Comments by RichardHutnik

Ok, you can finalize the details, and get this nailed down.  Then decide
whether or not it will be on.  We can actually add it to the IAGO World
Tour after it starts, it will just be late getting on.  If it feels like
it is done before November, that is good.  Having it go into 2009 would be
an issue though :-).

Anyhow, I will let you finish up the details.  All that is needed is that
the event produces a winner, then I would need to know the number of
players total (don't need report that anywhere else except in the Tour
grand total), and also who won (their name) and their City and Country
(possibly also State if in USA).  Having a nickname is also cool, and can
be added.  Like saying 'Donut Donut' is the winner, but need the name
:-).  I would say nicknames are even encouraged for marketing purposes.  A
user name can serve as a nickname here.

I believe the framework of chess can be addressed now so that we never turn
chess into a solved game.  I personally believe there is part of the answer
in a game like Seirawan Chess, or a pocket version with reserves, but I
don't think they alone have the answer.  It also doesn't address the
framework issue either that gets chess stuck, and all the classic abstract
strategy game (stuck here means set on a path to being 'solved', without
a way to adjust before it does).  

My take on Godel's Incompleteness Theorm is that you don't solve the
systemic issues with a certain set of rules by creating more rules of the
same type.  If it is show, for example with chess, that a set
configuration of chess pieces on the board eventually produces something
that is solved, then changing the configuration of the pieces on the board
alone doesn't resolve it either (one time, fixed).  You can change the
their starting position (aka Chess960/Pick your Army/MetaChess or the V
and X versions of IAGO Chess), the layout of the board at start (and also
changing it during play, aka Beyond Chess), or when the pieces enter the
game (IAGO/Seirawan/Pocket Knight/Pocket Mutant), and help to push things
out further.  If you build into the framework by which you can do all of
the above, you buy more time.  What regular chess has now is not a way to
make chess get 'unstuck', allowing it to adjust over time.  I suggest
all of the above be considered and integrated, and the players settled on
what works best.   Eventually even this mix of everything leads to a
'stuck' position as the playing community may figure out what is
optimal.  By then, some other people will need to come up with another
layer of rules to insure things are unstuck.  

I can't say this for certain, but I do know unsticking chess by doing all
of the above should likely buy chess another 1000 years, using all of the
above methods described.  The key to having it get unstuck is to have it
done in a way that it is evolutionary, so the playing community can
migrate over time and get used to the changes.  Also added to the mix are
'mutators' which are meta-changes to how the game works that get added
during play.  PlunderChess, for example, is built on a mutator that is
active from the start, pieces fusing together.  Even these added can have
an impact, and force people to think more creatively, relying on
principles.  These changes act as weather, and another key element to
getting chess unstuck (and other abstract strategy games for that matter).
 All these elements help to battle to keep a game from getting stuck,
without the use of random element, or hidden information, which is the
standard method used to unstick a game.  Like, the case of backgammon,
luck prevents it from getting stuck for a long time.  Stratego uses hidden
information, and the bluff element causes players to play other players. 
In this you need to know your opponent more than the environment.  Because
of this, a game like poker can be played even 1000 years from now, because
you play the players, and luck also offsets (hidden information+luck). 
Magic: The Gathering, and also Cosmic Encounter also relate to this, which
has in its makeup things that continue to change the rules.  I believe such
mutators can be applied to a game like chess, but not in such a chaotic
manner.  In other words, you can have a game that is a pure abstract
strategy game, but where the rules do change during the course of a game,
if the players control when the rules come into effect and the potential
rules are fully known by all players in the game. 

Please feel free to comment here.

Singh, I will add your comment to the Unsticking Chess thread and reply there, regarding the paradigm.  

As far as The IAGO Chess System goes, may I suggest people give it thought as being one of the pieces to the new paradigm, and happen to come up with their own suggestions, modifications of what the IAGO Chess System says, or point out the flaws?  At least discuss this.  On this, I welcome people to comment about the different aspects of it.  These being:
1. The classification system for types of chess.
2. The use of drops and gating to get new pieces on the board, and setting up the board to start.
3. The basic rules on how it uses drops and gating, and how the C-Class transforms to the C-Class, then to the M-Class, and and then is able to produce a V-Class version/variant of the M-Class rules.

I welcome feedback, people to adopt, reject, debate, etc...  I will say, however, my wish is that people not ignore this completely.

In another thread, Singh wrote:

Not a member, so responding to 'Unsticking Chess' here.  Regarding:

 'doing all of the above should likely buy chess another 1000 years'

In my opinion, not even close.  As soon as someone designs a computer
smart enough to improve itself, processing power explodes exponentially. 
The future is going to be way, way different than anything we can imagine
using the current paradigm.
-----------------------------------------------------
This is why I was starting a discussion on what that paradigm can be.  I
personally believe that the open-source method would lend well towards
this, via community consensus.  This could start with the chess variant
crowd, and them coordinating. I am offer people a chance to discuss the
IAGO Chess System as a starting point, from the drops and gating, to the
classification system, to the attempt to get Capablanca pieces onto an 8x8
board.  This could perhaps lead to a new paradigm. 

I would rather this be an opening for a discussion, rather than saying it
is merely beyond what we can imagine, so why bother.

Finally, I would say that all this is for more than just 'oh it lies beyond the computer'.  It is for the purpose of serving the fullness of the chess community.

je ju, when you happened to finalize this, please make sure we have a web
page people can land on to learn about the tournament, and have it link
back to the IAGO World Tour site.

Singh, can I give you the perspective that the IAGO Chess System comes from?  It is a framework for an attempt to integrate variants into an association that promotes abstract strategy games, and insure that the play doesn't deadend so chess that is played is stuck in the margins.  It is meant as a practical solution, not as some, 'WOW that blows me away as new'.  It isn't meant to blow anyone away, but work.  That is its intent.

Anyhow, if your view is one of that it will happen, and we can't do anything about it, so don't try, then that doesn't fit anywhere into the IAGO Chess discussion. 

What I will say is that, in order for what you suggest to happen, it has to get there incrementally, and in a framework that will allow it.  A sudden jump isn't going to happen.  People won't jump all at once to something new, and abandon what they know.  It will have to happen in an evolutionary manner.  If you care to explain how FIDE Chess framework would enable that, please state how.  If you actually have any ideas to explain how it can come about, please state them.

If you just know this, but can't state, then I would say to feel free to be a player in what develops, as a recipient, and leave it sat that.

Gating has been added to the Wiki site:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/pcp-tg:gating

Please feel free to comment.

All goes well, I will be looking to submit a Zillions adaptation (the zip file should contain two adaptions of IAGO Chess) next Friday.  I will keep people posted on this.  I will also look to do an V-Class/X-Class Zillions version of this that will contain multiple variants off it. One thing I would be interested in playing with is an 8x8 version of Grand Chess, using the basic rules to IAGO Chess.

Please send me a message if you would like to get the Zip file early to play around with.

George, I would like to make several comments here:
1. Gating is supposed to be a definition, and a subset of drops.  I am
sure there are lots of way to do this.  The purpose of it is to give
people an idea as to how it differs from a standard drop.  It also
involves the relocating pieces on the board.  I am sure that people can
come up with more.  I believe the key is to have a stable definition, and
then list some major examples.  I am of the belief it is an important term
to consider, debate, and reach an agreement over.  The end and final shape
isn't as important as what it is.	
2. The issue of the 8x8 board is that it is now a convention, and a
starting point, for testing, because it is what is readily available, and
has an established chess game being played with millions of people play it
(that being FIDE Chess).  What was suggested is ONE approach to this, as a
possible way.  And no, I disagree with you on the less than 100 years
approach.  What is suggested is to use ALL the possible variant
conventions as a way to expand chess here.  This means reserves, it means
mutators, it means different board condition.  And with the reserves, it
means changing the mix of pieces.  It also means more that this.  But what
does matter is there is a common foundation this is all to fit into. 
Chess960 isn't going to get stuck in 100 years, why do you think a larger
system will?  If you suggest that it will get stuck again in 100 years,
well then this site is doomed to be stuck within 100 years.  

As for the IAGO Chess System classes, well it is taking what is seen today
as chess and variants, and expanding it, as a way to think about it.  You
have standard stuff (A-Class).  Then it is suggested that there be an
evolutionary design, that has a B-Class migration to it.  C and M Class
represent the slower fixed one, and the M-Class as the version where a
chess game can migrate to.  In the B-Class I am proposing that the piece
mix map to the rules (so we don't have an 8 pawn promote to queens
problem, which breaks when you add any more pieces).  Then with the
variants, I propose that you have a V-Class for accepted variants that
work, along with mutators, and pieces.  And an X-Class where things can be
experimented with.  This is meant as a starting point of discussion.

3. Anything that is a set of rules is axiomatic, as the definition of
axiomatic is rules.  So game rules would apply also.  What Godel's
incompleteness theorem says that no system of rules can be both complete
and non-contradictory.  In other words, every set of rules will end up
producing more rules.  In other words, rules keep evolving.  This is valid
here.  And if you think that games have nothing to do with math, I am sure
that the game theory people will be surprised.  And Combinatorial Game
Theorists (this is the foundation abstract strategy games are built on)
would be shocked.

On the chessvariants wiki, I started a top regarding an Open-Source Chess
of Tomorrow project.  If you would like to discuss this and have actual
input into what this might be please visit the Wiki discussion page:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested

- Rich

I am wondering if something could be added in order to allow the mobilization of more than one piece during a turn. Perhaps have a commander unit that mobilizes a bunch of pieces that are near it, like Joe Joyce uses in his Chieftain Chess:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSchieftainchess

This is now on Boardgame Geek:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/35433

I would like to run this concept as part of the Chess of Tomorrow project. 
Someone in discussing the future of chess, brought up Calvinball.  The
posted a link to one set of rules:
http://www.bartel.org/calvinball/

There is one permanent rule they have for Calvinball on that page.  That
rule is this one: You may not play the Calvinball the same way twice.  

So the basic framework for the ultimate chess variant would be, can you
have a chess playing framework that would enable a person to NEVER play
chess the same way twice (by the exact same set of rules).  A softer
version of this challenge would be that a person would play both side
(black and white) each once, before moving on to a set of rules.  A
Calvinball tournament would consist of this rules though.

Please feel free to discuss this hear, or if you want it to add to the
Chess of Tomorrow project, post in here:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested#post-139883

The whole 'Calvinball Chess' question is one that raises the natural boundaries of chess variants.  Is the number of variants to a game finite (bounded) or infinite (unbounded).  If it is finite, unless you add luck element to it, then all variants naturally are solvable.  However, if it is infinite, then that game is not solvable.  Well, perhaps someone can find an underlying core direction that will universally say one side or another is solved or not.

The point is that it is a THEORETICAL question asked.  It, by itself, isn't the best form of chess.  But it is meant to be a test for whether or not variants themselves are deadend.

By the way, as far as a 'sense of accomplishment' goes, it is a game.  You defeat your opponent.  If you end up the top dog by being the best player, and being champion, that is the sense of accomplishment.  One can get a sense of accomplishment from mastering an OPPONENT over mastering a particular set of RULES.

Can I add here that when it comes to war (this is what chess is an abstracted model of), that no battle ever fought is the same?  It is 'Heraclitian' in that the conditions to start the battle are never the same, and they change in the battle, independent of what the troops do.  Yet, great generals are able to be evaluated.

George, do you mean the simple fact that you can have an infinite number of boards for chess is proof of this?  Aka, a board can theoretically by infinite size?

Ok, let's say we limit the board, for discussion sake to an 8x8 board (standard chess size).  Can such a game using an 8x8 board (standard chess, not movable tiles) be infinite in the number of variations?

At this point also, I would then like to ask, what fixed set of rules would be needed to still identify the game as chess, and allow for infinite variations?

Hey, here is a good question to ponder regarding this: What rules are by their nature unbounded that they cause a game to have infinite variety of rules associated with them?  One could argue that board size is one.  But what other ones?

This list is an attempt to come up with different aspects to the rules of
chess that could produce an unlimited (unbounded) number of variants based
upon changing the parameters around this rule type.  Please suggest more if
you can, or critique.  I will look to update this as time goes on. 

I see this so far:
1. Board size and shape.  A board can theoretically be infinite in size. 
Because of this, it can theoretically take on an infinite number of shapes
(shapes representing the number of spaces it has, and where they are
located).
2. The number of players (and also number of teams).
3. Time control: Amount of time each player has to play.
4. Play to points in a chess tournament: Players can play to an infinite
number of points.

Probably unbounded (no sure):
* Turn order and sequence of play.  This is based off the way progression
works.  There may be a limit to how many times a player can move in a row,
given a minimum number of pieces, which the victory conditions can always
be met.  In light of this, this may not be infinite.

Some that I am uncertain about:
* The number of unique pieces.  Is there an infinite number of ways a
piece can act on a chessboard?
* Number of pieces on a board and their mix.  If a board is finite size,
then this should mean there can only be so many piece combinations on a
board, right?
* Reserve pool mix.  It is theoretically possible that you can have an
infinitely large reserve of pieces that can be dropped in from every turn,
but I would argue there is the possibility for a board to get clogged up
with so many pieces, that it isn't infinite.  Even shuffling the reserve
doesn't resolve.
* Adding new rule types.  Are there really an unlimited number of
different rule types that can be added to chess, that make it unlimited.

What I don't see as unlimited:
* Shuffles. Unless you have a theoretical unlimited number of pieces on an
infinitely wide board, it doesn't look infinite to me.
* Piece names and look. This doesn't functionally change how a game is
played.
* Board colors. Unless the rules governing pieces is governed by color of
the board, this is irrelevant to how the game is played.
* Space shape.  I would argue there is only a finite number of ways that
spaces can be fit together that they would fit together.  Now, the
combination of these pieces definitely could potentially fit under the
unlimited category.

Please reply with others and comment.  You can also go to the Chess of
Tomorrow Project Thread to discuss this more there:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested#post-140383

Interesting articles there.  They still run into the exact same issues
variants run into, they are considered abnormal freaks people are wary of.

There is also Many Rules chess (Someone suggested this be checked out):
http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/manyrules.html

All this I see as part of the Chess of Tomorrow project that can be worked
on.  Good to know what can be bounded verses unbounded and so on.

The next challenge, get this up to be infinite.  You could also go with drops and gating that even add more pieces to it, and change when they come in, and create a reserve.  One could also go with the idea of mutators that enter the game at different times.

Did we even begin to discuss the board that it could be played on?  We could even vary the boards here.  So, he idea is mutators, shuffle, drops and gating, different pieces, etc... to end up with a different game.  

So, what else can be added to make it infinite?  I believe to have this, is that ONE element that is infinite get added to the mix.  This should be a practical element that can be implemented.

May I suggest people also take this discussion to the Chess of Tomorrow project Wiki discussion to discuss going infinite?  http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested

This would fit under the Calvinball/Hericlitian Chess idea that it is possible for humanity, given endless time, to never play chess with the same rules twice.

My take on Beyond Chess, if players at the start of the game are able to
follow those rules, and they aren't stopped, then doesn't that represent
merely one rule in effect?  This means the rules itself are still bound,
with Beyond Chess merely adding one new rule.  Yes, this rule adds a lot
of depth to the game, but it is still one rule.  Difference would be the
slide before you move, slide after you move, transport tile elsewhere,
having tiles disappear, etc...  Different starting configurations would
each be considered a different rule.  But the sliding a tile after a move,
to me, looks like a mutator, and thus one rule. 

Now, let's say you start restricting when this sliding can take effect,
and to what degree, that that would add more rules.  The idea here isn't
just asking if the decision tree can be unlimited, but the RULES governing
the decision tree is unlimited.

Please let me know what the final page will be that I can point the Tour
calendar to regarding it?

I am under the impression that Chess operated under a ban by the Catholic Church, because they likely found people spending far too much time playing it, and was picking up a gambling angle (the use of dice in some versions, and also probably betting).  The Church likely judged that chess was an unproductive use of time, and banned it.

As for the war analogy, this is my take, but you did happen to find the ruling class using it to train in strategy and movement.  You can also argue that perhaps it was a divination device for kings to determine outcome of battles (aka a wargame).  This then also might be another call for the ban by the Catholic Church regarding chess.

I have been playing around with this in Zillions, adding Capablanca pieces and found it is a very interesting design.  I am planning on having this game modified to the IAGO Chess System framework, complete with Capablanca pieces in it, in the next few weeks.

I am doing this entry separately to discuss it, as I happened to also stumble across it while working on an attempt to port Grand Chess to an 8x8 board.

The best way to go about this is to have a pass around the list thing to
see who would want to go for it, and how many pieces.  Then once enough
people sign up, take orders.  Then they do the run, get the molds made and
able to facilitate this.  Of course, we are going to need people to commit
to this.  Don't assume there is some sort of rich uncle of the variant
community who is going to do this out of the goodness of their heart. 
Assume that the community needs to get behind it. 

On this note, I would like to see people speak up here.  Are people
willing to get behind this project?  Please speak up here.  I know I want
to get ahold them.  I would rather use distinct pieces than go with using
PlunderChess, etc...

Let's see the benefits of this.  You could do variant tournaments at
conventions and actually have the real pieces for people to use.  

Well, that is my take here.  Who else would be interested.  I can assure
you this, if there is enough interest, I do know that the pieces can
become reality.

I would like to add that John Kipling Lewis thought of this same variant on Skirmish Chess as I had, so I wanted to give him credit.  He is looking to have a version where the board is only 6 rows big, which makes it different than this version.  I will let him decide what to call it.

Hey, let's also go with an 8x8 board, a 8x9 and an 8x10 board.  Shoot, you could also go all the way up to 8x14 or 8x16, giving the starting positions a larger back row space (as is seen in Skirmish Chess and Near Chess).  You could also push the pieces forward or back more.

The event page:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/cv-potluck-2008

Is now up on the IAGO World Tour schedule:
http://www.iagoworldtour.com/

I will also get the games into the officially registered with IAGO list.

Matthew, are you capable now of making custom pieces for people?  Please
feel free to offer your services now to people to do this.  Longer term,
perhaps a commercial version would be viable.  In the mean time, I
personally don't have any issues with you doing this.  If things, IAGO
related work out where we get a supplier, then maybe.  But, so long as you
can serve the needs of the community, please feel free to consider helping
out.

Anyone else have objections to what Matthew spoke on?  I personally don't
at this point.  Even if there is mass production of variant pieces, then
the community will be wanting more obscure ones.  So, at this point, I
don't see any issue now.  This may change down the road though.

By the way, what country are you located?

Anyone here know how to tell the Courier preset the following rules:
King capture for win 
no castling 
pawn promotion to your captured pieces only


I am curious how to have the rule say that so.  Any ideas?

Hey, I believe Stanley Random Chess relates to this question somehow:
http://www.chessvariants.org/link2.dir/srchess.html

Or maybe a way to phrase this is whether Stanley Random Chess would
actually have any Unbound rules to it.

I believe this has to be connected to Stanley Random Chess somehow:
http://www.chessvariants.org/link2.dir/srchess.html

Why do I have a feeling this is connected to CalvinBall Chess somehow:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=Calvinball+Chess

I think in this is perhaps a way that could be used to demonstrate chess on television, and relative positions.  It likely needs to be reworked, and if there is math involved, the variables explained, else this falls into the Stanley Random Chess category, which is closer to the comic strip Calvinball than the theoretical Heraclitian Calvinball I had asked about.

Anyone have any ideas on how this could potentially be used to demonstrate positions in chess that are about to collapse and fail? Maybe I can come up with something, or other people have ideas.

There is a Zillions adaptation of the IAGO Chess game at:
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/17624?do=show;id=1576

Just to repeat what was added above.  There is a Zillions adaptation of Near Chess, with a bunch of variants.  The direct link is here:
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/18477?do=show;id=1577

My take on this, is that Mornington Crescent, and is a bit like Calvinball.  I would consider SRC to be the Mornington Crescent of Chess games, a bit of an inside joke actually.  I will say that it does serve a useful purpose of showing people who play a game like chess, or even a particularly variant, what their game sounds like to those who don't know about it.

So, on this note, we can use this comment here as a note that SRC is very likely a joke.  The funny thing is someone I have messaged on BGG said they were responsible for its creation.

Can I again run this by everyone?  I know people say they can cut and stick
and so on.  But if you happen to play someone a game, and they like it, how
will they be able to get the equipment to play it by themselves?

Can I explain another reason why having commercially available variant
pieces would help here?  Most game purchases are done as gifts, either for
birthday or Christmas.  In order to facilitate the growth of variants, it
is going to be important to allow people to buy the equipment to give
other people as a gift.  This also would allow the variant community to
give someone variant pieces as a gift.  Like, let's say you do have a
variant, and you know people happened to like a design of yours.  If you
have pieces and equipment available for sale, you could buy it for them as
a gift.

Without this, what happens with variants is people find it a one-time
novel experience.  A one-time novel experience doesn't grow interest in
variants.

On this note, would people here be willing to buy chess variant pieces for other people, to give as gifts?  Shoot, you could even do some custom jobs where you get to name the piece after a person, give it some wacky power that is customized, and particular, as a gag gift.

Like the 'Steve' piece.  It has the power to move like a Knight (because it has noble intentions) but has the power to freeze other pieces next to it, through the power of 'smalltalk' preventing them from moving.  So, these would be gag gift pieces you can give people.  I am sure there is a Steve out there somewhere (I don't have anyone in mind by refering it).

So, when people play a customized variant chess, they can use their own custom piece instead of the queen, or replacing the king if doing extinction.

My take here on this is as follows:
1. Chess has multiple issues.  Draws are one.  Another is stale opening lines, that have pushed out innovation further in the game, making it less appealing.
2. I believe we should stop with this proposing that every single proposed rule change be a new version of chess.  Can we have a category called 'sub-variant' or something else, for things like Braves' Chess?  Such things that Braves Chess attempts to do is important.  It needs to be something experimented with as a sub-variant, mutator, or whatever else we want to call it.  It is an end-game fix mutation.  Maybe call it a patch.
3. I like a bit what is done here, but my take on the end game drawishness would be several things:
a. Get rid of draws have a score of 1/2 - 1/2.  Have it worth zero points or have it so that it is a 1/2 point score for black, if going to add 1 point minor victory conditions.  Have a win worth 2 points (this is 2 points for a win, if the following are done below).  
b. Get rid of checkmate and replace it with capturing the king.  This means no more stalemate. If you do want to play with stalemate and checkmate, then a stalemate is worth 1/2 point for the player who stalemated their opponent.
c. Count barring the king as a 1 point victory (1/2 point for draw).

In other words, add a minor victory condition.

As for the stale opening book, use pocket pieces with a variable mix of pieces (drops and gating to get them on) and shuffles.  

I believe if you do this, then both the beginning and end game issues with chess will be resolved.

You can see these ideas expanded upon here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=19128

By the way, is there any reason why the variant community should NOT consider implementing some standardized anti-draw procedures between all their games?  Consider what I stated above, for example.  Why not have it so that a variant will NEVER run into draw issues, no matter how much it is played out.  Also consider what was stated above also as a standard way to address all these issues to.  Such standard way can be deviated from, if shown to be otherwise.  But I would suggest people NOT have hubris in believing that a variant is so great, that it will NEVER face draw issues.

Here is my take on stale openings and the issues of draws with chess.
1. Chess has multiple issues.  Draws are one.  Another is stale opening
lines, that have pushed out innovation further in the game, making it less
appealing.
2. I believe we should stop with this proposing that every single proposed
rule change be a new version of chess.  Can we have a category called
'sub-variant' or something else, for things like Braves' Chess?  Such
things that Braves Chess attempts to do is important.  It needs to be
something experimented with as a sub-variant, mutator, or whatever else we
want to call it.  It is an end-game fix mutation.  Maybe call it a patch.
3. I like a bit what is done here, but my take on the end game drawishness
would be several things (well, besides ending drawishness, at least having
a draw still count as something that gets a player some points):
a. Get rid of draws have a score of 1/2 - 1/2.  Have it worth zero points
or have it so that it is a 1/2 point score for black.  Have a win worth 2 points (this is 2 points for a win, if the following are done below, otherwise a win is 1 point).  Given the below rules, here will be very few games where a situation would arise that a chess match is not advanced.  
b. Get rid of checkmate and replace it with capturing the king.  This
means no more stalemate. If you do want to play with stalemate and
checkmate, then a stalemate is worth 1 point for the player who
stalemated their opponent.
c. Count 3 move check repetition as a 1 point (minor) victory for the
player who checks their opponent's king 3 times.
d. In event of of a 3 move repetition on a rare chance that it is mutual
checking back and forth, that would end up counting as a victory for the
first player to get the 3 checks in at the same time, and it is worth 1/2 point.  
e. In the event of a 3 move repetition where neither side checks the other
king, the player who goes second to cause a third move repetition would end
up losing, awarding their opponent 1/2 points.   
f. Count barring the king as a 1 point victory.

In other words, add multiple levels of victory condition with different
points.

As for the stale opening book, use pocket pieces that could vary game to
game, and they would get on the board by means of drops and gating. Drops
could be used before the game in a set up zone, or later in the game into
a set-up zone (drops and gating to get them on).  Later in the game, both
gating and drops could be used.  For preset pieces on the board, you would
use a shuffle.  The default shuffle is the 960 version found in Fisher
Random Chess.  

I believe if you do this, then both the beginning and end game issues with
chess will be resolved.  Please comment here.

Over 60% of chess tournaments are ending in draws on the highest level. 
That looks like a problem to me.

One thing I would suggest here is...

STOP POSTING AN IDEA OR THREE TOGETHER TO FIX THE STALE OPENING OR DRAWISH ENDGAME AS A NEW GAME (or game variant)!

Ok, I said it.  If there is one thing, and only one thing that I would ask people to agree to on this subject, is that there come up with two lists: One for how to mix up the openings, and another to reduce draws.  Have these as a codified list of some sort (call them mutators).  Players playing a variant can agree to which of these can be used between them, and people play them. This goes from shuffles to gating for openings to no more stalemate, barring the king, etc... for the end game.  Let people pick and choose from the list and see.  Play a LOT of games to see what works, and perhaps come up with a values for the end game conditions to be worth.

My take on all this variant talk is there is far too much proposing and not enough testing for what works.  So, everyone has what they think is a brilliant idea, and it is tossed into a pile with a bunch of others, not tested to see if it works or not.

And then, you have another camp, even among variants people who say everything is just jim dandy, eventhough these things people think are ok with chess now, weren't in there prior to the mad queen.  Things I suggested about barring the king, and getting rid of stalemate were actually reverting back to pre-mad queen days.  These elements were considered minor victories back then.  But, when the mad queen got introduced, everyone thought chess was so fantastic, they decide to go with stalemate and also get rid of barring the king because 'it is not needed' because people saw the firepower and thought that 

Look at the rules to Shatranj, what chess was before the mad queen, if you don't believe me:
http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/shatranj.html

# Stalemate counts as a win.
# Bare King counts as a win, provided that your King cannot be bared on the very next move. (See below.)

Again, if you want to do deal with issues, how about going pre-mad queen chess and bringing things back?  For those who suggest what I said is to radical, what can I say here except maybe people have been conditioned by habit.  I don't think being conditioned by habit is a think a person who is into variants should use to justify why something is.  Such talk is like a local Speed Chess club I know, lamenting that Speed Chess wasn't taken seriously, why they managed to frown upon anything else.

Sofia rule, which you wrote of, apparently reduced the number of draws by
less than 5%:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4553

My question is, even if the number of draws ends up being 45-50% why is
this still acceptable?

Ok, looks like we are building up a list of issues chess faces.  Let's review thus far:
1. Stale openings
2. Drawishness
3. Computers outthinking humans.

How about we also look at other issues relating to this?  Like some of these isses:
4. Chess is boring people who don't know it and not getting their interest.  It is facing a growth problem, and it doesn't captivate non-chess players.  Pretty much the world outside the chess world knows what chess is but doesn't care about it.  It faces an issue with getting youths interested, with it using 'education' as a supposed hook to get tax dollars spent on it.  Yes, it is pitched as some form of getting smarter, that you want to get your kids into.  It isn't a fun thing in its own right, but is something that is supposed to fix schools and improve science scores.  Yes, chess has gotten into the 'infotainment' business, because it isn't captivating based on its own merits (had it been done right, it could do that).  
5. You can also add to the mix here that chess ends up being people playing the game, rather than playing the player.  Well, if they are playing the player, people don't see this.  People see chess as something they want to master, rather than a battlefield where they can demonstrate they master their opponent.  Games like poker, which get on TV have player vs player to them.  Chess is more like player vs board.  Only when it was Fischer vs the Russian Chess Machine (Bobby as defender of the free world), did people care outside of chess, and chess popularity exploded, bring a flock of new players to the game.  When something gets like this, it generates new players (for example, number of poker players has doubled since the pocket cam entered into poker programming in North America).  
6. Can you also add to the mix that no one has figured out how to make chess sustainable on TV either? 
7. Political infighting.

Can we sum up by just saying that chess in its current state is stale?  That is an issue that encompasses a lot, and leads to a lot of political infighting.  And those who say, eventhough people still do footraces while there are cars and trains, physical or not, if no one outside of those involved cares or is interested, then what?  Sure, a computer can solve Sudoku puzzles faster than a human.  Humans still can play it.  People like Sudoku, so the whole computer beats humans isn't that important of an issue.

It is a state of staleness that produces 60% draws on the highest level and squabbling over a few percentages getting it down (aka, thinking Sofia's rule is the answer, and thinking that your scoring system that rewards players drawing will suddenly cause players not to game it and draw less).  It is shooting down just about every idea, and resting on your laurels thinking the next Bobby Fischer will show up to save the day.  It is also saying, 'What is wrong with 60% draws?  So long as it isn't early offering of draws and they are 'fought out' that is ok'.'  In other words, things are the way they are, handed down by the divine, so let's not question it at all.  If such is a reason for things being stale, who is each person to question it?  

It is thinking in the area of intellectual competition, you have no other peers (nevermind that Go and other games will be making inroads, and kids play real-time strategy games).  It is then whining you don't get the respect you deserve, because you think your being around so long means you will remain forever.  And it is being upset at 'mindless' poker getting the attention and money instead of chess. 

I would say the issues of chess are just a TAD larger than whether or not there is a draw issue, or the opening book is stale.  The variant community could actually help to fix a lot of these issues, if it was allowed into the conversation, and if it believed it could actually help to fix things.  The variant community, working towards this end could help to revive chess, in multiple forms, making things exciting again.  But, if things are going to be just a bunch of artists on separate islands passing notes in a bottle, then we may not see much going on.  Not to say that this is the case, but it is easy to end up keeping to oneself, and one's own ideas.  I know this from personal experience.

Just my two cents.  And if you think it is worth less than that, well that is your choice :-)