Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

We should consider a formula 1 like competition using computers, and maybe desing games with that in mind. This is what apothecary series is about but I cannot obviosly claim that I know better :)!

@ H.G.:

Regarding CVs with a large body of opening theory, it would seem it's tough to avoid that if the relative popularity of a CV is to be an important criteria for inclusion in a CVs world championship event. Mind Sports abstract games competitions include the big 3 classic CVs (chess, shogi and chinese chess), and the organizers must have considered the edge some players might have over others in playing 1 or more of these 3 CVs (although the number is very small, being just 3 games, which may allow participants some time to bone up on opening theory of up to all 3 of these CVs, if necessary).

Regarding Makruk, I had the impression it was a largely regional CV, in a way moreso than shogi (or any of the other CVs on my suggested list of 10 CVs), but I am far from sure. On a personal note, when I glanced at Makruk's wiki, I found the rules a bit elaborate to follow, with regard to the draw result conditions (though chess has some, albeit rarely arising, special drawing case rules, too). I would hope a CV would be played by, say, at least 0.5 million people to be deemed indisputably popular enough even for Mind Sports, which I saw included Renju, which is a more interesting form of Go Moku. That may currently rule out something as interesting as Circular Chess, but I recall Glinski's Hexagonal Chess at least at one time had something like 0.5 million playing. The first two links below include popularity figures for the games in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makruk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagonal_chess#Gliński's_hexagonal_chess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renju

[edit: The Oriental Variants link on chessvariants.com, under "Games" in the main menu, seems to have quite a fair number of variants that are at least remotely like Chinese Chess, especially if something like Storm the Ivory Tower is counted, though I suspect few have any truly significant degree of popularity:]

Xiangqi Based Variants

@ Aurelian: At the moment chess has seperate world events for computer vs. computer contests, and maybe still once in a while there are Man+Machine vs. Man+Machine contests. The last I heard of Man vs Machine, the machine side was giving odds in matches to make things more interesting - including the machine having less time to think. As far as any relatively new CV, even, having a similar contest, I think it won't take too long before a reasonably well programmed/self-teaching machine would need to give odds to the best human, too.

@ Everyone: A fresh idea of mine that also may seem rather unrealistic (at the moment, anyway) is for chessvariants.com, arguably the main CV website on the internet, to simply run an annual world CVs championship tournament of its own and then declare the winner to be world CVs champion for that year. Obstacles could include: 1) how to distinguish ourselves from any other website or offline organization later claiming to do the same; 2) how to try to take any anti-cheating measures, if the honour of the title is to be taken very seriously (one measure might be to play just newer or obscure CVs in such an event, to try to more easily avoid the chance of any undetected CV engine assistance, in spite of what I wrote above in my reply to H.G. re: popularity of CVs selected may matter); 3) at some point, how to provide a prize ($, or a trophy, or CV product[s] of some sort, or simply a news story in any media that will take notice) - any entry fee for this type of event may help; 4) how to have enough people playing on Game Courier, compared to some of the other possibly more active CVs (or chess+CVs) servers or play-by-mail sites out there. All in all, this may be a tall order, though so may be trying to get the attention of the already established and well organized Mind Sorts organization, if that were ever to be tried.

I agree with your points Kevin.

But human online competitions are virtually impossible to be held online and still be engine free.

For the online media cyborg chess is the best option.

And human tournaments are expensive.

Anyway here is a list of my preferred games: Grand Chess, Omega Chess, Shako, Eurasian Chess, Gross Chess, 8 stones chess, CWDA. Say we organize these in the same location. Worldwide there are always high travel costs. But besides that. If you organize the tournaments more or less separately in order to avoid fixture clashes as much as possible, you will have a huge schedule on your hands. Very unfeasible most likely. Fergus once proposed to hold each round with a different game. I don't think that is that fair either as some games are more drawish  than others, for example. Moreover if we are talking about a swiss system then the games that are first are less important. And you won't get enough world championships to make enough permutations to make it at lest long term fair.

As of now (20th of January 2019) I don't see clear solutions to these problems.

Guys?

If you want live tournaments, it will probably be best to let someone other than myself handle it. I have no experience in running live tournaments, I went to maybe one Chess tournament before quitting the Chess club in high school, and I don't travel much. I'm more into the variety of Chess variants than I am into the intense competition of the Chess world.

@ Aurelian:

Regarding online cheating via computer assistance, the better chess servers try to detect that for chess, but it's like an arms race in that there are a lot of chess engines out there, old and new. So, even a serious online chess competition may be an expensive proposition. Arimaa (a heavily licensed game) has it's own approved website, which runs its own world championship. Not sure how anti-computer cheating works for that, but since a couple of years ago the best computer program is now also the world's best player. For a CVs website to hold a very serious multiple CVs event online, maybe (or maybe not?) trying to prevent computer cheating is even more of a nightmare for potential organizers. Note that it seems that it's easier to take anti-computer cheating measures for offline chess events than for online ones, but then there are still costs involved in running such events.

Cyborg (Man+Machine) competitions could avoid that trouble, but for CV players I'm not sure there could be a level playing field from the point of view of who has access to the best software and hardware, alone (at least if a competition is to be online). There's also that there might be less interest in CVs cyborg competitions, as, at the least, in the case of CVs, we haven't even yet established who the best human CVs players are, if that's close to possible.

One irony here is that long ago I read a very old book (Computers, Chess and Long-Range Planning), on creating a strong chess program, by world chess champion M. Botvinnik, who opined that once there was such an engine, man would have acquired a tireless helper. He may not have cared about the slight loss of dignity for the world's best human chess players in the future, but it also seems he didn't forsee the ease with which people nowadays can obtain computers and engines, allowing for the possibility of somewhat frequent computer assisted cheating, that today causes so many headaches and concerns.

It occured to me to Google "chess variants championship tournament", just in case the idea of a multiple CV event (on or off line) had already been thought of. Sure enough, there was an old 2003 idea proposed in detail by an editor for a world open PBEM CVs event to be held on chessvariants.com at some future time. Apparently the idea didn't go anywhere, but the details are interesting. I didn't see any mention of how to avoid any computer assistance by players, just that it wasn't allowed. An entry fee of sorts was to be involved:

https://www.chessvariants.com/contests/worldopen.html

Note that on the first page of the Google search result that I obtained, there was a 2005 FICS (Free Internet Chess Server) championship event mentioned, which included 7 chess variants.

@Kevin

I had played Arimaa. There is not anti-cheating policy besides just saying don't do it :)!

As far as I know until now it worked :)!

For cyborg games the goal should be that the human players should make the final decision based on huge amounts of properly presented raw data.

The human  part of the cyborg skills are not the same as sole human skills so I'm not sure if not establishing and elite in that setting plays any major part.

Today chess computing heads more and more towards machine learning.

And Kevin, one more thing about cyborg chess. I'm not sure how you would guarantee equal hardware usage. I guess you can make it a rule that everybody uses the same engine which is distributed very shortly before the competition starts so it won't be hacked. And it is also checked to be ok after each round. But this at first glance at least has the downside that everybody must use the same engine. I believe I can get around this but it's complicated to explain :)!

I thought there was an article about Decimal variants (10x10) somewhere on this CVP site, but I cannot seem to find such. In any case, I was thinking, yet again, that the late John William Brown (inventor of Centennial Chess) might have been right. That is, that the next step (or maybe final step, if the resulting variant(s) chosen are practically inexhaustible) for orthodox chess' evolution (in order to stay extremely popular) is to go on to some 10x10 variant replacement.

What I'm hoping for is that there are already good candidates from which a list can be compiled. Maybe Grand Chess, and perhaps Shako, are close to being promising for future great popularity. Opulent Chess may be a good candidate too, based on the Members' Favorites list for CVP, alone. Centennial chess may be a good candidate too, except I find certain of its pieces rather exotic (the rules of FIDE chess are fairly simple, perhaps necessary for a game to be quite popular).

edit: here's a link to what I may have vaguely recalled - a 10-chess contest, in which the number 10 plays a role somehow (hence a new contest, to design a 10x10 CV, suggests itself):

https://www.chessvariants.com/contests/10/index.html

Omega chess may be out there, too, Kevin although technically not a 10x10 game exactly!

Omega Chess is an interesting case, aside from being (I'd guess) something of a commercial success. 10x10 (instead of 104 cells) would be what a purist would wish for, and that size might look better on someone's coffee table (I should have mentioned in my previous post an obvious point [to be clear], that a replacement CV(s) for chess would do best if it could be played on a physical set).

Omega Chess also has the known drawback that K+R normally cannot mate lone K due to the extra corner squares off the edge. However, this incidentally gives me the idea that since Omega Chess could be played on a 12x12 board (with many squares covered up, except the corner squares), 12x12 physical sets may look okay (even on coffee tables), besides 10x10 ones - it's just a question of whether 144 cells, rather than 100 or 104, is too much for many people's mental grasp (though 12x12 Gross Chess is one possible counterexample, that has had quite a bit of testing, at least on Game Courier).

Still, I have the feeling that 100 cells is already a size allowing for more than enough extra pieces in a setup, for a given CV never to be exhausted in terms of opening theory (as FIDE chess now may be in danger of). A problem, though, is that unlike 8x8, on 10x10 already bishops would be normally significantly stronger than Kts, if both types are in a CV. Plus, pawns may already take longer to promote on such a longer board, which could slow things down. However, any attempt to vary from FIDE Chess will always involve tradeoffs, even if the CV invented is very interesting.

I think if a 10x10 game ever became very popular, 12x12 wouldn't seem so huge anymore.

What would it take though, for a bigger game to replace the current chess in popularity? People would have to feel that 64 squares is too few, and be dissatisfied enough to try something else. But there would need to be an obvious game to try, or it's possible that none would ever attract enough attention to be considered the standard chess. Having multiple candidates diminishes the obviousness of all of them. Right now, perhaps, most people interested in chess variants aren't looking for a new standard, they're looking for variety. I know I am, at least.

I wonder why the 64 square chess is so popular anyway, aside from being popular for its popularity. Could it be that people tend to prefer smaller games, as long as they're not too small?

Worrying about bishops being stronger than knights seems unnecessary, since there would be new pieces anyway. Also, the time it takes for pawns to promote doesn't depend on the board size so much as on the setup and promotion rules. In Gross Chess, pawns can promote with 5 moves, and in Apothecary Chess they can promote with only 4.

A fresh replacement CV for chess discussion really should be in a NextChess thread, but I chose to put it in this more recent thread. All the same, the Next Chess (if ever one) strongly relates to the future of chess variants, as it is from the best CVs that a Next Chess (or more than one) will be born.

Does there have to be only one Next Chess, in terms of one being the number one popular variant? I used to think so, though some have argued that since various forms of Poker are played and are each successful, there is room for more than one popular Next Chess. Right now, the undeniable Classics are chess, shogi and Chinese Chess, but with chess suspected to be most popular (600 million adults says FIDE) - some say Chinese Chess must be played more, but I haven't found authoritative figures.

Anyway, chess is showing its age, and many think it will be played out sooner or later, opening theory-wise. Lots of draws at elite level, or engine level. Otherwise, chess would be a fine game - the fact it is a managable (and square) 8x8 size makes it all the nicer. However, for there to be longevity to a CV, it may require more pieces in the setup than 16 per side - or 9x9 shogi's 20 per side. That's where 10x10 comes in, perhaps. Even if Grand Chess is a winner as a Next Chess, at least there are 100 cells to play the game on, so opening theory is also hard to exhaust, that way. Plus, a nice square 10x10 board may be still managable for most people, compared to 12x12.

I'm for listing candidates, then narrowing them down if possible, to get one Next Chess. If that's not easy, maybe the more CVs the merrier, if lots of people play each. CVP website can be viewed as a lab where we try to come up with winning CV designs, and test them, or at least rate them.

A possible counterargument to 12×12 being too much for a ‘standard’ might be Chu Shōgi — after all, it was the most popular Chess in Japan before the introduction of drops to its smaller brother.

I'd expect a ‘Next Chess’ would be likely to at least have a single set of basic rules (i.e. regarding check, promotion, winning conditions, ⁊c.), probably the FIDE ones, though arguably even there there is some tweaking that might be worth doing; I would be very much in favour, though, of a poker‐like situation where multiple games (probably just different piece sets, in practice) enjoyed comparable popularity — and might even be mixed regularly in both casual and tournament play.

I'd have to look again, but I recall Chu Shogi has a lot of short-range pieces. Reasonably popular (so far) 12x12 Gross Chess does have quite a few long-range types though, which may definitely be a possible counterargument to 12x12 being too hard for most people to grasp. Maybe (like for Chu Shogi) a lot of folks would prefer a well-played CV game to not last for too many moves on average, though.

A very Much agree that the future chess should be more variants enjoying similar popularity! I agree with you Bn Em here!

One figure I've seen (on CVP website) is that 200 million play Chinese Chess (maybe low estimate), and I've seen elsewhere that 20 million play 9x9 shogi (again maybe too low). So, at the moment at least, both chess and Chinese Chess are the (2) most extremely popular CVs, to say the least.

edit: From the main page, a link to Fergus Duniho's ideas re: Designing good chess variants, fwiw:

https://www.chessvariants.com/opinions.dir/fergus/design.html

Chu does have quite a few short‐range pieces, like (Sho) Shōgi; it's not exactly devoid of longer‐range ones though: Rook, Bishop, Queen, as well as Dragon Horse and ‐King are the more conventional ones (and all but the queen in pairs), and it even has, to Western eyes, weird things like side‐/vertical movers and their promotions. And even with the short‐range ones, at first sight the variety of very similar moves might seem confusing just as several long‐range pieces might.

Gross Chess is popular here among CV fans; that speaks, no doubt, to its playability and potential popularity — and may well indicate it as a good candidate for a successor — but says very little imo about how 12×12 might fare among a more lay audience — while Chu demonstrates that it's possible for it to hold that status.

The point about game length is potentially a concern once the board gets bigger (and is almost certainly, alongside tractability, once of the limiting factors for going to e.g. 14×14 and beyond as anything ore than a novelty), though I'd've expected at least games with plenty of long‐range pieces to balance that somewhat. I wonder how long the average game of Gross or Metamachy (of which I've been playing a fair bit against Jocly's AI recently) is, esp. compared to Chu.

Tonight I went through Game Courier's list of all games, looking at those played at least 10 times, to date, to compile a preliminary list of 10x10 CVs. That is, for people to consider at leisure, to whittle them down to 1 or more possible 'Next Chess' candidates (if they could choose/predict), with the assumption that 10x10 is a very good board size (maybe the best). Some of these games I know have been played elsewhere, perhaps many times, and all seem interesting in one way or another:

1. Eurasian Chess (x103);
2. Grand Chess (x77);
3. Shako (x63);
4. Opulent Chess (x61);
5. Sac Chess (x61);
6. Caissa Britannia (x55);
7. EuChess (x41);
8. Colossus (x35);
9. Expanded Chess (x27);
10. Grand Cavalier Chess (x27);
11. Unicorn Great Chess (x26);
12. Storm the Ivory Tower (x25);
13. Bear Chess (x24);
14. Grand Shatranj (x23 = D & R versions in total);
15. Wildebeest Chess Decimal (x18);
16. TenCubed Chess (x17);
17. Butterfly Chess (x15);
18. Centennial Chess (x14);
19. Great Chess (x14);
20. Jetan (x11);
21. Atlantean Barroom Shatranj (x11);
22. Ajax Chess (x10);
23. Mimic Chess (x10).

Edit: My own personal Next Chess candidates I can tentatively narrow to #2,3,4,6,8,9 and 13 in the list above.

I think Eurasian Chess and Wildebeest Decimal Chess are easily good enough to consider as well.

Another excellent 10x10 game that was not mentioned by Kevin but was very much played on this website (but I don't think it is played elsewhere) is Rococo, even it differs a little more from chess than the other mentioned variants. Rococo is also a "recognised variant" on the CVP (for what it's worth). But I suppose that accustomed chess players would more easily be interested in more "conventional" variants.

I wasn't sure Rococo was truly a 10x10 CV, since the edge squares have special, restrictive rules applied to them, compared to the other squares (though I guess something similar might somehow apply to Storm the Ivory Tower, or even Eurasian Chess, each with River rules among others).

Another note I'd make is that I recall Fergus wrote somewhere that he preferred another one of his games (maybe [12x12] Gross Chess) to Eurasian Chess, though at least that one's currently on his personal Favorites list.

I am not sure though about future chess variants. What do you have in mind Kevin? I was thinking about your 3 games with FA, FH and WA. I though adding one strong piece on an 11x8 to Ballance things out. I think it would be an improvement. Or even a 12x8 or (a better in my opinion) 12x10. I'm particularly interested in adding an archbishop and a dragon king to the mix. Dragon horse and chancellor could be something, too. And want about the gryphon and manticore?

From the intro to (10x10) Centennial Chess, by formerly active CVP editor John William Brown:

"Such 10x10 games, often called decimal chess, have been the holy grail of game designers for ages. Many scholars felt that the move to a 10x10 board would be the next logical step in the chess's continuing evolution."

I have gone between liking 8 ranks in a CV (good for FIDE pawns' rules) and liking 10x10, though once again I think Mr. Brown is right about 10x10 being at least the next (if not final) step for chess' evolution - allows for more pieces in the setup (perhaps good for the final version of chess, if any possible), without the board size being too big, in case most people don't like games that might go too long.

Having thus arbitrarily narrowed the search for what a Next Chess looks like, I thought Game Courier might reveal some really good candidates (already) for a (10x10) Next Chess. Of course, something else 10x10 might come along eventually, but people have not made this argument explicitly - instead there seems to be a slight lack of interest here, as if future generations/elite chess players will decide, not us, so why should we even try to explore the question/lay groundwork? At least I compiled a preliminary list of 10x10 hits on GC.

I cannot recall what a Dragon King is, though I do know a Dragon Horse (RF). Aside from that, 11x8 strikes me as a board size that, since there is an odd number of files, not many may like it, though there was some popularity for Wildebeest Chess. The Gryphon is part of Daniel's 10x10 CV I included as one of my picks for a Next Chess candidate, so fine with me.

RF is Dragon King. Dragon Horse is BW.

It's morning here, so not too awake. Thanks for correction, H.G.

Having thus arbitrarily narrowed the search for what a Next Chess looks like, I thought Game Courier might reveal some really good candidates (already) for a (10x10) Next Chess. Of course, something else 10x10 might come along eventually, but people have not made this argument explicitly - instead there seems to be a slight lack of interest here, as if future generations/elite chess players will decide, not us, so why should we even try to explore the question/lay groundwork?

It is interesting to think about what might be the next step for chess; but, supposing there were one obvious choice, what would you do with it? It's interesting to try to find or design likely candidates, but to really become the "next chess" it would need to be promoted somehow. I guess the choice of board size and piece selection and other rules is limited by the need to appeal to existing chess players. Probably most, or all, of the games suggested are good enough in that way. What's really needed to replace chess isn't finding the right game, there are several of those already; it's getting enough of the right people, with the ability to promote such a game, interested enough in one such game to do so.

It would be better, I think, if people didn't think about chess as a specific game, but as a family of more or less related games. Being a good chess player wouldn't mean specializing in mastering one set of rules, but developing skills applicable to many different varieties and being able to adapt to different systems.

Well, I didn't mean to imply by my previous post there would be only one Next Chess - previous posts clarified a plurality may be fine, too. Old threads specifically about a Next Chess explored various types of CVs (e.g. Circular, Oriental, Ultima-like...) and which candidates there might be for each type, if the chess world ever had similar thinking to many of the denizens of this CVP website, when it comes to sampling from a variety of variants.

Once and if a Next Chess (one or more) are popular choices with at least a clique or cult-like following of people, promoting some or all of them is indeed the next challenging step - made easier with the internet these days, though. Some variants in the past were promoted fairly quickly, with no followers initially, even, but then apparently cooled out in terms of popularity (e.g. Chess960).

A question maybe of more interest to people on CVP website is, why haven't chess variants (in general or on this website) already been more than sporadically promoted, and why have relatively few, if any, really taken off to any degree? This returns to the main subject of this thread, if people already see the Next Chess topic as flogging a dead horse. Or would that also be flogging a dead horse, too?

Well, I didn't mean to imply by my previous post there would be only one Next Chess - previous posts clarified a plurality may be fine, too.

I didn't mean to imply that you implied that. I actually like the whole Next Chess idea, whether it's one game or several. Others might have more worthwhile things to say about it than I have.

This returns to the main subject of this thread, if people already see the Next Chess topic as flogging a dead horse. Or would that also be flogging a dead horse, too?

I don't see it that way. It's an interesting topic. Regarding your question, I have some thoughts about that, but I don't know much since I've never been involved in organized chess playing. It seems like whatever variants do achieve some popularity are very conservative, such as 960. Perhaps many who take chess seriously are interested in chess primarily for the shared experience aspect, or competition—thinking of chess as a sport more than as a game. Someone who thinks that way might perceive any suggestion of a significant change to the rules as promoting an entirely different game—a revolution rather than an evolution. Does that make any sense?

Definitely makes sense, to me. Almost all the seven 10x10 Next Chess candidates I picked for my own personal list resemble FIDE chess a lot. Caissa Britannia may be the most different of the bunch, with a different royal piece and some piece types that use complex movements - still, I thought it might seem a cool enough game that might appeal to all but the most conservative FIDE chess players (maybe most of them, unfortunately), assuming they ever think about the Next Chess topic.

My own 10x10 Sac Chess has been played over 60 times on GC, and I was tempted to include it, but so far I (the inventor) have been mostly one of the players of these game logs. There may also be imperfections with Sac Chess, that I think I now see, but I may be wrong. In any case a Next Chess ideally should have a lot of different playable opening sequences possible, early on in the move count.