fictional story
is purely coincidental.]
_________________________

Would you agree to classify this person as a prolific, genius inventor?
I would not even classify this person as a discoverer.

The desire to be accurate would compel me to classify this person instead
as an intellectual property thief (only of non US-patented gameworks)
and a phoney inventor.

After all, Reinhard Scharnagl had already holistically covered the same
ground, as a discoverer, that this person falsely, subsequently staked a
claim to as his/her own solely.
_______________________________

Nonetheless, I reserve the view that 'invention' can occasionally be used
appropriately to refer to a small number of highly-unique chess variants.  I also think (as Duniho) that Muller fails to give sufficient credit to
original game inventors who have somehow managed to create complex chess
variants that are balanced, dynamic, stable and playable.  After all, the
odds against creating chess variants, compliant with every quality
criteria (known and unknown), by chance or luck are combinatorically high.  Instead, they are rare, valuable examples of intelligent design done
correctly.  Eight years filled with appr. 250 failed, diligent,
attempted-intelligent efforts on my part (until only one recent success,
in my tentative opinion) have convinced me that great games are highly
unlikely to be invented by chance or luck.

Sam,
Creating a new chess variants is 'trivial'. Yea it is as trivial as
writing a poetry. Anybody can write down some matching words in five minutes
but a good poetry is something non-trivial. Same goes here!

In following this thread, I've been struck by a few things. One is the
repeated statement that chess variants are easy to design. I will point
out that is only true for those of us who do things like post at
chessvariants. Any activity, existing and being practiced for many
centuries around the world, that is so cheap anyone can participate, which
has been engaged in by less than 1 in 1,000,000, is not all that easy. Even
among the millions and millions of chessplayers [of all chesses], there are
so few [western players] who even consider variants, though many will play
Bughouse or Blitz, or give odds of a pawn, piece, or move. These are all
considered training methods as well as games to be played, and seem to
gain/to have gained legitimacy that way. What's done here is the unusual.
In spite of the fact there are so many attempts to sell CVs commercially. 

Another comment was on the overall structure, or lack thereof, of variant
designs. Actually, I think there is structure of a sort. In some ways,
it's the very messy structure of life, of growing things. The great bulk
of the variants cluster around a few forms, a few ideas. Each may have its
own novelty, but most are clearly recognizable as chess. The 'strategy'
of these games is to stay close to the norm, and it's a rather
well-received strategy. [Disagree? What percentage of CVs use pawns? How
about kings, in the standard chess sense of king? This doesn't even
consider how often knights, bishops, etc are used. If I say all these
things show up in 99% of the games, would anybody object?] But there are
some games that leap off into totally different areas, like Ultima. These
games become new spreading centers when they are very successful. Shogi
and all the variants, many very large, that it spawned are possibly the
best example of what I mean. Chess variants have an evolutionary
structure.

I agree with Joe. I will also point out that songs and novels are much more
numerous than Chess variants. Some songwriters have written more songs than
the most prolific CV inventors have invented games, and some novelists have
written more novels. Does this mean that it's easy to write songs and
novels? As someone who has never written one song or novel, it doesn't
seem so.

Please forgive any offensive comments I have made in this, or any other
threads.  I just want to say, my wish is that the number of variants
created would lend to more people being interested in playing chess
variants.  I believe if the process spawns more interest, and more
players, that is a good thing.  That is my desire here.  I don't want to
offend anyone to create them.  I do wish, that the creations would
generate more interest though.  In a more blunt way, that the creations
serve the world as much as they do the creators of the games, if not more.
 My attempts to call for some standards, came out of this.  I am sorry if
such calls are seen as offensive to anyone.