[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by RichardHutnik
As part of my endless long shot ideas, one I have is to create a viable market for chess variant pieces. To this end, I am working on a system that will bring together the world of Chess variants, into one system, in order to be able to get pieces to the market. To this end, I am going to be sharing ideas I have about the system, and will welcome feedback. I am currently playtesting it, and can give input.
I will put videos up on my YouTube channel into this, and will welcome feedback.
You can see my video here on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sVjB886_pw
I have been playing around with a Checker piece and the cannon recently, and also different boards.
DUAL RING Tournament Format. Tournament format for handling uneven number of players.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]By the way, I did a YouTube video on my channel, looking at this format. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOAt9EuIJ9E
Pardon me if anyone else may of posted this, but anyone ever check this channel out on YouTube? https://www.youtube.com/user/AncientChess
Eurasian Pawn piece. A hybrid European and Asian Pawn.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jeremy, that is pretty much correct. It is taking a FIDE Chess Pawn and allowing it to capture a piece in front of it. In some games, the Pawn would only be allowed to advance one space forward. There is no lateral movement, either to move or to capture. A key board I see the pawn being used would be in cases of the Simplified Chess board, or any board where you want to secure an area in front of pawns, without giving them added mobility.
George, thank you for the article, as it would be worth reading more on, to do research. In regards to splitting the 6 movement in any way, I am not sure that is a good idea. I believe it mutes clarity, which you talked about.
I did a blog post on this: http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/34884/logical-hex-chess The basic point is that I don't believe that normal attempts at having a chess game on a hex space are logical. I believe, to make sense on a hex board, in order to not have weird knights and bishops that become leapers, pieces are restricted to these core move types: - Move one space adjacent. - Move in a straight line a number of spaces, without changing direction, capturing an enemy piece or being blocked by a friendly piece, or stopping. A piece would be able to move in 6 directions, one per side. - Leaping in a line one or more pieces, ignoring occupied spaces. A piece would leap in one of six directions. Pieces can be formed out of a combination of these move types. Anyhow, I would be interested in discussing this further. Please comment below. I am thinking of working on my own hexagonal chess variant, after observing a Chinese Checkers board (particularly the inside part that isn't the bases), is sufficiently large to support a number of games. Thank you for your time...
My understanding about this category I mentioned here, is a version of the Method is used with the likes of Squad Leader, in picking scenarios. What I add with the Limited Dutch Offer is another turn where traps can be removed from play. The idea is the same for both. One could also decide to do this for a single round play of one game, with a pool of variants. One person could pick a chess variant for both to play in the tournament, and the other person then picks what side to play. They could also go and do an adjustment to the board (both sides), and the initial player who picked the variant picks both sides. Another way to handle this is to have a player propose draw advantage to one side, and an adjustment in other things like time to play, and so on.
I wanted to get some feedback on this. Christian Freeling coined the term "Marquisian Method" which I had also previously called "Limited Dutch Offer" (Dutch Offer being a take on a Dutch Auction), but now means something a bit different. For myself, I came across this trying to figure out best way to balance A Few Acres of Snow. With the Marquisian Method, one player sets up both sides of a game likes chess, and the opponent picks one side to play. I now have the Limited Dutch Offer to be an extended version of the Method, by having it that a player can either pick one of the two sides the way they are set up, or rearrange one of the two sides and pass the choice back to the player who initially set up the board. Reason for the Limited Dutch Offer approach is to minimize the chance of trap positions being created, where a player who knows a position real well, could end up setting up a trap they can win. The Marquisian Method, which has its origins in Checkers, came about exactly like this. Anyone every try this, or want to, or have any thoughts to add?
Eurasian Pawn piece. A hybrid European and Asian Pawn.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The idea is to add another way to control area on the board, while preserving pawn structure, or making pawn structure able to be broken (as opposed to other approaches to give the pawn lateral movement). Maybe it has very limited usage, but it is there for consideration. My feeling is a board with an odd number of rows could benefit from it.
I had some comments and questions here: * Is the reason for no leapers clarity? * Do you have Zillions? If not, consider getting it and implementing it in Zillions to see how both sides play. * Once you feel more secure about the design, consider having it as a game entry on the CV site, rather than just a post like this. * Consider getting it up on Game Courier on the CV site, so you can have people to playtest it with.
What I believe is an important thing to keep in mind, when looking at solutions, is to realize that solutions don't always fit every context. What I wrote about here doesn't guarantee to fit everything, but I do believe it can fit a number of places. In regards to what is discussed here, I hope what is described can be recognized at least as a skill players can develop and test. This skill is the ability to evaluate and create situations that work to their advantage. The pie rule approach ends up providing a means to have this happen in, in a way that would be in control of players. Ok, let's apply the pie rule idea I have, modified, towards your game, For the Crown. As it is now, players would randomize what cards they have in the game. How about we consider the following: One player gives a list of X number of cards they don't want to see used. The other player then comes up with the cards they want the game configured, and the other player then picks what side they want to be. Idea here is you end up thinning down things and try to reach a state that is agreeable to both players to play, even if it would give one player an advantage. As for said to hand the problem off to other people to solve, I believe a solution is superior if it is fluid and adjust, rather than a fixed solution. In short, if the solution is a framework able to handle what players do, it is superior. Again, to sum up, there are often multiple solutions for play balancing. Here I list a number of them: http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/9808/are-balanced-sides-have-same-chance-of-winning-rea * Have players bid for sides, using the bidding as a mechanism to give the weaker sides and advantage, or handicap the stronger side. This bidding is a game unto itself of sorts, and challenges players to evaluate sides. * Have players play all sides and evaluate the differences in how the sides were played. * Play the game teams and use a duplicate format. In games with luck, like cardgames like Bridge on a tournament level, to account for the inherit unfairness of the luck, they use a duplicate format where the same conditions pass around and players play them all and they are evaluated. Unlike the last idea, where individuals play all sides, this is done team style. * Fixed handicapping of one side, by giving it less resources or time to play, or one side to count a draw as a minor victory. * Use the pie rule. In this option, one player configures the game conditions and the other player(s) then pick what side they want to play. This also provides a game of sorts, where you try to figure out what would be fairest in set up, and then decide what is the best options.
As it is now, draws are draws. People thought maybe to evaluate positions and value of pieces left or material captured as a tiebreaking mechanism. But now, it isn't that. One way that might be best, if wanted secondary scoring, is to go with time on clock left, with player with more time after draw state is left, meeting the secondary win condition.
The balancing I am referring to is offsetting weaknesses intrinsic in a side in a game, NOT the skill level of the players. The approach is to give the players an abilities to adjust the game configuration so it is more fair, in a way that requires a player to factor things in. Because the approach requires multiple rounds to be played, both players have a chance to try to balance things. That is the idea here, not as some sort of handicapping.
If a game is faced with uncertainty in knowing what side has an advantage, and the only way to evaluate is based on skill of the players in the game, why not turn this aspect into a game element itself? Why is there a problem with having a game more clearly differentiate between the two players in the game, in a way that is measured by skill, as opposed to luck?
Why I disagree here is this: The pie rule drives someone to make the pie slices as even as possible, which is what you want to do when trying to balance. It isn't a solution to guarantee there will be balance, BUT it does make for a game within a game, that makes trying more interesting.
This was discussed and put up on Boardgame Geek, as a game to demonstrate the concept. The game is: Heraclitus: The Meta Game. Rules are here: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/123658/heraclitus-the-meta-game The heart of the concept is this. A version of the pie rule is applied. One player sets up the game, with possibly unbalanced sides, and list of mutators and so on, and the player's opponent decides what side to play. Multiple rounds could go on, with each side being the one who sets up initial conditions and rules for what mutators are in effect and so on.
Draw costing both sides .5 point can work if playing with a larger pool of players. If it comes down to the final two players playing for points, or like in the world championship, it isn't going to gain much doing this.
Basic idea is this. One player feels the game is going to end in a draw, so they grab draw rights. If the game ends in a draw, or they win, they get half the points they normally wound for a win (their opponent gets none). If their opponent actually wins the game after doing this, their opponent gets 1.5 points for the win (and the player who grabbed draw rights gets nothing). You do not want to grab draw rights if there is a chance to win, because you cost yourself half your normal score, plus give your opponent more points if they win.+
Original post edited. Apparently I meant to add that in the revised scoring no points would be scored if a player lost, but messed it up somehow.
I wish the subject header could be longer, to be able to label this properly. Anyhow, the basic idea here came out of pondering a game situation where a player isn't able to win by normal means. In short, they see a game is heading towards a draw. Pondering this, I came up with an idea, which is simplified below: Assume that normal FIDE Chess scoring applies initially. A player would normally score 1 point for a win and 1/2 point for a draw (none for a loss). The idea for the tweak is that a player, if they feel that they won't win, but game will go for a draw state, is to end up (at the end of the turn) declare that they see this first. At this point, the scoring in the game would be that if the player declaring this wins or draws, they get 1/2 point. If they lose the game, their opponent gets 1 1/2 points. One can also give one player a 1/10 point advantage for a draw (their opponent gets none), before some player declares this. The idea here is to accommodate what is normally a draw in a game, in a way that is interesting. I am up for discussions of any tweaks for this. An idea I had (to complicate things) is that a player could vary what it is worth (in 1/10 increments) for a draw. Comments are welcomed here.
Goodchess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I notice the board layout. I had done Near Chess awhile back based on that. I found out that Skirmish Chess done before on here that followed that. I was wondering if the idea for the layout came from either of these, or were your own idea.
Corner Chess. Two or four player chess variant on 8 by 8 board with pieces starting in the corners. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have pondered how the heck to do a 3 player variant that works on an 8x8 board that would be also fair.
Connect Shoot Kill
. A mix of dots and boxes with chess pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I found the link worked, but the email address bounced. I tried to send this as a message: I am a bit confused about the set up regarding Connect Shoot Kill. Is the only set up available the print out? If so, then I was curious what the role of the Joker and Wizard are. Second, I see that the game is on Boardgame Geek: boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12563/connect-capture I don't see a link to the rules page you have up. I was thinking you may want to update that entry with a link to your blogspot site. Lastly, in trying to understand the game rules, I thought of maybe an idea for a variant that would be doable using chess set that might work (needs to be tweaked). Have players have their own set. Once they create a box, they put one of their pieces in and can kill opponent's pieces that are on the board as they place it, along the lines of what you had. Pardon me if your rules are close to this, and it is spelled out.
Jeremy, please get For the Crown on here, if it isn't yet. Also, PLEASE get blank counters and cards available, and let's get a user community chatting about the game. I want it to succeed. For the Crown has a lot of potential behind it. I would also suggest a variant to address concerns some may have about the randomization of units and actions through shuffling. Consider the variant where discard deck is flipped over once played through and not shuffled. Players could also initially stack their own decks, if they preferred.
Simpleton's Chess. This is an even simplier version of Simplified Chess. (7x8, Cells: 56) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I don't see the complexity of this being more complicated than Checkers/Draughts personally.
Test msg... ignore. Seeing if there is an issue with the database.
I found this article on WhyChess.org , which should be relevant to the variant community: http://www.whychess.org/node/324 I had felt that the chess community would benefit, if it took variants more seriously to deal with the issues it has faced with chess. Well, it looks like they are going for the idea of reducing the clock, and the variant community is getting locked out yet again from being taken seriously. Anyhow, give some thought here to this. It would be of benefit if variants could go more mainstream.
Ok, no problem. Is there an entry on here for For the Crown yet? I know of a few Navia players who I can let them know about the game.
The heart of deck-building games, is that they get expansions. Jeremy, please see if you can get the community here involved, and also get the word out to the Navia community to, who still has an interest in the game.
I just saw this game on Boardgame Geek. With there being a deck building game genre craze going on, that is starting to rival Trading Card Games, For the Crown makes an appearance. It looks like chess meets the deck building game genre. Might be shaping up to be to the deck building genre, what Navia was to collectible card games. Here is more info on it: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/97512/for-the-crown
Vox Populi Chess variant. A crowd plays itself at a game with only one winner.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]As has been noted, this format has gone through revisions. In the most recent form, which is for Connect Four (Captain's Mistress), it goes under the name 'Massive Multiplayer ________' and you stick the name of the abstract strategy game in there. Some other tweaks also have been done: * In play, there isn't scoring, just trying to be on the winning side. * When it is your team's turn to vote on a move, you vote. * When it isn't your team's turn, you can choose to defect to the other team. There is an options to limit the number of times you can defect, with the current preferred number of defections to be one. * If all players defect from one team, they all lose, and the game is over. * Run digitally, it would be idea to keep players anonymous, so no one knows who is whose team, or even the number of players on their team. As an added note, this format could be used in scientific research to study loyalty and defection patterns among team members, and you add or remove elements from the environment to see how it impacts the loyalty of players in the game.
Universal Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would propose adding the Eurasian Pawn in here two. At least cover the full range of pawns, and note them, as a discussion point. During play of this variant, ground rules can be added for what is in and out. For example, I would say NO to a Eurasian pawn on an 8x8 board. Ok, the Eurasian pawn: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSeurasianpawnpi One options for pawns is to have one (or a few base) picture of them, and then stick dots or Xs around it to signify how it moves and captures. I know a pawnrider would likely both be silly and hard to notate.
Henry VIII Chess. This is a hybrid capture king-losing chess variant. (7x8, Cells: 56) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The idea for this game came out of another game mentioned on Scheming Mind. I thought it would be interesting to change their approach to all Queens, and see how it went. It apparently went pretty well with my playing it on Zillions. It ends up being an interesting twist on misere' games. Yes, it likely can be better. Feel free to come up with something better. When I do a game design, part of it is an inspiration for others to improve upon it. Or, I will stumble across something also I feel is worth looking into.
Hasami Shogi. Popular Japanese game, playable with Shogi set. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I am curious about this. Is this game a chess variant?
Bungie, the makers of Halo, announced today a new multiplayer mode for Halo: Reach. That mode is CHESS! See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS7V9SbBvRA I know, the date and all that, but I think they should throw it in there.
On a 10x10 with the Eurasian Pawn, where do you suggest the pawns set up, on the second or third row? I personally would like to say EITHER and add the concept of multiple formations into the NextChess, so that we don't develop stale opening books, while also not falling into having erratic set up of shuffle. I would say also players would be free to set up their lines of pawns on either the second or third pawn, but restrict things.
Chafl. combines Chess with Tafl. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think it would be interesting if more games cominging Tafl with Chess are proposed and played. I had done this earlier with TaflChess: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MStaflchess TaflChess is a lot closer to regular chess than this.
Movie about Bobby Fischer in the works. The current working name for the film is 'Pawn Sacrifice'. Toby Maguire set to play Booby Fischer. Info here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596345/
IGGameCenter also has Russian Chess (Tavreli) on it also, and we are tracking the results.
Hello everyone. IAGO now has a multi-site leaderboard up that we are still testing and adding features to. You can see it here: http://leaderboard.IAGOWeb.com We would be up for people visiting the site, and signing up. I would also be interested in seeing CV play.chessvariants.org games get on there sometime, so we can add the results here to. Currently a few games in the chess/chess variant family are up: FIDE Chess, Shogi, Grand Chess, and Shatranj . I would be up for a lot more. Anyhow, if interested, please post and say you are. Also, feel free to sign up and follow these directions: http://iagoweb.com/wiki/docs/associations The way the system works is that a partner site sends an RSS feed out of the game results. IAGO picks it up, and compiles the data. People who sign up get their game stats and see how they compare against other players who also sign up (Elo). The system allows one rating board for multiple game sites.
Check out this Internet Meme: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/roller-coaster-chess People playing chess on a roller coaster. It looks like it has been holding steady since 2007 as far as Internet activity goes.
Thanks. We are looking for a rating involving multiple games that rewards players playing multiple games, for the IAGOweb.com website.
Joe, does that rate people playing ALL variants of chess under one rating or has a unique rating for each game? I assume that it is for the former.
Does the CV site here rate players across a range of chess variants so it is able to determine who the strongest player is at chess variants in general? If so, I am curious how. I was looking for a way that you could have an ELO-type system that would factor the strength of a player across multiple chess variants (or other games), rewarding stronger play over a range of games, as opposed to someone dedicating to a few. Any ideas on how to do this, or how the CV site does?
The Fair First Move Rule in Chess. Every turn you flip a coin to see who goes first.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I am not really a fan of this variant, as I feel it adds too much randomness to chess. However, I believe if you get rid of check/checkmate, and replace it with capturing the enemy king, there isn't an issue with check.
A few comments (I had been out of action trying to get a new laptop set up): 1. In regards to invention, I believe it is one of the strengths of the variant community, and provides both an outlet for designers and also a way for chess variants not to get boring. My concern with them is that each one ends up being its own path, and doesn't lend anything to the collective experience of playing variants, outside of just another game to play. I would like the experiences to be able to mingle among one another and for the variant design, in some framework, to enable one design to be built off of another, and that to continue to evolve, and what is learned to be able to be reused. Yes, we can do that to some extent now, but we have issues with naming conventions and the like, which make it more difficult. 1a. I have a vested interest in seeing the chess variant community produce champions at various games, which we could help use to promote variants. I speak from the perspective of a sports federation when I say this. And I write this also, in that I would like to see IAGO to be able to recognize and stand behind the conventions the variant community came up with for the pieces and the like. 2. Chess on a 12 by 12 board looks like Warmaster Chess 2000. Please let me know how it isn't the same. Here is word on Warmaster: http://blog.chess.com/RooksBailey/chess-crusade-warmaster-chess-and-no-chess 3. FastChess? We talking about a Speed/Blitz chess as the game in question? I am of the belief also (I say also if Speed/Blitz is what is meant by FastChess) the chess community is deciding to speed up the clock to solve all its ills. And it does resolve a lot of the issues it has, regarding openings, draws, and making the game more interesting to watch. Unless the variant community gets together and comes up with some way to showcase itself more to the world, and get interest, there is a definite interest in locking out the variant community, saying it doesn't bring anything to the table but distraction. I would rather not see that happen. 4. I don't believe you will get anything to replace 8x8 unless the physical boards become more readily available. That is how it works. And I wouldn't expect 9x9 to be it either, as that totally disrupts normal chess. It also brings back visions of the chess variant with 2 queens aside and the bishops on the same colors.
A possible approach to this is what I mentioned in the NextChess4 thread: How about having a tournament where the winner then picks what game will be played the following year, and players compete, and the player returns the following year to defend their title? A proviso would be the player can't pick one of their own designs as the game to defend their title against. I believe this format would touch on a lot of what was discussed in this thread. Of course, we should look towards refining the concept, and take it from there. A variant on this last point is, rather than it be an annual tournament, you run an ongoing series of tournaments, and keep playing the same game until someone different wins. They then would end up picking a different game, and is one they didn't design. I would recommend here that the winner of the prior tournament doesn't have to play in the qualifier. Anyhow, I believe you also come up with an agreed to list of games that would be candidates to be played and can be picked by the winner of the tournament.
Hello again Fergus. Please understand the position I am coming from. As much as I would like chess variants to be light and casual things, I am involved with a non-profit who is trying to not only represent the interest of players and designers, but also publishers, schools, and everyone else. The interest is to get increased interest by the media, so that we can get more resources so we can do more, and get more of the world to notice, and get variants here greater attention. I do have an interest to get a magazine on the newsstands that would promote chess variants. Throw in also a TV show, or cable network that has room for variants, and I believe we could be onto something. Anyhow, on the note for a tournament format to promote chess variants, I will propose the following as a starting point: * How about having a tournament where the winner then picks what game will be played the following year, and players compete, and the player returns the following year to defend their title? A proviso would be the player can't pick one of their own designs as the game to defend their title against. I believe this format would touch on a lot of what was discussed in this thread. Of course, we should look towards refining the concept, and take it from there. A variant on this last point is, rather than it be an annual tournament, you run an ongoing series of tournaments, and keep playing the same game until someone different wins. They then would end up picking a different game, and is one they didn't design. I would recommend here that the winner of the prior tournament doesn't have to play in the qualifier Please let me know your thoughts on this (This goes to everyone, not just Fergus).
Fergus, let me clarify a bit on my 'dead end' comment: 1. Dead end means that the game itself, if merely a creation of a designer (and held as such) won't have much in the way of modification. 2. For there to be sufficient play to test a game out, and feedback from a game community on it (and them adjusting accordingly), the game won't build much of a following behind it. The community is what gives a game life, and lends to its promotion and it being 'evangelized' to get other players. It take a community to keep a game alive. They need to feel ownership over the game, or least be a stakeholder in it. Chess and other of the more know abstract strategy games have this. The smaller variants, most of which are on here (and not the major ones) don't. So, what I am saying is there needs to be a community behind a game caring about its growth, to take off. And I was suggesting in what I stated that maybe we can do a crowdsourcing version of chess, to see what may develop.
Hello Fergus. I think it would be useful to clarify a bit of what I was
speaking about here:
1. My use of 'art' is meant to be in contrast to that of 'science'. In
one sense 'art' and 'craft' were put next to each other. You can take
what I said to speak about something created that can be admired for its
quality and stand alone.
2. While I can understand and appreciate designer's works standing alone,
as a fine piece of work, I am also of the belief games are designed to be
played, and not just put in some museum somewhere. Because of this, I
believe there needs to be a dialog between the designer and players of
games, to make sure what comes about is played. We can continue to follow
the old path of 'monkeys at the typewriter' spitting out more and more
works, and hope one sticks, with each game is its own and end of
discussion. But I believe for a game to grow, it needs a community of
players behind it. To this end, the community needs to feel as they are
part owners over the game, and have input. You can see examples of this
involvement in 'crowdsourcing':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing
Part of the reason for FIDE Chess being what it is, is that a community
adopted the game, and how it developed wasn't from one person, but a
community that played it and codified the rules. I know designers wish
they could create stand-alone games that would get the same degree of
reverence FIDE Chess has. But I believe, unless a community feels the game
is their game, it isn't going to happen.
3. As for the effectiveness of the stand-alone game method, I can refer to
what you wrote in the original NextChess thread goes into the problems we
face with the current approach:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=NextChess
As for 'why not just have a collection of variants like we have now,
and no do some NextChess'. Well, how is this working?
Let me answer this...:
Equipment Availability
Good.
My comment: Availability I would rate actually as poor. One can
theoretically make their own equipment for everything. However, that
doesn't mean that equipment is readily available. Most games are given as
gifts to other people. If giving gifts is the criterion of availability,
how exactly can we rate equipment availability as good? Take the example
of Games Magazine in its Games 100 lists. They list chess variants, and
tell people about Grand Chess. People get interested. Ok, now where do
they get the board and pieces? They don't. They have to make them.
Player Interest
Poor. Some variants have fairly large followings and most don't. I'm sure
it is also that way with card games, for which most everyone already has
the equipment. Most people are simply interested in playing the same games
everyone else already knows how to play. In most places around the world,
it will be easy to find someone else who plays Chess, but probably next to
impossible to find someone who plays your favorite variants. Naturally, the
promotion of Chess variants helps, but I don't know what promotion of some
kind of meta-game would do in addition to this.
4. We have some practical reasons to get NextChess to function. We need to
have it so that we can make it commercially viable to supply equipment for.
Despite people saying 'Let's just be digital' such doesn't have the
same degree of accessibility through physical equipment to have things take
off. And unlike cardgames, we DON'T have equipment readily available at
all. Like, how about going out and getting a 10x10 chess board in North
America? Sorry, not easily doable.I am bringing this up to get some ideas here. The discussion on NextChess had me wondering if we can come up with some format for having people play stand-alone chess variants, but them linking together. Call it 'Pick your Poison'. In this format, a player would challenge another player, and one of the players would then pick a variant to play, and somehow it consist of a selection of possible games to play. I am not sure how this format is determined. Maybe players have a preferred list of games played, and the overlap is what they play. Basic idea is to come up with a way for players to have the freedom to play what they way, games to retain their own unique flavor, but also we have an standard way for establish ratings over a season, in a certain format. Please give some thoughts to the best way to run 'Pick Your Poison' (or please come up with a better name here). Consider it as a way to get my wish of there be a world champion at chess variants overall.
Fergus, I do appreciate what you are saying as each game being a standalone game with its own flavor, and arguably each one being a 'work of art' in its own right. My concern about this is that it makes each game a deadend that can't be picked up and tweaked the way Chess has to spawn variants. The community doesn't end up owning the game and collectively tweaking it to its wishes. It is a take it or leave it, which ends up resulting in a bunch of games that have their own followings, but not enough to reach a critical mass to support mass adoption. There is also egos at stake where one designer or another jockeys for position to have their game as 'the next chess'. I have dealt with such individuals on the commercial level, who have staked their financial lives on it, and it isn't pretty. I could name multiple of them, and then ask if any of their games have a following here. I don't see it. I believe in an earlier NextChess discussion, we saw limitations on a select game being picked. So, let me amend what I said by saying we should have room for preferred configurations, and also games as stand alone, but I also believe we should have some form (or several forms) that allow the community to give feedback and we evolve a design we can get enough people to play that has a critical mass behind it that it could get adopted and we get some neat byproducts of this, like commercial equipment being made to be able to play (you finally get variant pieces... YIPPIE). In a nutshell, can we have both what you want (each game as a work of art unto itself) and also something we can evolve as a community, that can borrow from all over? Maybe have a third way also of an Athlon format where, over a given year, a set number of the established games are the pool that is played, and we push for a championship over that format. Let's do everything I say, rather than either or.
In regards to the question about 'NextChess' (if this is the name we are agreeing to, or 'Next Chess', that is fine, and doesn't look taken), may I suggest there be a focus on HOW it will come about, addressing the issues we would like to see dealt with, and not just WHAT? Like, what do we all want 'NextChess' to be like? What do we want in it to have? What do we find appealing about variants, and what can we distill from them? And can we have a game that isn't static, but one that can evolve so it remains fresh? You can look at what I have written before, and what I have proposed as variants, so you can get some idea what I am interested in, from mutators, to a range of formations, to a classification system for handling a range of variant types, in terms of complexity and stability.
Do you have a 'Eurasian Pawn' (if not that, one under another name)? It moves forward one space, but may capture one space forward, or either space in front of it diagonally. There is an option with it where it may move either one or two spaces forward as its first move (option depends on player and game conditions)
Capablanca's chess. An enlarged chess variant, proposed by Capablanca. (10x8, Cells: 80) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe, I have no idea what short-range pieces would do, or the impact of this new configuration I proposed. It is more of an observation than anything else.
Mats, I was posting an observation I noticed, and requesting feedback on it. I was not trying to critique any other variant of the game suggestions people have for the game itself, like what you suggested.
I know in discussion of Capablanca and other games in the Knight+Rook and Knight+Bishop family of variants, there is concern over uncovered pawns. I happened to just look at the Capablanca arrangement and was curious if anyone else might of tried to do the following: Swap the positions of the King's Knight and the Chancellor. When I did this, it looks like the initial position of every pawn is covered in the game, and there are no uncovered pawns. Anyone else ever play with this? I know the Chancellor and Archbishop don't have the same symmetry, but it appears there isn't a problem with uncovered pawns. So, what we had as the original position: White: King f1; Queen e1; Archbishop c1; Chancellor h1; Rook a1, j1; Knight b1, i1; Bishop d1, g1; Pawn a2, b2, c2, d2, e2, f2, g2, h2, i2, j2. Black: King f8; Queen e8; Archbishop c8; Chancellor h8; Rook a8, j8; Knight b8, i8; Bishop d8, g8; Pawn a7, b7, c7, d7, e7, f7, g7, h7, i7, j7. Becomes... White: King f1; Queen e1; Archbishop c1; Chancellor i1; Rook a1, j1; Knight b1, h1; Bishop d1, g1; Pawn a2, b2, c2, d2, e2, f2, g2, h2, i2, j2. Black: King f8; Queen e8; Archbishop c8; Chancellor i8; Rook a8, j8; Knight b8, h8; Bishop d8, g8; Pawn a7, b7, c7, d7, e7, f7, g7, h7, i7, j7.
10 Minute Melee. Score as many points during 10 minutes of time with regular chessset. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Another, more mild, variant that comes to mind would be that the capture piece goes back to its start space (only one pawn per column) instead of anywhere.
Multiple Formations. A proposal to add a set of formations to Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George, thanks for the clarification. When I did this entry, I didn't see Basic Chess: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MLbasicchess I am also seeing 'Universal Chess' has been added on here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSuniversalchess
Basic Chess. Variable baseline chess without drawing lots. Restrict Rooks to a and h files, and King to d or e files.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]With my suggestions of 'Multiple Formations' and 'IAGO Chess System' and also this and Universal Chess (http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSuniversalchess), I believe we are having things advance into a way to integrate variants together for play (my hope is in tournament format). I am in favor of having Multiple Formations adopt the rules to this for the formation where everything starts in the back row(s), while the pieces starting in the second row(s) would follow what is in Multiple Formations. Keep up the good work everyone. Hopefully we can get something going.
Universal Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Looks like a good continuation of the study on how to integrate variants into a single system that can be played. I hope more work can be done. Thank you for the contribution.
Multiple Formations. A proposal to add a set of formations to Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George, which entry you referring to? Maybe we can get some synergy involved here.
Ok, I updated Mr. Smiths Wiki entry. Please add others here: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/drafting-page
An entry as a 'variant' on the CV site, is found here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSmultipleformat Please continue discussions there.
65 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
This is a companion playlist for the project:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSzS_W_Z66v3ijlwh1ak0M8UrDaHnyT1R
I will be looking at Chess variants and other way warfare gets abstracted in games. The focus now is on integrating Chess variants.
And this is my guild/club/group for the project also:
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/guild/2777