[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by CharlesDaniel
Fischer Random Chess. Play from a random setup. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Pre-Chess. Place your first rank as you choose before the game begins.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Another possibility, closely resembling Fischerandom chess, was advanced
by GMs Pal Benko and Arthur Bisguier in two articles in the November
1978 issue of Chess Life & Review, and by me in a two-part article for
Chesscafe.com in 1997
- Burt Hochberg from chesscafe.com Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC.
The positions of the pieces are decided entirely by the players, not by a
computer program. Strategic chess thinking therefore begins with the first
piece placement. The two players place their pieces alternately, one at a time.
White does not necessarily have any advantage here; in fact, Black may have
the advantage because Black gets the first look at the opponent’s placements.
- The pieces may occupy any squares as long as the bishops are on opposite colors. The kings do not have to be placed between the rooks.
- Castling is permitted only if the unmoved king is on e1/e8 and an unmoved rook is on a1/a8 or h1/h8; orthodox castling rules apply. The possibility of castling is up to the players, who may or may not place their kings and rooks appropriately.
- There are 8,294,400 possible opening positions.
Does someone have the original text of this article from Chess Life & Review by Benko? It seems quite important for historical purposes.
Seirawan Chess
. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Yes, but this is my point. The pieces are too heavy and most likely give white a huge advantage. Anyway, I saw the video of Seirawan introducing the game. From what I gather he seemed like a nice guy and quite honest though there is still a possibility that this variant was invented purely for profit which by itself is not bad but not with the flaws it has. Anyway, he seemed quite interested in the new pieces but i get the feeling he has not explored the game in depth and not too interested if the game is balanced. For example he showed a mate in 4 which went something like e4 e5 d4 d3 pxp pxp qxq drop elephant mate. He seemed quite excited by that - and yes these things fascinated me when i started out with chess variants. But i have come to realize that very powerful pieces on a board while interesting have their drawbacks esp on a 8x8 board. Also you are basically saying it is an advantage to be able to drop the heavy pieces anytime so there should only be a few chances at the beginning. I am saying though that the move followed by a drop is actually 2 moves. Why not simply keep the same restriction of introducing early but make the drop a separate turn? IN that case that mate in 4 could not have happened and white may not get such a huge advantage. Seirawan also mentioned that their first idea was to have the pieces exist on the board right from the beginning in a fianchetto and they rejected that idea. It seems to me that they did not playtest before and play around with the different parameters enough before releasing. Anyway this whole discussion gives me an idea for a new variant on an 8x8 very similar and in my opinion better. I really wish I could stop making variants -- and leave it to you to just make every conceivable one possible :) i guess the next 2 or 3 will be my encore and i am done for good ... hopefully :)
Not so. Dropping it on a separate turn does not allow the drawback you stated in your site. Why should a player not decide to drop a powerful piece? My suggestion allows one player to develop quickly without dropping the piece and still have that option in reserve. An altogether more flexible situation adding more varied type of play.
In fact the game is VERY strategically clear to each player - either one or both players can choose to develop first gain the advantage and then introduce the piece.
I see no reason the dropped piece is 'FORCED' to make an entry soon. That makes the game more contrived and less flexible. If anything it is preferable to leave that up to the players. A good player will be smart enough to know that the opponent will eventually introduce the new piece. If a player is good enough to play without the piece he/she can dos so knowing that the option to introduce it still remains.
The game Wreckage uses this drop mechanism.By the way your description for Pioneer Chess is faulty. IF White turns down the piece and Black overrules - no game can be played - both players disagree on what game to play.
I am not sure why this method of dropping into the back rank was chosen. Its quite possible that white will have an even greater advantage because of this. Better to make the drop as a separate turn. This seems more logical and slows it down a tad. Also I just realized I had commented on this item before. Looks to me that the ability to drop ninja pawns in addition to the rook-knight and bishop -knight might actually be more interesting perhaps 2 or 4, not sure. The Rook-knight and bishop knight drop into empty space in backrank in separate turn. The ninja pawns can drop into vacant space in second rank and optionally push forward to center. The ninja pawns will move like pawns except for enpassant and ability to move 1 space sideways and also capture sideways in enemy half of board. At this point this variant has failed miserably even more so than gothic which i believe is far superior (and actually in retrospect quite a good variant). Perhaps the version I suggest above might be interesting - I wouldn't mind trying it. I may create a preset and send out a challenge. As to why does regular Chess have on the order of 10^4 to 10^6 times more followers than variant chess .. Chess variants are parallel universes - completely unexplored with weird rules /laws and strange configuration. The regular chess universe is still unexplored and overwhelming for most despite the oversaturation of opening theory at top GM level. Chess variants are for those with moderate to little interest in regular chess and with no desire to compete with regular chess players. I doubt if there are currently is any 2100+ rated (at present) chess player interested in variants. Seirawan himself must have lost interest in his own variant just like Bobby Fischer lost interest in FRC. 2100 chess rating is approximately the elo at which opening theory becomes tedious since many lines do have to be memorized. Some may say its even higher than that. Below 2100 and memorizing opening theory is not terribly important - understanding openings is of course a different matter. It is important that the chess variant community understand that nothing is to be gained by proposing to 'fix' chess or to 'convert' chess followers. Chess variants instead must attract the type of person who does not want to dedicate to one game and likes a chess-like family of games. Of course high rated players disillusioned with the game will be welcome but they must come on their own. Rather than harp on the nonexistent 'flaws' of chess, it is better to show how interesting it is to play a game of chess in which a few properties are changed. Board size, pieces etc making in many cases a radically different but still vaguely familiar game of chess. This is the appeal of chess variants. Think HORSE in poker - tournament of a family of poker games. A chess tournament like this can take place here too. The recent Cv Potluck was a good start, and SHOULD BE DONE AGAIN. Maybe one day the parallel universes of chess might appeal to a totally new audience. From that certainly a few chess variants will immediately spring to mind in the general populace just as orthodox chess does now.
Chess with Extended Castle. Standard chess with extended castle rule, effectuating greater opening variance (with zrf).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Displacement Chess 2 already has extended castle which allows king to make 1-3 spaces towards the king. Additionally it reverses the king and queen for one side.
Displacement Chess 2 offers much greater opening variance than the change you proposed.
The 1 space castle allows king to remain near the center but connects the rooks and keeps the rook on the center file.
Adjustments such as this change the game considerably and the effect cannot be fully investigated without a considerable number of play testing.
It seems to me that the goal is to have two sides castle on opposite sides. Just reversing the king and queen for one side will have that effect. Venomous. New system of chess on 10x10 board with new pieces: the Sorcerer Snake and the even more venomous Sissa. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for you comments Joe and George. Regarding George Duke’s ninja pawn comments: It is true that the complexity of the rules and/or the drop mechanism may put off some players, but the upside is a much greater scope for pawn play. Weakened pawns and pawn chains are characteristics of large board chess. Faster standard pawns and Ninja Pawns address this drawback as well as providing richer and unique endgame scenarios. The threat of quick promotion (by moving 2 steps forward) and ninja pawn lateral capture add substantial power to advanced pawns or ninja pawns in enemy territory.
Interestingly, Nahbi Chess mentioned by Joe, allows standard pawn to move sideways on enemy half of board, but this may not be sufficient to overcome the inherent weakness of pawns on larger boards. On Nahbi vs Sorcerer Snake: the Nahbi allows one path to destination squares so can be blocked easier while the Sorcerer Snake can choose an alternative path and is a bit harder to block. On a crowded board, this difference can be substantial, on a more empty board not so much.Thanks for your comment Jose. In response to your question - The bishops are already a bit stronger on a 10x10 board so maybe don't need improving, while a regular knight is a bit weaker. On 10x10, Zillions rates the wazir-knight a half pawn more than the bishop and the regular knight almost a pawn less than the bishop. So WN=B+1/2P; B=N+P; WN > FN > B > N
thanks for your comment Carlos. You might also be interested in these opening moves involving the Sissa.
ZigZag Madness. Featuring the crooked dual path sliders: the ZigZag Bishop and the ZigZag Rook. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Claudio, there is no limit to what I can or will consider in applying the template to other pieces. In fact, I would suggest you continue by applying it to other pieces as you see fit. I have no problem with that.
I reuse much of my original ideas discarding only what I see as completely unworkable. For example initially interested in Gryphon/Aanca I felt that they may be a bit too powerful on the board and so limited its power. The Hippogriff was too limited so I developed the Stealth Gryphon/Anti-gryphon for Stealth Ninja Chess.
However, these pieces could be powered up more by providing dual paths as the Duke/cavalier but with the same minimum square restrictions. Thus the minimum distance – the Zebra move for the zigzag bishop and the Camel move for the zigzag rook can be considered the atom as you call it. This configuration seems far more interesting especially since they are more susceptible to the knights despite their power.
I reused the Flying Bomber that I developed as a compound of different “atoms” that already existed while introducing the checkers/draughts motif to a chess piece. The latest re-incarnation is the Flying Guillotine that you see in Wreckage.
Also see my Zillions file for Pick the Piece Big Chess that has many different ideas contained in a whopping 34 games.
So new piece movement that contributes to the aesthetic beauty of a new chess interests me, and this must be accomplished by experimentation, innovation, as well as reworking and improving existing ideas by others.I will not have time to continue this work in the immediate future but you (or anyone else) are welcome to expand on my ideas.
Sorry George, But no one cares about your patent. And the only piece you invented is far less original than the very many I have invented or derived from other pieces. What I do know from playtesting Asylum Redux, Octopus Chess and Zigzag madness is that the gameplay is far more satisfying than your clunky falcon game. Still your comments are quite amusing esp your reference to yourself as 'we' . Keep up the good work.
George Duke, thank you for your comment, but there are many inaccuracies in them that I shall address.
Firstly, there never is and never shall be any need for an inventor to " acknowledge" every instance of "similar" piece that ever existed. In a few instances as in your persistent bringing up of this flawed “airplane” piece, there is absolutely no connection. I have always stated that the Flying Bomber owes its existence to Checkers / Draughts (and which probably the airplane piece too is derived from)
Secondly, since my ZigZag Bishop/Rook differs from the Duke/Cavalier in as much degree as your Falcon does from the Bison, there is no reason why I must bend over backwards and chastise myself for simply using the word “new”. I certainly haven’t patented the piece – and I suspect I could if I wanted to.
Thirdly, I never suggested nor agreed to have delayed evaluations - that suggestion was made by another poster.
Perhaps, the question that should be raised – Am I aware of the dual path Cavalier/Duke and was my idea derived from them? The answer is yes. Earlier I had used the pieces: the Stealth Gryphon and Stealth Anti-Gryphon which are limited versions of the Gryphon and Aanca. Some logical steps for new pieces: Compound the Stealth Pieces to give the Octopus. Or make them 2 path go give the ZigZag piece set. I also played Renn Chess so I was aware of their existence. I was simply NOT particularly inspired by Renn Chess or its two pieces which itself are derived from Gryphon/Aanca.You are free to mention what you think are similar pieces, but ultimately it is up to the inventor to state his/her inspiration regardless of whether you think he/she is being truthful or not.
As for Proliferation – this can only be a good thing in the long run. Unfortunately, I am ending my run at proliferation. My variants were created to fill what I saw as a void in chess variants whose gameplay most resembled orthodox chess. And I do believe the dropping mechanism of Ninja Pawns fulfills this more on a 10x10 board than pushing the armies closer as in Grand Chess or by using a 10x8 board.And I just don't buy the claim that the quality was so much higher in the first decade. This is a myth. What was invented earlier can be and has being improved upon.
I sincerely hope that others will continue where I left off – which is mainly adding one or two pieces to 10x10 board and strive for balanced gameplay.
Hey Claudio, Thanks for the rating but I am afraid I do not follow you. Your previously mention: 'But, looks to me that is a template, as the snake. A template that can be applied to the various atoms and generals.' I guess you are right, this template or formula can be applied to other types of pieces. Of course I used this idea in Asylum Redux and Octopus Chess as well. I did not realize you were asking me a question. Would you care to elaborate on this a bit more?
Larry, thanks for your comments, they were most helpful in dealing with the confusion. I think the problem is the poster's unshakable belief that only the Boyscout can be a zigzag bishop (even though I and some others may not find the term 'Bishop' as referred to the boyscout intuitive) I don't think the comments need to be reviewed or delayed as long as they are not overly obscene. As the site gets more popular, the quality of comments may very well decrease as in YouTube, but this is the price to pay so that anyone can voice their opinion.
To anonymous poster: I don't care too much for jargon and neither should anyone who is interested in playing this chess variant. If you had really wanted to contribute terminology, you could have just done it, I have no problem with that. Instead you resort to attacking the variant while hiding as an anonymous poster. My chess variants are geared more for the mainstream, which is why I try to avoid using jargon when simple words can do. Its a 2 path bent rider but only people in chess variants understand the term bent rider. 2 path bent rider=crooked dual path slider. The word crooked is more readable for the general audience. The word Zig Zag is already proven to be corrrect in the sense, so this topic is now moot. There is nothing counterintuitive about the array - the unprotected pawn is easily defended by the wazir knight in one move. If you look at the opening example you will also understand the starting positions of the ZigZag pieces Many chess variants have one or more unprotected pawns - why not criticize them as well?
Handicapping them close range does make them less powerful and more on par with the other pieces. However, there were other reasons: as I mentioned their minimum distance a camel or zebra move away, make their movement more unique on this board. THe two new knights already have a Ferz or wazir in addition to knight movement. The Zigzag Bishop/Rook are thus more susceptible to the knights and pawns. The piece values from the Zillions file (which will be up soon): Wazir Knight - 13860 Ferz Knight - 13287 ZigZag Biship - 13914 to 11590 Zigzag Rook - 22078 to 17733 Rook - 17292 Bishop 11613 pawn - 3620 Ninja Pawn - 5915
Note that the minimum distance a ZigZag Bishop moves is a Zebra's move away: One orthogonal and TWO diagonally outwards. Think of it as a zig then a zag followed by 1 or more spaces along the diagonal as a bishop. Or it slides 1 or more like a biship first and then zags 1 more in same direction and then zigs. ZigZag Rook's minimum distance is a camel's move away Two orthogonal and one diagonally outwards. So its 1 or more spaces as a Rook followed by a zig in same direction and then a zag. Or a Zag diagonally then a zig and then moves 1 space or more like a rook in same direction. So not only they cannot move to adjacent squares, they cannot move to squares a knight's move away. (This is unlike the duke and cavalier that can move a knight's move away.)
It IS a crooked slider and it is a zig zag motion as most people UNFAMILIAR with these pieces will understand it. e.g One step orthogonal (zig) followed by two or more diagonally (zag) .. Apparently you are just interested in semantics.
Octopus Chess. Features the crooked slider: the Octopus and the dual path Sorcerer Snake. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Right - both pieces capture only on their destination square - Capture by replacemnent.
Asylum Redux. Featuring dual path Zebra / Camel crooked sliders compounded with Bishop / Rook.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for your comment, Matt. Actually the dual path pieces here are a bit different from the duke, cavalier. Its more like a dual path zebra compounded with bishop and a dual path camel compounded with rook. I will have an upcoming game that does feature very similar pieces to duke/cavalier though.
If there is no objection, for the tournament I would like to substitute Asylum Redux for Titan Chess.
/play/pbm/play.php?game%3DAsylum+Chess%26settings%3DAsylum+2
I am sure my opponents won't mind because this game is much shorter and easier to play.
Asylum Redux. Two new pieces: dual path sliding Zebra + Bishop and a dual path sliding Camel + Rook. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Note - The Ninja Pawn can be optionally pushed forward (1-multiple spaces) towards the middle during the same turn.
Thus, one can develop a pawn, and then later drop and develop a ninja pawn (with attacking possibilities) in one turn.
Larry, The problem with the regular pawns starting on the 3rd rank leaving the 2nd rank vacant (or filled with Ninja Pawns), is that this allows a double row of pawns which tends to clog the game a bit I think. See Herculean and Hadean Chess in which the pawns are one row advanced with ninja pawns behind - its not too bad, but I was not too happy with that configuration in the end. Many 10x10 variants do have start configurations with more than 2 rows but they normally use more powerful pieces not extra pawns. I think allowing extra pieces and pawns via gating/dropping allows more flexibility in the setup and keeps the original configuration more harmonious. Because the Ninja Pawns have to be dropped in the 2nd rank, the player is forced to move the regular Pawns first, thus favoring more aggressive type openings and advanced pawn chains. As it stands, the Ninja Pawns reinforces the pawn structure that can extend right towards the middle or even into enemy territory.
I have done a lot of chess variants, so there is no way that I am personally putting chess over chess variants but ... I am commenting on what I observe in the chess world and I don't see what you guys claim is happening. For Bobby Fischer chess was dead, when he realized he could not re-enter competively - that was his personal problem The chess forums, online chess world is alive and well - they hate short draws (the GM draw), but no body cares if half the matches are contested draws . I find it strange that this faulty argument keeps getting re-used. Any good player will tell you, if you can keep drawing your chess games with ANY chess player, you are one of the worlds best. It is precisely because of this that the WC match format is so exciting and some like it to be about 24 games not 12. A WC match is like 2 boxers fighting a 12 round match with one gaining just enough to win. Most chess has moved online now. But if it is declining - it does not bode well for chess variants. Grand Theft Auto or some othe frivolousgame is in vogue. And what is speed chess? Isn't that Blitz chess? What is true chess? What is the most efficient way to learn Chess? These arguments just seem nonsensical to me. - Where is this new 'game' that is taking over that we now have chess die hards? It seems to be that the same old arguments are used by about 3-5 of the SAME people on various internet sites.
Actually, the reality for ortho chess players is simply: 'Every top chess player has his own way of dealing with the computer, to use this incredible instrument in the most efficient way, for himself.' The computer is simply an instrument that makes analyzing lines easier - in the good old days, the GMs need to utilize the best seconds instead of computers. Thus, in some cases you may not even need 'Seconds' to home prepare. And many players can improve their game because of the computer. In previous interview, Anand already explained that ortho Chess has a much longer life than the doomsayers have predicted. And to clear up something - Computers have not mastered chess. It is programmers who have mastered programming the computers to play chess. And since the majority of chess players have NOT mastered chess and are NOT bored with it - this constant 'death of chess' topic is only brought up by those who have given up chess or by weak players who do not understand the game, have given up, and hate the game.
With regards to naming, you can set up something or simply extend the literature on these pages so that if Variant A calls the chancellor Piece Y, most people know what the piece is. Even a simple comment by another user on the variant will point to the original name. And regarding open source bullies. Yes, they are bullies which is why Microsoft has been smart in not fully implementing standards for their browser. Same for Firefox - they end up having to cater to code not following standards or else their browser would have been useless. And here we are talking about something NOT very creative inherently - writing HTML code/programming. So its apples vs oranges anyway. The standards you are proposing actually dictate what the designer should create. For example you are against pawn promotion to multiple queens even though this is quite standard in most chess variants.
So, far I am hearing odd little items such as '8x8 Chess will be laughed at' presumable in the not too distant future. - Actually this is a possibility if the human race decreases in IQ, every exercise of the mind will be laughed at! And forcing chess variant designers to follow standards dictated by someone or others - *something I as a designer will never do*, So how exactly did 8x8 chess evolve? BY PLAYING! Instead of wasting this time arguing about forcing others to do things, why not just organize more tournaments, play more chess variants and see what comes out of that. With enough people, people will naturally gravitate towards a few chess variants. We have a great tournament going on right now in which each player has 2 favorite variants to play against the others. This has taken a backseat to this useless discussion. Why were not all the parties involved in this tournament? One thing to note: the chess playing community is very large and not interested in ANY chess variant at this point. Feel free to post this Next Chess idea at any chess forum to see what response you get. Perhaps, this post is intended for ortho chess sites - it must be - it does not concern chess variants - as the most important support for chess variants is not mentioned: PLAYING them! However, I do see some benefits to what Rich is doing - probably on the way to an excellent categorization and possible promotion of chess variants - both of which alone are good points for IAGO.
Regardless, of differing opinions, one thing is quite clear when you step back 6 feet away.
'Next Chess' as discussed here is just another spec to create another chess-like variant in the hope that std chess players will warm up to it.
See Displacement Chess 2 for my minor modification of this.
'Next Chess' as discussed here is just another spec to create another chess-like variant in the hope that std chess players will warm up to it.
Any game on these pages not too different from chess is 'next chess' in one or more opinions. At one point in time, I used to think this way too: that there must be a next chess either here or one that I create. But the reality is - the players decide (over the course of time) on 'next chess' or the next game not the designer or anyone else (esp NOT people with a dislike for orthodox chess).
I think a more useful endeavor would be categorize the existing chess variants under the parameters mentioned below. e.g. gating, dropping, shuffling, larger board, etc. and maybe promote a few of them in such a manner.10x10 boards seem better for this purpose - unless you want really minor changes like Displacement Chess - more deserving of next chess since it was already tried successfully and is not much change at all.
Adding Rook-knight / bishop knight compounds (or any other pieces actually) to 8x8 makes it too over-powered.
Note that Displacement Chess was mentioned in 'Popular Chess Variants' by David Pritchard.See Displacement Chess 2 for my minor modification of this.
Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe, In Pick the Piece Big Chess, I started out with this premise. And taking it one step forward - Chess players will probably like a 'natural' start position, not one with the pieces in the middle of the board. Thus you have two empty slots in the wings after you fill in the holes with pawns. Further design considerations: Bigger board weakens the knights and the pawns. Stepping knights seem an interesting solution. Dropping extra pawns (stronger pawns) help with the pawns as well. Net result - similar to chess but still different. The lesson from 80 square chess variants applies - change one parameter and the game is radically different. The only possible 'next' chess is something like Fischer Random or perhaps just an alternate setup - something like Displacement Chess, and even these are doubtful - we are talking the next 100+ years or so. Trying to 'convert' chess players to this new variant reminds me of Communism -- it will only work under a dictatorship in the end ...LOL. I mean, come on, we will all be long dead before Chess 'dies' - lets not get too obsessed with the 'next' chess since there is a good chance that this next chess never happens!
Alfaerie Expansion Set 6. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]These look very good - I will definitely use them in my zillions files. Does anyone know how to use these icons for a game courier preset though? I have no idea how to use anything other than the usual alfaerie set when making a preset.
Dipole Chess. A cross between Chess and the game Dipole by Mark Steere. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Yes, I see how you came to this idea. But I can say that adding say 4 new pieces with new movement and keeping the rules the same is merely a tweak as well. I think it is the net result that is important. True you could change the wording a bit, take out a few lines of code in zillions but its still a major change. I don't see how this is any different from replacing say a queen with an amazon. or a rook with a chancellor. So, I would say this is a full fledged chess variant, but I do see how you see it as a 'tweak' to the rules. Just that this little 'tweak' changes things drastically - you have to admit! An interesting idea nonetheless ...
Standard chess is much deeper than dipole chess for obvious reasons. No one meaninglessly moves knights and bishops around in chess - so that is not even part of the comparison. (If deeper means less variety - less turns as Joe mentioned.) However, dipole chess could be interesting but the description here is very deceptive. This is a pure 8x8 chess variant - it is by no means a slight change to the rules as suggested. I would describe this honestly as follows: A game with NEW pieces: THE PIECES ARE NOT THE SAME!!!! the king ca only move one step forwards/one step diagonally forward. - it is not a standard chess king Neither is the the very weak knight. The bishop is not a real bishop either. Nor the rook or queen. And this 8x8 chess with 5 new pieces is very unlike standard chess even more so than large board 10x10/104 square variants with new pieces. So in my opinion, this is not a modest chess variant but a complete makeover and change to chess. An 8x8 Fairy Chess just like any other Fairy Chess game. I personally don't like using the term Fairy Chess - but it has been used for some time now to describe a chess-like game with new pieces.
Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]How is 100 squares too large if 64 squares is too small?
Supposedly because 80 squares is perfect.
Then , maybe ... One can only hope that chess will live on in the form of a chess variant.
For now though, the popularity of 64 square chess helps 80 or 100 square variants and will remain gold standard.
Yet the best 80 square game - a Capablanca setup or like maybe ahem ... Gothic is much more constricted (and feels awkward) than 64 square fischer random or std chess. This is actual play experience.
Perhaps its because the pieces are too powerful -
but in all seriousness the challenge of 10x10 has already been overcome by the most successful commercial variant - Omega Chess.
And Birds and Ninjas /Stealth Ninja chess take it one step further. Ninja pawns, strengten the pawn chain and provide enough pawn play for a 10x10 which Omega might lack.
Besides choosing certain setups of fischer random plus reverse symmetry start positions of displacement chess (and Displacement Chess 2 with flexible castling) will ensure 64 square gold standard for say 200 years.
I suspect though that current orthodox chess lasts at least 100 yrs -
Interesting quote from 'The Pan Book of Chess' by Gerald Abrahams
:
Capablanca, at the height of his powers, suggested that so much had been learned in Chess that novelty was on the wane. He suggested the addition of extra pieces on a larger board. But he lived to discover that Chess was richer than he had thought it to be.2008, and still status quo. Give it another 100 years maybe or a technology breakthrough that facilitates Computer to actually play the openings well without opening book. Or of course to ' solve ' chess.
Then , maybe ... One can only hope that chess will live on in the form of a chess variant.
For now though, the popularity of 64 square chess helps 80 or 100 square variants and will remain gold standard.
Free Castling Rule. Less restrictive castling rules. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]See diagram 1: Modified castling conditions: 1. can castle and check opposing king. 2. king must be next to rook after castling. white to move: castles e1-d1;a1-e1 //check This scenario can apply other files as well. Can be even used in 8x8 std chess with interesting results. Strong players will not use b and g file always. Offensive minded - will castle with rook to the file that poses the biggest threat to enemy. Free Castling as described gets the best of both worlds by moving the king to corner and moving the rook in the center. However, I prefer the version I proposed above as in Birds and Ninjas.
Actually, this is a dramatic improvement to the original castling rules.
From a defensive point, yes it is best to move the king to the corner where it can protect its pawns.
For my version which I call 'Flexible Castling' you just remember to move the king 1-x amount of steps towards the rook and move the rook over next to the king. One confusing position is when I permit the king to occupy the rook square and the rook moves 1 square over. This is the most defensive castling position - allowing the king to protect wing pawn.
Castling is best understood as a joint maneuver to connect the rooks, centralize the rooks and to tuck the king away in the corner. Sometimes it may be necessary to centralize the rooks and start a series of offensive moves .
Flexible castling is perhaps a bit simpler though a bit more complicated than the regular castling rules. The increased strategical/tactical possibilities more than make up for rule complexity.
One can place the rook in an attacking position in the appropriate file - so it is not just a defensive move but an offensive one. Rather than make two moves and then move the rook to the center file. With one step castling one can move the rook to the center right away.
The castling rules in my games e.g. Birds and Ninjas are a bit different. The rook must end up next to the king. Thus, to bring the rook to the center file, the king should move one step. Also, it is permitted to check the opposing king with castling. (but not to castle out of check) This is the way it is in std chess and I see no reason to change this as the rules here state.For my version which I call 'Flexible Castling' you just remember to move the king 1-x amount of steps towards the rook and move the rook over next to the king. One confusing position is when I permit the king to occupy the rook square and the rook moves 1 square over. This is the most defensive castling position - allowing the king to protect wing pawn.
Castling is best understood as a joint maneuver to connect the rooks, centralize the rooks and to tuck the king away in the corner. Sometimes it may be necessary to centralize the rooks and start a series of offensive moves .
Flexible castling is perhaps a bit simpler though a bit more complicated than the regular castling rules. The increased strategical/tactical possibilities more than make up for rule complexity.
SUCCHESS. Missing description (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This seems interesting, I would like to seem some examples of the Horde move. as well as the Phalanx and the push mechanism. Also the spy is not properly explained - Please explain how this moves. He moves like a bishop (captures like one too?) What do you mean by 'He can attack any of his own pieces'. That makes no sense. Otherwise, this seems like a good variant to try out. I like the way you described the basic pawn moves (double /triple ) moves. My variant e.g Birds and Ninjas have the same basic pawn moves and en passant.. Anyway, this seems like an outstanding variant - though judgement should be passed after playing this..
Yes, but we are talking about GMs playing much weaker opponents one on one here. Do you really believe Leko will lose say Rococo to anyone on this site (currently)? It cant happen unless he wants to lose. We are comparing apples to oranges here. As long as the game requires chess skill GMs will prevail. Give them a totally different type of game and then maybe they can lose.
Hadean Chess. Expanded chess with short-range linear jumpers, augmented knights and zebras and more dynamic pawns. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Actually the name Flying Elephant was meant to be humorous so comment from resident comedian is no problem really . I am really puzzled how you assume I have derived pieces from people I have no idea even existed. The flying compounds here are a simple extension of pieces that existed for hundreds of years. If anything, I should probably give Joe Joyce credit since I used the same icons as he did (for similar but slightly different pieces). And as I stated numerous times before the Flying Bomber piece was derived from Checkers. It is strange that you find the rules complex. Are you talking about the movement of the ninja pawn, or some other piece? The castling rules? The en-passant? Even if the writing is substandard as you claim - the rules are not complex. Addressing your laughable comments on the other thread. So you think that Leko will lose a game of Rococo to anyone on this site? Are you not the expert on that game? I never played Rococo in my life and I still won the only game I ever played. Is it not clear to you why? And you are betting Susan Polgar losing too? You do realize that she played a Capablanca Game and won against another well known inventor (and strong chessplayer)? I would love to see this happen and place a wager with you. Seriously though you really believe Leko will lose Rococo to a non-GM? I think I overestimated your understanding of chess.
I was not aware that anyone on this site is GM level chess rating - is this true? Because if not, this is grossly misleading to anyone. Unless the games chosen are completely unlike chess, any top 20 GM can defeat anyone on this site with ease - any game even remotely similar to chess. They dont even need 48 hrs - just a few minutes to learn the rules. To be GM requires high level of tactical skill and strategical understanding. In fact this translates even to playing GO - though this IS an example of a game very unlike chess that they may have difficulty with. The only hope of beating a GM (or IM too), a game very unlike chess like GO. It would be interesting though to challenge a GM in chess variants.
I like the idea - the only thing. How do you decide what games to play? Do the players on the internet choose the games? Of course if it was Gary Kasparov - then we might have to let him choose any game except std chess of course. How do we promote chessvariants.org Gary so that people outside of this site would want to play him?
Titan Chess. Chess featuring dozenal board and seven diverse new pieces with multiple capture mechanisms and movement modes. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Worth repeating:
the rules are exactly the same as in standard chess except for Flexible Castling and extended initial pawn move and en-passant rules. And the new pieces, of course.
the rules are exactly the same as in standard chess except for Flexible Castling and extended initial pawn move and en-passant rules. And the new pieces, of course.
The writeup for the pieces is quite a challenge, and I do agree that the wording can tend to be confusing for some - especially for those with little patience.
Note too that the Ninja Pawn can always move sideways regardless of where it is. However, it can only capture in enemy territory.The inventor(s) of checkers/draughts deserve credit here for my inspiration on the flying pieces. Previous poster is suffering from delusions to even think that names mentioned have anything to do with Flying Bomber /Ninja Guard pieces.
And as I mentioned before, anyone can invent pieces if given enough free time, - and one does not credit a similar invention when the original (and much older) invention is well known source of inspiration.
Of interest to some, I felt that the same fly over mechanism of checkers might irritate some chess players, and in general, simpler movements were more needed for a larger board game. This was my inspiration for Hadean Chess.
I was convinced in the end that a simpler flying mechanism could be proposed - that is a simple 3 square leap (if two pieces lie in between) as in Hadean (derived from Herculean ) chess with no jump over capture allowed.
A humorous note :
Ignore the previous poster's strange use of the word we. Only the poster timed out a game of Titan Chess in the tournament. No other player has done so - so unless I was playing the same game with three people at the same time! In which case I must be in the twilight zone - I thought I invented a two player game !
Janggi - 장기 - Korean Chess. The variant of chess played in Korea. (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This game (and several others) have the lame knight and lame zebra (here elephant). That is both pieces are incapable of moving to destination if path is blocked.
For the elephant, one can easily add more possible pathways to destination square for example two diagonal and one orthogonal outwards.
Even worse would be to compound a zebra and camel and adding multiple paths - nothing new of course - (anyone can do this!).
Combining the knight and elephant here - and adding alternate paths, one gets the Sliding Sorcerer Knight used in experimental sub-variation of Herculean Chess
As used in Korean Chess, the Elephant /Knight as used here make for excellent play.
Even worse would be to compound a zebra and camel and adding multiple paths - nothing new of course - (anyone can do this!).
Patenting an already existing idea is truly an insult to the rich history of chess, but it has been done by a few. Fortunately, the few patents for pieces ( not sure how many are out there but one comes to mind) , are for awkward pieces proposed with even more clumsy configurations.
The patent and its well deserved criticism of course do not apply to excellent single function pieces such as the Elephant and Knight used here nor to the interesting Ferz-Camel compound used in Omega Chess nor for that matter the fascinating Ferz/Wazir Sorcerers in Hadean and Herculean Chess.
Herculean Chess 
. Extended version of chess features the Flying Bishops, the Flying Chariots, Ninja Pawns, Augmented Knights and Zebras.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Some tips for players who try this preset out: Even if you cannot beat zillions in orthodox chess, you have a chance in this game. The reason: pawn play! Zillions is horrible in the way it moves pawns. Its logic is as follows: - the starting configuration is very safe for the king. Pushing the pawn forward weakens it Therefore it very rarely moves pawns all the way to the center. Zillions even prefers to move the ninja pawns sideways. The trick to winning is to control the center with pawns, watch out for threats from the sorcerers/other pieces - zillions keeps hopping those into your territory. Once you fend out piece attacks, zillions cannot win. It has absolutely no basic strategy built into algorithm unlike new chess playing software that is much stronger. Once it brings its queen into your territory keep attacking it - (but be careful) and soon you will have the queen trapped. It played exactly the same way with the queen in std chess against another computer (crafty) . It always ends up losing the queen and then the game. To draw, you can barricade yourself in the starting position and zillions cannot win! It keeps shuffling its pieces into your territory looking for forks, attacks etc. It never charges with the pawns which is the way to win if your opponent does this. My analysis: the more you can limit its tactics, the better - in Herculean you have a good chance of doing this with the pawns. Thus, one can argue that this is 'harder' for a computer than regular chess. But I am sure that all new software will have no problems at all - pawn play is far superior in new computers.
Herculean Chess. 12 x 12 version of chess featuring 4 Rooks, 4 Bishops, 4 Leapers and 22 pawns. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]On a humorous note: If I were to take the Sorcerer Knight - remove the knight move and add the camel move - I would be in violation of a very *** patent! I can second H. G. Muller's previous rating of said game from pure play-testing point of view. Two lame Zebra-Camels are awkward on a small rectangular board configuration with unprotected pawns from the onset. The game rapidly improves once they are exchanged but then one is merely playing orthodox chess on a slightly bigger board. Herculean chess (and up-coming Hadean Chess) emphasize the Ferz-Zebra/ Wazir compounds more. Having two leaping movements even zebra + knight much less zebra + camel plays awkwardly even on much bigger board and does not lend to pleasing game-play. I find the Sorcerer Knight version (both sliding dual path and leaping) a bit problematic - and the last example game made me change Herculean to use the Ferz/Wazir compounds. On paper, two leaping movements or limited sliding movement as in Korean Chess etc seems interesting but never translates play-wise. It plays more like some sort of puzzle solving trivia than anything else. In effect I am criticizing my sub-variation for poor game-play along with similar piece form in different board.
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Rich, so moving thread to topic IAGO.
I think IAGO has a few things going for it.
1. it provides a good way to class many types of variants and rules.
2. it also can serve as a unifying governing body for many types of contests/tournaments etc.
3. it can help in promoting variants in general.
As an example, if Omega chess's potential problems: not enough pawn play, rook cannot mate becomes an issue for many players - the game will sink. I even proposed a similar game if it does -
Omega Transplant but commercially it will be over if any problems arise.
I think IAGO has a few things going for it.
1. it provides a good way to class many types of variants and rules.
2. it also can serve as a unifying governing body for many types of contests/tournaments etc.
3. it can help in promoting variants in general.
However, I disagree with your approach to finding the 'next' chess - which seems basically to replace std. or FIDE chess with another ruleset - supposedly resulting in fewer draws.
Most std chess players might actually look to variants for variety and as such would be more interested in larger chess boards (or different shaped ). That is at least how I got interested. The idea of changing the rules of std chess but not much else does not appeal much to me and in any case you are still creating a 'variant'.
Consider instead of marking your approach to finding the next chess as just one of MANY possible approaches. Groups of players might investigate via large board size or however they see fit. In the end, whatever game(s) turn out to be most played (by actual players) can move through the various classes as you propose.
My preferred approach is to find the best possible chess on a large board 12x12 max, 10x10 or odd shaped 104 sq. With sufficient players participating - this goal can be reached. I envision this new large chess to be played side by side with std chess until it gains more popularity.
It might be beneficial to break up IAGO into various compartments with 'finding the next chess' being only one and also one of many approaches. Thus, we can differentiate between IAGO classification, IAGO promotions and IAGO 'finding the next chess' !
Additionally, I think most games have to be good to go. That is they are churned out and any fault found by others (via play) is going to cause the game to be dropped. The adjustments are better done by the inventor right at the beginning.As an example, if Omega chess's potential problems: not enough pawn play, rook cannot mate becomes an issue for many players - the game will sink. I even proposed a similar game if it does -
Omega Transplant but commercially it will be over if any problems arise.
Non-commercial games have a harder time getting started since they never get played and the comments are far and few between. One opinionated person going around commenting on games that suit his theoretical fetish is certainly not feedback :)
I think IAGO can certainly help with these games the most.
With regard to pieces: chess players are fine with using a salt shaker for a new queen :) so I think this is the most trivial issue of all.
Besides, I can't remember when last i played any chess game on a physical board.
A bigger issue is to get a good idea out to many - a nice chess set will be a good start. The commercial variants have this advantage.
Omega Chess game. Moves of a game between chess grandmasters Alex Sherzer and Judith Polgar.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Rich, I do see the IAGO system as beneficial. After all it does cover almost all types of chess variants. However, I do not think it is a good idea to point all to the direction of 8x8 variants/Seirawan etc. It is best to let the person decide for him/her self what to look into. The problem right now is that the chess variant people are mostly inventors not just play-testers. If there were a sufficient number of players (chess players preferably ) to try out the different variants looking into ones they like the best - we would have something. The pot luck tourney is good esp if it can attract more non-inventors as well . My concern is all this talk about rule changes/draw problem etc is going to turn off the average chess player and thus will not bring new people into playing the variants. And even though 'draw issue/rule changes' are only a small fraction of chess variants - the remaining variants will too be ignored. I prefer a more open method of promotion - many new ideas categorized with no preference for either. A Chess variant could be an alternative game or a proposed rule fix - it is up to the players to decide which they prefer. Personally, I think chess players would be interested in an alternative game not a 'rule fix' that would replace chess. anyway just my thoughts ..)
Actually computers are far more sophisticated than merely 'adding machines'. IN fact the computer algorithms that play chess are not brute force. The brute force ones are the ones all GMs and Ims can easily defeat. Computers see many strategical advantages such as doubled pawns, isolated pawns etc _ these are all built in - Computers will choose moves based on above IF there are no branches that will give them an even greater advantage. In fact computers make better decisions by valuing material over positions a bit more than humans . Humans tend to make more unsound sacrifices. Computers don't do so (though they can be programmed to) I think the problem with making a computer play these games is to develop the algorithm which is a human endeavor. the computer is a machine that can handle and process logic that we program. Once an algorithm is developed to prune the unnecessary branches for Go and Arimaa then computers will easily dominate. Perhaps the problem with these games is that there is not enough theory yet to develop a suitable algorithm. What is been forgotten here are the brilliant programmers who contributed to the current chess machines we see now. So no breakthrough in computer technology is needed at all, just more human minds translating the strategy/tactics needed to win into programming. Pattern recognition is not a problem for computers but this is a vague notion at best. Humans tend to go with a 'feel' for something. This 'feel' cannot be translated logically. The computer needs something more tangible. I think winning patterns can be programmed into Go, but the Masters must be willing to GIVE UP THEIR secrets! Exactly how much literature is out there for Go and especially Arimaa ? I think Go is the next challenge of computer programmers. Arimaa is simply not popular enough to be taken seriously by computer programmers.
Joe, Time travel chess will not be a problem because the computer has a record of all past moves made. Of course it would take some to develop a suitable algorithm but that game should not pose a problem. Kriegspiel is also no problem (just dont ask me to do program it!) - same thing here - the computer will be normally better at building many trees of possible piece placement etc. Statistical based games are not a problem, but any game relying on human psychology will be more of a problem. For instance, computers already can play poker well based on starting hands,bet amounts and even can execute certain types of bluffs but fail miserably when it comes to detecting bluffs and adjusting to player styles. Go has been touted as been something a computer cannot do well in but I am not sure if this situation will last. And as Gary Gifford said earlier - why the need to invent a game that a computer can't solve anyhow?
Chess (orthodox chess or 'FIDE') is very hard to master and a very difficult game to compete in. The real reason most give up on chess is because there is too much competition and to get an 'edge' one must be sufficiently knowledgeable in opening theory (but not excessively memorizing lines as this does NOT improve play), constantly analyze past games with the help of a computer and also analyze high level games played. Not to mention constant practice. Online resources are normally filled with players playing in realtime especially 2/12 5/12 blitz. Any chess variant with same rules but with extra pieces with sufficient popularity will reach this stage (though larger board games it would be difficult for humans to memorize as much lines). Computers aid most modern chess players in analyzing games and do not contribute to any 'decline' in chess except in the eyes of spectators not too familiar with chess who may not respect the chess player for been beaten by a computer. Computer programming has advanced sufficiently that a program can be written for any game that relies on perfect information. Computers are only behind in games with psychological aspects such as poker. The effect of computers on chess popularity - None, except to serve as a useful learning tool.
Pick the Piece Big Chess. In this customizable game, players decide on the pieces to fill two empty slots and those to be dropped during play. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Added new preset
with dual-path piece combining Korean Chess Elephant + Knight.
This piece must slide along a CLEAR path of 1 orthogonal followed by one OR two diagonal outwards.
Please disregard any link to preset in comments section with 'Falcon' piece.
Excellent comment to balance out irrelevant comment regarding patent.
Please disregard any link to preset in comments section with 'Falcon' piece.
Excellent comment to balance out irrelevant comment regarding patent.
As anyone who reads the description of Pick the Big Piece can ascertain, both sides agree on what pieces they choose to play with and what should be dropped. It is suggested that both sides use the 'same armies'. The pieces in the main presets have all been a mix of my pieces and 'open source' pieces. The new preset with 1 Falcon to be dropped for each side was made with understanding that this experimental preset was allowed by the patent owner for the benefit of others as per comment regarding the use of bison (a piece clearly made long before the patent!). It should be quite clear to anyone that this game does NOT depend on this preset. I have absolutely no interest in the Falcon piece nor its patent - only in 'open source' chess pieces. I only hope that the verbiage in patent does not include pieces like Zebra and camel compounds. A simple request to remove the preset would suffice, which is what I shall do.
Simplified Chess. Missing description (8x7, Cells: 56) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Removing one row seems interesting. But I must object to your 'simplification'. You attempt to complicate the moves of the pawn moves. Yet, how do explain that even 6 year old children can grasp the standard chess rules quite easily. How hard is it to grasp that a pawn can reach the center of the board in one move, and a pawn that it bypasses can capture it? Except for stalemate, capturing the king only benefits novices and very BAD players. I dont see how this benefits the game in general. (note this is for 2 player std chess-like game not for other variants) No serious chess player would take this variant seriously especially since it destroys the game it attempts to 'improve'. I suggest emphasizing the 7 rows more so as to make this a real chess variant .., keep 1 step pawn movement, no castling, promotion rules but revert back to std chess checkmate stalemate /draw rules.
I would like to use the first one, please:
The game is Birds and Ninjas. the ninja guards are normal - they DO NOT HAVE leaping camel move. All std rules EXCEPT one option: each side can drop 4 ninja pawns as per drop rule spec.
Pick the Piece Big Chess. In this customizable game, players decide on the pieces to fill two empty slots and those to be dropped during play. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for the info George, I had no idea that the patent would cover the use of the Bison.
The 'other forgotten game' Sorcerer Chess has been revamped to allow for dropping of 1 Stealth Gryphon, 1 Anti-Gryphon and 4 ninja pawns.
The 'other forgotten game' Sorcerer Chess has been revamped to allow for dropping of 1 Stealth Gryphon, 1 Anti-Gryphon and 4 ninja pawns.
There may be merit to the 1,2,3 moves any time though some of the changes in Big Battle esp to the king seem a bit excessive. But I would like to mention a change I made to the pawn movement in all my games (including the pot luck tournament games). All regular pawns now have the option of moving two squares forward to the center of the board on the second move, if they moved 1 square (or captured) from their original position on the first move. - This strengthens the pawns and allows them to pave the way for the ninja pawns. This affects the games Titan Chess, Stealth Ninja Chess and Birds and Ninjas. The changes are already made to the game rules on the site. I hope this is not a problem for anyone playing the tournament (if it is we can always play the old 1 step movement on 2nd move)
Rich, thanks for your response. Mybe I am misunderstanding something but your suggestion the capture forward isn't it more like Chinese Chess? I understand this is in addition to the diagonal capture but the problem is you end up playing a much more tactical game similar to Xiang Qi I am unsure of your meaning when you say: 'My take is this approach of just adding capture forward, is probably the least disruptive. ' It seems to me that the entire nature of pawn play is changed. Compare to the lateral movement and upper board capture movement of ninja pawn. These pawns can actually be stopped by other pawns. Is it is an intrinsic property of orthodox chess for two pawns to face each other unable to move . Your ability makes it more like Xiang Qi which is a totally different type of pawn play entirely. It seems to me like you would like to completely change the nature of pawn movement rather than just 'balance' things out on a bigger board. My testing showed that the ninja pawn addition just reinforced the pawns and compensated for piece over pawn dominance.
What do you think about the second row of ninja pawns in Titan Chess? From considerable testing , this is the most balanced 12x12 I have played. A lot of tactical play but also room for a great deal of strategy.
To further the analogy - Each round in boxing is like 1 game of chess. I had no idea that 60% of all chess MATCHES end in draws. How much games are played in each match? The solution to making chess have appeal like other sports has nothing to do with rules for draws . All you have to do is to come up with a match/tournament system that ALWAYS provides a winner. E.g. if a 6 game match is drawn then more games with reduced time controls. Kind of like the extra long tennis matches on tv. Soccer games that end in draws go to overtime. Chess matches/tournaments cant do that? I think you have to explain how two equally skilled players ending a game in a draw is bad for chess in general. At worst, it has no effect. If it is a decisive game you want - then let each 'game' in a tournament be a series of games with differing time controls until a winner is produced. btw - boxing organizations are notoriously corrupt too but it does not mean the rules of boxing needs to be changed just the organization needs to be. Perhaps, chess is not being marketed properly but this does not mean the rules have to be changed. Also by definition if you change the rules you are creating your own game so why not just call it another game and stick with that?
Rich Hutnik Posted: ---------------------------------- Well, the highest level of chess represents chess played at an optimal level, right? If it is drawing at that level, what impact does it have on the game? ---------------------------------- Drawing at that level simply demonstrates that both opponents are almost equally skilled. If a win is desired then it is the scoring that needs to be changed (even though I disagree on that too) . For example consider giving a draw less than 1/2 point . or scoring for the different types of draws. However, stalemate is one of the greatest 'features' in chess. Feature well utilized: even recently in a game between two GMs one player on his way to a loss played a tricky move which if not replied correctly would have led to stalemate. I like to give the boxing analogy of a knockout to checkmate. Most boxing matches between equally skilled opponents are actually draws - the scoring is so subjective you might as well call it that . Now if you want a decisive result between two players. How about this: in the event of a draw - the time control is changed to say something like 5min/12second increment and they play until someone wins. Changes to scoring and tournament rules can be adjusted to produce a winner in all cases if desired. Have you taken a look at Modern Shatranj? I believe it has all the rules you would like implemented. Perhaps a modified version of that game may be a good starting point .
Braves' Chess. Solves the problem of draws in chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Regardless of whether one prefers Shatranj type conditions, bare king rules, stalemate win rules etc. This 'variant' or 'fix' which presumably uses the standard modern chess pieces is extremely poor.
I challenge anyone here to actually play this game . It completely strips the beauty of the endgame from modern chess - basically all you get is a stripped down, dumbed down version of the original game
There are no new pieces, no new board - nothing .
In Capture the Scepter, I suggested a few changes to the winning conditions as well but it was pointed out to me subsequently by a more astute chess player that strong chess players sacrifice a pawn or 2 to initiate an attack that under worst case scenarios will fizzle to a draw. Removing conditions for stalemate reduces the motivation to take such a risk and thus leads to a much less dynamic game.Some of the posters here still dont realize that the 60% draw will never be a problem for the strong to average chess player. In fact it wont be a problem with super GMs either if they didn't have to play each other all the time! The 'fix' to get a winner is simple - play a 24 game chess match - a winner will be determined.
Similar to this 'proposal' has been posted numerous times by beginners who do not understand the rules nor comprehend the subtlety of the endgame. A more fitting name would be Simple minded chess.Another specific game.
As a variant inventor, I try to come up with a game that plays as well as chess. Even though I have tried different avenues, my ultimate goal is to come up with a game that plays almost like chess but on a bigger board with a few new pieces. Obviously since its new, opening theory will be a complete restart and it will take a very long time before this game ever gets 'stale'.
As a variant inventor, I try to come up with a game that plays as well as chess. Even though I have tried different avenues, my ultimate goal is to come up with a game that plays almost like chess but on a bigger board with a few new pieces. Obviously since its new, opening theory will be a complete restart and it will take a very long time before this game ever gets 'stale'.
With Titan Chess , I added many new pieces but I am very happy with the gameplay though I have to say it is a bit different from orthodox chess! I have tested this game thoroughly, and draws are much less likely in Titan Chess even though you can draw as in std chess.
However, I see no flaws in the original game (orthodox chess) and certainly have no problem with draws.
Perhaps, your see draws in chess as a problem, among other things because you like games with razor's edge win/loss conditions and changing parameters (like Fischer Random but more extreme with random pieces ).
So yes, chess cannot be changed - the game has already been made and too much people care about it. But if another very similar game catches on .. that is another story.
I can guarantee you that draws are not a problem for chess,
And neither are computers - (George! )
I understand that it does - but are you a regular chess player? An insignificant amount of chessplayers: extremely talented, and very closely bunched in skill level, and with a lot of time to research / memorize a large amount of opening theory, play each other under the auspices of an at least somewhat corrupt organization - 60% end in draws . So what? ban the draw offer and motivate them to play fighting chess - that percentage will reduce to at least 45-50%. With that skill level, expertise and knowledge - no serious chess player will have a problem with this result. It would be nice if there was many chess variants close enough to chess that they were accepted by most chess players - then everyone would be playing in a chess variant tournament. I believe if chess is moved to a larger board, it would be difficult for HUMANs to attain the amount of chess theory of the 8x8 game. Chess is 'played out' not because it is flawed but because it became too successful.
Hi Rich, While I agree with some of what you say, I dont think chess has a draw issue at all. I took a quick look at all the chess games I played when I was active - very few draws. This seems to happen more in the GM level - the grandmaster draw (less than 20 moves) could easily be banned. And many well contested games that end in draws at proper completeion are actually quite interesting - I say just get rid of the draw offer for major tournaments/matches. Getting rid of Stalemate, 3 move repetition seems like a major step backwards so I would nt call them patches - more like deleting essential components. I am probably in the minority here defending orthodox chess but its probably because I am more interested in chess-like variants than most, and I was not too long ago a chess enthusiast.
I veto Saving the Standard 13x13 Bachelor Chess
Braves' Chess. Solves the problem of draws in chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]>>proposal to completely solve the problem of draws in chess.>> There is no problem of draws in chess. You need to be more specific. Libraries of opening theory analysis does imply that the first 15 moves may be the same for many games - the logical result of cautious players very knowledgeable of opening theory not willing to take too many risks. Stalemate =draw does not address the above 'problem'. Additionally, the proposal throws out every beautiful endgame study so I think being 'respectful' is sort of stretching it. Consider , creating an actual chess variant (opening theory would have to start from scratch) or perhaps a game with changing parameters that make an accumulation of opening theory impossible.
I will have no problem veto a game, but I need to read up on the rules first - I am not too familiar with a lot of the games here . I dont see anything I immediately dislike as of now. .
Stanley Random Chess . Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]And I mean this is a poor joke at that! I don't think this should be at this site unless it is categorized as a joke and a poor one at that. This is like one of the numerous Wikipedia joke/bogus entries and far less interesting to boot.
Consider emailing all chessvariant members with an invitation to join the tournament. They may be many who have registered emails with this site but are quite inactive. And -- is anyone going to bring orthodox (FIDE) chess into this tournament?!
Stealth Ninja Chess. Chess with two pairs of linear short-range leapers, and drop zone to add the Stealth Gryphon, Anti-Gryphon and Ninja Pawns. (10x10, Cells: 104) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for your comment!
Yes, the Ninja Guard and Ninja Warrior are identical to elephant/war machine except for the jump over capturing mechanism and double capture.
Jean-Louis Cazaux also invented the excellent Toulousain Chess
The Gryphon is quite an interesting piece and perhaps even more so when it is vulnerable which is why I limited its moves.
The Anti_gryphon is also a limited form of the Aanca.
For PotLuck2008, I would submit Birds and Ninjas (main variation + dropping 4 ninja pawns) and Stealth Ninja Chess (again main variation using recommended pieces to drop).
Feel free to veto prematurely if desired!
but I am definitely available for this tournament.
Feel free to veto prematurely if desired!
There is one more game that I'm working on, having done more playtesting on this than any other, called Titan Chess with a 12x12 board - should have it posted by next week. That would probably be my 3rd game.
I would recommend Toulousain Chess
as well but my 3 choices are up .
but I am definitely available for this tournament.
My condolences on Space War - I just looked at it and it seems very interesting. Regarding your garage - I sort of agree with you but your idea allows people to play around with suspected 'bad' games and ignoring the thousands of 'not sure' games out there. Assuming you get a group of people to playtest(that may not happen..), it seems the time is best spending on games that no one is quite sure about. So more like a center for test driving new cars or never before driven cars , or exotic cars .. ) And there is no need in removing it from chessvariants is there? Regarding comments on games, there are different directions this site can go. Like Youtube which is essentially (in my opinion) a complete spam site where everyone just flames the other videos - almost no constructive criticism. I feel sorry for some of the real performance artists on youtube - they get the worst comments of all. Or like a writing workshop (e.g. critters.org) where members try to read each the other's work and ideally give some constructive criticism. Being a member there - it does work for the most part. Or maybe stay the same - a little bit of both ..) Anyway maybe my point being maybe Joes Garage can do more test drives of new cars or never before driven cars as well . Or give some results of already driven cars ..)
Hey Rich,
I just want to get an understanding of IAGO chess rules.
Take my game Birds and Ninjas. If I use the main variation and add the piece promotion rule (knights and ninja guards promote to more powerful insane ninja knight on opponents rear squares) and 4 ninja pawn drop rule (side drops special pawn to their rear squares) - does that fulfill class X spec? Since I make the drop count as 1 move, does the drop rule have to be modified to be that when the piece leaves any of the rear two squares the ninja pawn must then occupy the just vacated square?
Are they any other criteria that is not met - or does this game work fine as Class X?
Take my game Birds and Ninjas. If I use the main variation and add the piece promotion rule (knights and ninja guards promote to more powerful insane ninja knight on opponents rear squares) and 4 ninja pawn drop rule (side drops special pawn to their rear squares) - does that fulfill class X spec? Since I make the drop count as 1 move, does the drop rule have to be modified to be that when the piece leaves any of the rear two squares the ninja pawn must then occupy the just vacated square?
Are they any other criteria that is not met - or does this game work fine as Class X?
My suggestion may sound more radical .. I suggest that for every pairing: e.g Player A vs B they play two games . First Player A chooses ANY game (it can be his own), then Player B chooses his. Player B shall play white (or have the option to play first) in player A's game, and Player A plays white in Player B game. We can restrict it so that no player can choose to play the same game more than twice for the whole tournament. Also, the rules of the particular game chosen must be clear to the opponent. To me, this makes more sense because every player gets to play his/her own game as well as opponents game. And there will be a larger amount of game types being played, with the added benefit that players can playtest their own games.
Seirawan Chess. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I am afraid that I have to agree with George Duke's well articulated POOR comment. RN and BN too powerful on an 8x8 board with only 8 pawns to 10 pieces. Disagree with George only in that I believe Omega plays excellent compared to this shoddy little variant getting a bit too much publicity. Here s an improvement using the drop concept in this game: use Joyce's short range war machine/knight and elephant/knight compounds instead for a more balanced game. So Excellent for the whole drop concept (though I would prefer that the player pay the price of 1 move to bring in a piece), and Poor in piece selection. I understand the enthusiasm of previous commentators of bringing in new pieces via gating but why use a knight compound anyway: Just drop a real Elephant (modern type) and war machine/wazir and maybe 2 ninja pawns - thats a bit more subtlety than just going crazy with powerful knight compounds.
My optional ninja pawn drop rule applies to my 104 square variants: Birds and Ninjas, and Insane Ninja chess. Any one of the rear 2 squares when vacant is the gate . Sounds like designated space (d). Same with Pick the Piece Big Chess but here any square on back rank is designated space.
Pick the Piece Big Chess. In this customizable game, players decide on the pieces to fill two empty slots and those to be dropped during play. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Gary, I just reworded the description for the preset. But my suggestion was the other way around - a war-mace and alfil-Horse-apults. Though I see no reason for it to be the other way around either.. And thanks for your comment, I hope that players realize they have a lot of flexibility in choosing the game they wish to play.
Maces and Horse-apults. Chess with mace pieces and specialized catapults (horse-apults). (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have added some presets here for Pick the Piece Big Chess, one of which includes the Mace and Horse-apult in this game. I briefly mentioned some possible modifications as well.
It might play a bit differently from your game, but who knows it might be interesting.
It might play a bit differently from your game, but who knows it might be interesting.
One thing I was wondering can I just not bother capture the enemy piece and just move my mace away?
Quite interesting! I have to disagree - it is not much like std chess (play-wise at least)- the game is substantially altered because of those pieces. Am I right in understanding the mace this way: I move my mace next to enemy pieces. Then on same turn I can take them off the board? Also, is it compulsory to remove all pieces attacked by mace? And if mace removes piece/pawn that exposes king to check then does that not mean that the opponent can then capture your king? I was wondering too what do you think of adding one mace and one Horse-apult to my customizable game : pick piece big chess. I think it will be a bit slower than yours but it might be quite interesting. If you dont mind - I can add that into the presets for my game.
Game Courier. PHP script for playing Chess variants online.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks Joe, but for some reason it does not work for me - I tried it with saving first. I don't know what I am doing wrong - I know it used to work even on update before.
There seems to be a new problem with this system when creating presets.
I was trying to create this
Preset for Burmese Chess by request for Armin Liebhart.
I uncheck the box Exclude Pieces not in Setup so that the pieces that need to be dropped can be added, but they never show up. So right now there is no way to play this preset because you cannot drop the pieces in.
You can see for yourself by editing the preset.
Is there someone who can help on this or has any advice?
I uncheck the box Exclude Pieces not in Setup so that the pieces that need to be dropped can be added, but they never show up. So right now there is no way to play this preset because you cannot drop the pieces in.
You can see for yourself by editing the preset.
Is there someone who can help on this or has any advice?
Boxing and mixed martial arts are violent sports where two men compete to see who the better man is - no problem in popularity there. And with the commentator mentioning at least 5 times during the match that this is a 'chess match'.
Chess as a social game to meet new friends may decline but as an exciting battle of wits between two people on the internet - quite clearly increasing in popularity.
Regarding the luck attribute - the chess analogy also shows up in poker commentary when two players are trying to outwit each other are in commentator's words 'playing a chess match'.
I doubt if anyone cares if computer plays chess better than them (except perhaps some top level GMs). Cars can travel faster than runners too, - do we see a decline in marathon/running sports?
Interesting Luck /gambling motif in chess : No Limit Bet Chess
Chess as a social game to meet new friends may decline but as an exciting battle of wits between two people on the internet - quite clearly increasing in popularity.
Regarding the luck attribute - the chess analogy also shows up in poker commentary when two players are trying to outwit each other are in commentator's words 'playing a chess match'.
I doubt if anyone cares if computer plays chess better than them (except perhaps some top level GMs). Cars can travel faster than runners too, - do we see a decline in marathon/running sports?
Interesting Luck /gambling motif in chess : No Limit Bet Chess
It seems to me that chess may be even MORE popular than ever before. You can easily get a live game at freechess.org at any time. I think it would be more reasonable to assume that the general public is less interested in GM chess now than during the Fischer era.
Having also created a number of large board variants (e.g. see Insane Ninja Chess) and needing to compare them playtesting-wise to orthodox chess, I was forced to play quite a few games and have come to realize that standard chess really does live up to the 'hype' touted by chess lovers.
Having also created a number of large board variants (e.g. see Insane Ninja Chess) and needing to compare them playtesting-wise to orthodox chess, I was forced to play quite a few games and have come to realize that standard chess really does live up to the 'hype' touted by chess lovers.
Great Shatranj. Great Shatranj. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]While many variants try to balance the number of leapers with sliders, this game takes a different approach. Every piece is a jumper or a 1 square stepping piece. The Queen is replaced by the General, the rooks with dababbas and bishops with Elephants. Then, the game is expanded to a 10x8 similar to a Capablanca variant. The knight compound added to both dababbas and elephant.
The game starts out slow but gets much more tactical. Orthodox chess players with a preference for knights and for positional play and Indian defenses (moving pawn one step at a time) would love this game. Also the Shatranj reference and ruleset adds novelty to this game.Some interesting points: the dababbas and Minister can mate with aid of king. (A bit tricky with the dababba) (Of course the General can too) . The dababba starts out as a weak piece but gets stronger as the game progresses.
The pieces may have been used before as pointed out, but this should be expected. I used the ninja guard which is very similar to elephant in Birds and Ninjas Cannibal Chess and Absorption Chess. Pieces gain the powers of a piece they take. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The concept of this game struck me one day while I was playing chess online before ever setting foot on this site. I thought it was quite an interesting idea too and was quite fascinated with it.
Now, I do see many problems with this game:
It is difficult for one side to recover from a material deficit.
Even capture of a pawn by a piece gives one side a small advantage so it is hard to exchange.
Random Move Number Chess and Power Absorption were the first two variants I ever created.
I found this site later and realized I could submit them.
To my dismay Power Absorption had already been invented so I decided against submitting it.
Incredibly enough, even the name of my game is almost identical to this!
I did, however, go on to create many more variants..)
I certainly proved that all you need is a little bit of idle time and imagination to create variants!
Now, I do see many problems with this game:
It is difficult for one side to recover from a material deficit.
Even capture of a pawn by a piece gives one side a small advantage so it is hard to exchange.
Random Move Number Chess and Power Absorption were the first two variants I ever created.
I found this site later and realized I could submit them.
To my dismay Power Absorption had already been invented so I decided against submitting it.
Incredibly enough, even the name of my game is almost identical to this!
I did, however, go on to create many more variants..)
I certainly proved that all you need is a little bit of idle time and imagination to create variants!
Flying Bombers Grand Chess. The usual pieces in Chess are complimented by two Flying Bombers, which eliminate enemy pieces by flying over them! (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In Airplane Chess, the airplane moves both diagonally and orthogonally. There seems to be no specification or limit to its long reach power - it can jump over pieces in-between to capture the last piece in the line. I got the idea from checkers not from airplane chess. The whole reasoning between my choice for the 'immediate landing' bomber used in Birds and Ninjas rather than the extended landing bomber was that pawns are too vulnerable and easily attacked. It is not clear but I suspected that this *might* increase the number of draws. Airplane Chess will most certainly lead to higher number of draws since pawns are *much* more vulnerable than either version of the flying bomber. The nature of airplane being so difficult to defend against would make game much wilder and very different from Flying Bombers as well. The other mode of the flying bomber is essentially the Dabbabah (from which the cannon might have derived) as noted.
Ninjutsu (Claustrophobia 2). The fierce double capture leaping pieces: the Ninja Warriors and the Ninja Guards can promote to Insane Ninja Knights! (8x5, Cells: 46) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Yes I did think of this compound - it was to be called the Insane Ninja! I used the insane ninja knight because it is present in my game Asylum Chess. I guess it could be fine to have the promotion to Insane Ninja instead of insane ninja knight if agreed by the 2 players I might use the insane ninja in an upcoming variant.
Flying Bombers Grand Chess. The usual pieces in Chess are complimented by two Flying Bombers, which eliminate enemy pieces by flying over them! (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks - I did not see that..The word immediately was wrong in that context and has been removed.
The 'immediate landing' flying bombers are used for future games, but for this game I have left it the same as the main variation. In any case the choice is up to the player to choose the 'immediate' or 'extended' landing flying bomber.
Palace Ninja Guards. A pair of short-range diagonal leapers and four extra squares are added to the standard chessboard and pieces. (8x8, Cells: 68) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Douglas, Since you did the work for that file and are registered here, why don't you add the link here instead? Let me know if this is possible...
Bland Chess. Chess with no diagonal moves. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bland chess? And we wonder why chess players avoid chess variants!
Palace Ninja Guards. A pair of short-range diagonal leapers and four extra squares are added to the standard chessboard and pieces. (8x8, Cells: 68) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The ninja guard cannot move beyond 2 squares and only move diagonally - I think that is clear. What you are asking should be possible IF there is no empty square between the friendly piece and enemy piece as in diagram described by the line: 'It can capture the pawn on b6 by jumping over the knight at c5.' Are you asking if there is an empty square after the knight on c5 (b6 was empty) if it can capture a piece say on a7? The answer is NO since it can only jump or move 1 or 2 squares diagonally. I will reword the description - there seems to be some confusion with it.
You are free to submit it to zillions. I think the movement should be clear enough from the description.
Yup -.. Regarding chinese chess - Yes, it may very well be logical within that context. It is the idea of Orthodox chess have stalemate=win by comparing to Chinese Chess that's flawed Regarding WC The two Draws: Anand - Kramnik: 1/2 Leko - Gelfand: 1/2 were even more exciting than Morozevich - Svidler: 1-0 These were hard fought draws, not the horrible short agrement draws.
Chess (orthodox at least) has in my opinion perfected the rules governing the draw. Stalemate been a draw is very important in chess, and yes, Chinese chess it is a win, but I think it is not logical that way. It looks more like the draw outcome was not considered important. The problem in FIDE chess championships/tournaments - short agreed draws. Once that is not allowed - the draws are PERFECTLY acceptable. The only other problem with orthodox chess is the analysis factor - too many games - too much theory. A new game with the SAME rules but 1 or 2 new pieces will be an ideal candidate for 'evolution'. Sure you can play around with eliminating draws, but most chess lovers will take issue and righfully so. Also, the games played today esp. Anand and Kramnik were very exciting. So even at this high level it has a lot of life left.
The scoring changes were tried before - I think Clint 'something' ... suggested 3pt for black win, 2pt for white win, 1pt for black draw and 0 for white draw. There is nothing wrong with the game of chess (orthodox) - its just analyzed to death. If only the top players (GMs) can look through every chess variant and pick the one that they feel keeps the beauty, strategy etc of the original game. A 10x10 with a few new pieces seems best in my opinion .. That would be a chess tournament worth watching.
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Have you thought about this preset: frnbqkbnrfpppppppppp60PPPPPPPPPPFRNBQKBNRF Notice that all the pawns are protected. The 10X10 also is a lot more roomier for the extra pair of pieces.
Complementarity - Part I. With Short Range Project in mind, list of a highly specific set of pieces defined by simplest compounds.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Just a comment on Sam's 31 short-range pieces comment: I noticed he mentioned the lion as worth 2 queens. Perhaps, on a very crowded small space, but I don't see how this can be on a large open board. In my game Asylum Chess, the piece Insane Ninja Knight has the moves of a lion (and double capture too).I say its worth slightly less than a queen in this game on an open board. I don't see any clear description of the lion except in Cho Shogi game (and they are some differences). (In fact, I initially thought that the ninja knight was never seen before in any form!) I have yet to see the Lion used in any other game. Perhaps, it is assumed that a jumping piece should not be too powerful or the gameplay would not be balanced?
Drawless Chess. Simple rules are added to make draws impossible. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]One more thing though: If the inventor had concentrated only on point 1 - the throne square - we might have something. I think this variant would work discarding points 2 + 3 (make 3 move repetition a draw, stalemate a draw just as in standard chess) . It is illegal to move to throne square if you put yourself in check. It could be interesting because sometimes even a bare king vs king and rook may win! Too bad, this idea was sunk by the *need* to correct an imaginary 'flaw' in chess.
Agreed that this is not a variant. Thought the throne square marked with X has some strategic points though. There is no draw problem in chess. (Agreed draws among Grandmasters and openings being played out is a problem for EXTREMELY high level chess) Chess is not a spectator sport. Play the game yourself - unless you are a 2500+ rated player you will not get more than 5-10% draws. Of course 2 knights and king vs king is a draw - it should have been a hard fought draw though. Complaining about draws indicates inadequate understanding of chess and/or excessive obsession with grandmaster games (while not playing any at all). Stalemate is ironically a very logical outcome which is why it was introduced. The king must be captured by the opposite side - if there is no move available, it *can* kill itself.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.