Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

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.

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.

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?

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. ;-)

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.

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.

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.