[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Slide-shuffle. Variation of Shuffle Chess with special castling. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2009-07-31 UTCThanks for the angle. Right, good Chessbase, everyone's favourite orthochess site, is covering FRC, and we will too. Here also is what Mig Greengard said about the German event before and after Hikaru Nakamura's final win today for chess960 2009 title: http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt ''If Nakamura wins there's probably some horribly strained element of seredenpity to be made about a US champion becoming the world champion in a chess variant spawned by the last US world champion.'' Greengard expresses interesting reservations about FRC above. They would more or less apply to all of Pre-Chess and Deployment, Slide-Shuffle and Capablanca Random Chess http://www.chessvariants.org/contests/10/crc.html by Reinhard Scharnagl as well. http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/bbchess/bbchess.html http://www.chessbase.com/news/2009/mainz/games/960_02.htm Thomas McElmurry wrote on 2009-07-30 UTCMy reply to George Duke's last comment will be offtopic on the Slide-shuffle page, but I'll post it anyway. First, at least they're covering it! As one who enjoys both chess and many of its variants, I'm glad that this event is held, and I'm glad that it's reported on. Certainly the interjection of 'not the pawns' was not the most marvelous piece of prose ever written, and I too derived brief amusement from imagining the many permutations of eight identical pawns. But presumably the author was simply attempting to clarify that pawns are not shuffled together with the pieces -- i.e. you never get pawns on the back rank and pieces on the second. More importantly, the ChessBase article does not claim that Fischer was the first to propose randomized starting positions. It simply states (correctly) that FRC/Chess960 was originally proposed by Fischer. Remember that the purpose of this article is to report on a particular event in Mainz, not to provide a lengthy and exhaustive treatise on the history of every chess variant with any similarity to the one being played. There's no disinformation here. George Duke wrote on 2009-07-30 UTCHere's Chessbase disinformation today on randomizing Chess on 64 squares: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5618. Never mind Aaron Alexandre's formal use of switched-around back-ranks 180 years ago. Never mind Pal Benko's Pre-Chess and ten other similar devices legitimately called CVs in Pritchard's 1994 'ECV'. Chessbase says, ''It is a form of chess, originally proposed by Bobby Fischer, [sure--Editor] in which the position of the pieces -- not the Pawns -- is shuffled randomly before the start of each game.'' The mentality of arch-conservative defenders of OrthoChess, emphatically grandmasters, has its counterpart in that of many fringe CV prolificists themselves. Both groups think history began on their own date of birth. Referring routinely to FRC as *originating with Fischer* should be insult to CVers, who know better about very similar earlier versions, if exhibiting even slivver of moral sense. Like similar organs of Orthodoxy (in various other fields too), Chessbase is selective in its accuracy on science and history, so as not to rock the boat, complicated by vested-interest economics. There could be more liberty within certain quasi-religious cults. Now Chessbase further stresses ''NOT the Pawns'' to be shuffled. That's bright. How would that work? Let's play CV version where we switch Rook pawn with Queen pawn. That eminently qualifies, because historically in Jacobus de Cessolis' (of 14th-century chess moralities poems) time, each Pawn actually had his and her own name. In Caxton's 15th-century 'The Game of Chess' http://www.worldchesslinks.net/ezi02.html, the 8 Pawns are labourers, smythis, drapers, marchantes, phisicyens, taverners, gardes, and ribauldes disepleyars. Thankfully they all moved the same one-step and shuffling any two would be picturesque not functional. George Duke wrote on 2009-07-29 UTCPre-Chess is Hochberg's topic in the second article through the Chess Cafe Archives link below. There Hochberg writes, ''Lasker, Capablanca, and Fischer indicate an enduring and widespread disaffection with the game that has been handed down to us.'' Slide-Shuffle is one or our randomizers with comments by myself and Chatham in 2004-5. I think FRC has been done technically 20 different ways, half of them before Fischer, and not counting peewee forms of it allowing only 4-10 starting arrays like switching King and Queen. The latter have been even commoner. It's the same sort of scam they pull by springing 400-year-old Centaur(BN) and Champion(RN) every couple decades from Bird in 1870s to Capablanca in 1920s to Seirawan in these Aughts. Actually, Capa was sincere about that one, so the iron-fist conservatives quickly formed F.I.D.E. in 1924 precisely in order to scotch his and other innovation, like T. R. Dawson's. They got Capablanca to shut up with the new set format. Now Chess Variants play into the reactionaries' hands by perpetuating the old tiny tired 64 squares, and CVPage long ago became just another sycophantish bastion of orthodoxy, unlike its auspicious start in 1990s. Thus from the Sublime to the Ridiculous. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz31.txt is Tim Harding at Chess Cafe in 1996 on bringing back free castling. They are all locatable in Archives of Chess Cafe, and the way to Burt Hochberg's (1932-2004) columns 1997-1998 among them is the same http://www.chesscafe.com . Just link the Chess Cafe Archives here, then through Hochberg and Perspectives. I happen to read both Harding and Hochberg from 1990s once a year or two. ChessCafe had its less inglorious -- and less censored -- years of creativity then too. Hochberg's first two columns are about different forms of chess, as though the subject matter is his very raison d'etre. And also why he only lasted the 12 interesting columns one year as CC columnist, it could be speculated. Hadi Aireche wrote on 2007-11-25 UTCGood ★★★★Je me pose les memes questions que vous sur les echecs, vos propositions rejoignent les miennes à 80 pour cent. Lorsque les tours se trouvent d'un meme cote( a ou h), le roque peut etre effectue de ce cote avec l'une ou l'autre des tours , si les conditions du roque sont reunies, selon les modalites de chess960. On pourrait appeler cette variante'chess960x3'.Car elle comporte 960x3 positions, soit 2880 positions. cette forme de jeu'chess960x3' ou 'chess2880' est plus complete et englobe toutes les possibilites du jeu d'echecs. Je serais intereese de connaitre votre avis sur mes suggestions. Bonnes salutations. e-mail: email@example.com Matthew Montchalin wrote on 2005-08-01 UTCWhen I asked about those variations of chess where the privilege of castling were extended to the Queen, I forgot to ask about those variations of chess that allow the King to undo its castling maneuver, and return the King (or the Queen) back to its point of origin. It appears that Slide-Shuffle chess constitutes a far greater departure from traditional chess, than 'equal opportunity' chess, where the King and Queen can repeatedly castle and un-castle, at their election, provided they have not otherwise moved in any other way. Doug Chatham wrote on 2005-07-13 UTCSomeone asked if there was a variant where the castling privilege is extended to the Queens.<p> Well, there is <a href='http://www.chessvariants.org/diffmove.dir/oomost-chess.html'>OOmost Chess</a>, in which ALL pieces castle, and <a href='http://chessvariants.org/other.dir/modest-moverule.html'>Castlemania Chess</a> (Castlemania is in a long list of variants, so you might have to scroll down to find it.) I wouldn't be surprised if there were other examples of variants where the Queen castles. Matthew Montchalin wrote on 2005-07-12 UTCIsn't there a variation of chess that extends the castling privilege to the Queen as well? tommy wrote on 2005-07-12 UTCbetter than poor, not quite as good as good. i don't see this variant to be a completely satisfactory solution. castling with non-rooks?! (very) long-castling to a corner from the other corner defies the logic of the original reason for castling (eg, to get the king safe). why have castling at all? to quote the author '1. Standard shuffle-chess, without castling, leaves out an exciting element.' personally i have never experienced the 'excitement' of castling. finally, i don't think you need to have 2880 set ups, since 1440 will be mirror images of the other 1440. you don't have this in fischer random chess, because of the unsymmetrical castling found there. the only reason to keep 2880 set-ups is if you expect to play with a significant left-hand/right-hand bias. George Duke wrote on 2004-02-22 UTCGood ★★★★I do not think Michael Howe's comment entails 'sillyness' (sic), as he puts it. That is in fact what Howe offers the chess-playing public in Nova, up to 3x10*16 (quadrillions) versions of chess, none more recommended than another. No doubt there are many interesting,excellent games in there in Nova's programming enterprise. In contrasting approach, Grand, Omega, Gothic, Falcon, naming a few convenient examples, each seriously offer one well-considered variant. Intermediately, this Slide-Shuffle proposes 2880 unique set-ups--inevitably each one eventually developing its own theory-- as solution to the computer and opening theory problems facing Orthodox. However, such randomizing flies in the face of centuries of tradition of equal and constantly-initial-positioned forces. George Duke wrote on 2004-02-21 UTCGood ★★★★A serious, reasonable suggestion in the randomizing back rank theme for Orthodox Chess. However-- allowing for some license to re-direct the subject matter to CVP entries-- Fischer-random, Shuffle-, or Slide-shuffle as methods for determining initial set-ups, can be adapted to most (90%+) of the 2000 chess variations listed in CVP. It would not be applicable to only one. And each starting array, being able to generate its own data base of specific games, could stand as a unique Game in itself. (Similar to Gothic Chess' considered switch of two pieces warranting its patents) Taking the mentioned 2880 starting positions as near the average, or rounding to 3000, there are now 6 million distinct variants available. Insofar as sheer numbers are the usual goal here, Ralph Betza's Polypiece concept of fluctuating piece powers generates at the very least 1000 cases per chess variant. Overlaying these makes 6 billion separate Sets of Rules. Further, coordinate pieces, hardly used at all to date beyond the time-worn King-Coordinator rank-file standard, could easily contribute another 10*3 factor: 6+ trillion game-play methods-- each capable of having own actual scores. If Orthodox Chess is up to 3 or 4 million of those, then such unique sets of rules (6x10*12), as attainable methods of play (the coequality of all forms ever being sacrosanct), may someday translate into near 25 quintillion games of Chess. [Or, supported by proposed novelties, factor in comparable quantities, mostly on order of 10*3, for Pawns, King moves, Castling rules, time controls, move-turn order, immobilization and reduction, and any twenty(20) other important parameters; then the Googol is in reach: a Googol chess variants and still more games...] 11 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.