[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
I do not consider Tzaar to be a chess variant. Of course, I don't consider Go to be a chess variant either, where as some players do.
Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, May 19, 2008 11:46 PM UTC:I don't know; it sounds like it's a form of extinction chess to me.
Well, Extinction Chess is a chess variant, so... hmm....
H. G. Muller wrote on Tue, May 20, 2008 02:08 PM UTC:What characterizes Chess variants: 1) move one piece at a time to an empty cell, or 2) capture an enemy piece by moving into its cell 3) win by capture of royal piece 4) many different piece types 5) a large fraction of the pieces are pawns 6) pawns are weak pieces which move irreversibly, and promote to a stronger piece when advanced enough. Some of these rules can be violated, but only if all other characteristics are very close to a very common variant.
If we start with a game of Shatranj - it is easy to vary it and reach Chess, Shogi, Xianqi... etc. I can easily see these three games as Shatranj variants.
Many of today's CVs begin with Chess and vary from it. But, I do not think this is (was) the case with Tzaar.
Of course, one can keep varying pieces, boards and rules to the extreme... and by doing so end up with something that no one would recognize as having come from chess. In this manner, for example, an artist could start with a drawing of a rabbit and create a horrific beast, by increasing the size, replacing fur with scales, replacing ears with bat ears, fluffy tail with long reptilian tail... etc... when the artist is done we have nothing that would be considered as a rabbit variant (though it is). Only by means of such an analogy could I see Tzarr as a chess variant.
But does it matter? And would I object to it to being added at CV, for example? No, I would not object. But, like Go, I would consider it to be an allowed exception due to its strategic nature.
Let me give an IAGO spin on this (not meant to be 'my' spin, but it is mostly mine at this point). As of this point, a categorization of games involving capture is that they are broken into two categories, these being multi-elimination (Checkers) and Royal Elimination (Chess). Royal elimination games involve one or more classes of 'Royal' pieces, where the objective is to eliminate or neutralize a particular class or sets of classes. In multi-elimination, the objective is to eliminate all or most of the pieces. Based on this spin, the games on the chess variants site should fit into the Royal Elimination category, unless you talk Axis and Allies Chess. And under this criterion, then I see Tzaar being a game that would fit here. It is in the extinction chess category, where you get to fuse pieces together to make them more powerful.
Gess I see as a chess-like game, but why would Go be appropriate here? I don't see it.
H.G.Muller's Point ''1) Move one piece at a time to an empty cell'' is violated, as he recognizes can happen in coherent Chess-like game, by Witch in Jacks & Witches, for one example. Witch drags another piece with it without capturing. ''Witch does not kill,'' say Fourriere's particular Rules there. So up to two pieces move when Witch moves. Points ''2) through 6)'' are each more readily and frequently violated than Point 1), as Muller would recognize. Here are exceptions to them: 2) Ultima Withdrawer, Coordinator 3) Maxima's other win condition 4) Battle Chieftain's one piece-type 5) Gilman's ''Pawnless'' ones 6) Rococo Cannon Pawn. Each of the 6) points could list 100 easily, so maybe definitions not that useful anymore. In fact, probably majority of CVs violate more than 1 of the points -- thus making them not CVs strictly by Muller's statement -- depending on more precise honed meaning of ''very close to a common variant.'' Here in CVPage ''very close to a common variant'' even controversially, though inconsistently, excludes different starting arrays.
H. G. Muller wrote on Tue, May 20, 2008 06:05 PM UTC:Well, even FIDE Chess violates the defining characteristics, by the non-Chess-like moves of castling and e.p. capture. But, like I stated, violation of some of the rules does not immediately disqualify a game as a CV. Extinction Chess doesn't have a royal piece, but in all other respects it is identical to FIDE Chess. So it is clearly a CV. But I would not call checkers or draughts CVs. In the interpretation that the chips are pawns, (they do promote...), the capture mode and piece variety is too different from common variants to qualify. I do not consider Ultima / Baroque a Chess variant. It does have piece variety, and even a royal piece, but the capture modes are too alien, only the King has a Chess-like capture, most pieces don't. I see no problem with Jacks and Witches. The majority of the pieces are normal Chess pieces. OK, so some Witch moves violate the one-at-a-time rule, like castling does. No problem, as even within this game this is an exception. IMO the array is not relevant as a distinctive trait of variants. You could call them sub-variants at best. Near Chess is simply FIDE Chess. The opening position of Near Chess occurs even in the game tree of FIDE Chess. In that respect FRC is more different from FIDE Chess than Near Chess is: there at least the opening position can be unreachable frrom the FIDE opening.
An issue comes down to the function of this site. This site is THE site for all chess-like games. While 'Chess variant' is very likely not the best term, it is mean to describe chess-like games. So, the question then becomes when should a game be considered chess-like or not. What is the core element? My take is that it has one or more royal pieces where the object is to eliminate them. Elimination consists of capture and/or some other neutralizing method. Does this sound acceptable to people? This then begs the question as to what is going on with Tzaar.
My analogy for this issue is the planets. If FIDE chess is like Earth and 8x10 chess is like Mars then extinction chess is like pluto and Tzaar is then ceres. Either neither Extinction chess and Tzaar are chess variants or they both are. I don't think either is satisfactory to all, but that is the way the knight jumps.
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, May 21, 2008 02:56 AM UTC:This topic has been thrashed out before, most recently that I remember here: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-7708/chess-variants The most complete answer was given by David Howe. I reproduce the key part here, and recommend those interested to look at the wiki. It has far more on this topic in various places. The 'Chess' family of games DavidHoweDavidHowe 17 Apr 2007, 13:04 -0-400 What is the nature of the game of chess, and what makes a game a chess variant? Here is my opinion: 'Chess', in the widest sense (ie. in the sense of a family of games), has certain properties: 1. ... 9. It is a game that involves two classes of pieces, 'royal' and 'non-royal'. The winning condition of the game is to capture or checkmate one or more of the royal pieces. It is interesting to note, that the game of checkers, has the same [9] properties, except for the last. I believe it is this last property that differentiates chess from other non-chess games (such as checkers). ...
Gess is billed as a Chess/Go variant and there are no royal pieces. Player wins by destroying a certain position, namely a ring. So the ''most complete answer'' of David Howe is not the final word and actually inadequate, those 9 points unsatisfactory. What is a CV anyway? A perennial question to ask. The particular CVPage ethos is rather that it is an art form. That is their functional definition of CV: art form. After all, most variant themes that come up, Mutators or new piece-types as one will, have ''been thrashed out before,'' in fact again and again and again within CVPage. Heck, keep them coming and once in a while there is a new idea. In Howe's list of 9, look at point 8, for no hidden information as one criterion. Kriegspiel has hidden information, and everyone agrees that is vintage, even standard chess-form, having found place throughout the literature.
Jianying Ji - your planet analogy for chess variants, I think is interesting... but how is it that such and such CV is associated with Ceres (the largest asteroid - therefore not a planet and thus not a CV by the analogy) and as for Pluto, it was classified as a planet, but is now just the largest known member of the Kuiper belt and no longer a planet. Thus, what would have been a CV is no longer one....
The point here is that someone can say Chess is to Earth as Tzaar is to Ceres... but these associations are clearly arguable.
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, May 21, 2008 07:38 PM UTC:George, you're quite right, my choice of language was very poor. 'Thrashed out before' sounds very negative when I re-read it; my apologies. What I should have said, and meant to say, is that there was a good conversation on this topic in the CVwiki, and that David Howe had far and away the best post in the conversation. Using his post is not a bad place, in my opinion, to re-start/continue the conversation from. I don't think anyone really believes he or she is the final arbiter of chess [or if they do, they're still too sensible to say that out loud], but Mark Thompson's paper and David's comments on the subject, both what I quoted from and other work, do lay out a nice basis for discussion. Have to disagree with you on Gess; there is a royal piece, and it is made up of several identical and interchangeable units maintaining a specific form in the environment, much like a living creature there. Having a piece that occupies more than one square is rare but far from unknown [someone mentioned Giant Chess recently...]. You seem to imply that a CV is not a piece of art. What, then, is it? While logic and number should play a big role in making and refining a good CV, I think creating a CV is rarely a matter of science. Designers have styles; many are conservative, sticking close to the 'Old Masters': FIDE and Capa, and maybe something like Omega or Grand Chess. Some are far more radical, designing on the fringes. Then there are the Andy Warhol types. There are others we could find, but that makes my point for now.
Gary, quite agreed. That actually is my point as well, that categorizations are always arguable. Whether planets or CVs. (as for planets, I like to think ceres and pluto as planets, but have to console my self with the dwarf planet status :-) )
Howe's 9 points have at point 8 the criterion for no hidden information. Long-well-regarded 110-year-old Kriegspiel features hidden information. So Howe's list is just starting point at best or at worst idiosyncratic, as most any attempt at definition. // ''Art form'' means here not to be played, as CVs were classically intended before CVPage came along, but instead to be admired. Such ''art for art's sake'' is pointless ethos.
H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, May 21, 2008 08:10 PM UTC:[I deleted this post, because I accidentally posted it in the wrong discussion.]
I will add comment here that if chess variants are treated as nothing but 'art' that is to be admired and not played, we have issues with the whole CV concept. Games are meant to be played, and put into effect and enjoyed. To do this would be to treat a recipe book as 'art' in which no one bothers to cook. There is creation aspect to making chess variants, but the end should be good play. The measure of the quality is how well it plays. The creation PROCESS can produce some not so good ideas, but there may be a germ of a good idea there that can be used. I won't comment on the game Simplified Chess, but I personally believe the Simplified Chess BOARD is one of these creations. All this being said, we seriously need a lot more play of games and see if they work or not. We also need functioning definitions that help keep identity in place. Theoretical angels on a head of a pin doesn't help here. So, all this being said, get back to Tzaar, and answer whether or not this should be a game on the CV site or not. I would say yes, because Extinction Chess is here. If the answer is no, then I would argue that a bunch of what is on the CV site (Royal Elimination games by IAGO standards) should be here or not. Like, is a game which involves an escape/race victory condition allowed, and so on on...
H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, May 21, 2008 08:38 PM UTC:Well, I do not really play CVs myself, but I love to watch games played by my engines, especially blitz games. And from this I learned that Knightmate is a CV that definitely works. It is just different enough from FIDE Chess to make it interesting, but familiar enough that you immediately can grasp it. Great game! Similarly for the 10x8 Capablanca variants. They are very interesting because of the Archbishop, which tends to be very active.
22 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.