Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
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.
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.
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!
'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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
- 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
I would say that MiniXiang was inspired and well worth the presence of the other contributions.
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 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.
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.
44 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.