Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

There was already Schrödinger's Chess. https://github.com/dittmar/schrodingers_chess

Compare to David Howe's Potential Chess.

I agree with Florin, about both this game's potential and its name.

Perhaps it could be called Schrödinger's Chess?

It's a shame that great ideas are buried and forgotten. This game has a great potential and I'm really impressed by such a simple idea. 

Also, this game deserves a better name. 

Panos Louridas, the inventor of this chess variant has a website with explanations and description of Bario:

https://www.bario-chess-checkers-chessphotography-spaceart.de 

This looks really an exciting idea. Did you consider to add Fairy pieces to the mix?

Hmm.  I think that Bario does screw with piece dynamics, although a queen is still very valuable in the endgame.  Having now had a chance to play this physically, I agree that it is very fun, and that it stretches the mind in ways that normal chess doesn't (In particular, making sure not to trigger a recycle while your opponent has a realized piece that, once virtual, could immediately capture your king).  I'm not sure about barionic, I might try it out if there's a zrf.

By the way, this info page should be updated in light of the comment below which claims to have located the relevant article.

An awkward aspect of Bario is that a rook and a bishop becomes much stronger than a queen, due to the movement choice he has when the pieces are in potential state. It wrecks the relation between the pieces. If you play well and gain material, it might turn out that the opponent is stronger anyway. But it could be fun. That's why I said that it was for entertainment, not serious chess.

In Barion Zillions plays much better, that's the point. Probably it lacks those unfair characteristics of Bario. Whether it's a good variant I don't remember. It's from 2006.
/Mats

If it's my implementation you have used, it is very lousy and should be reworked. The code is too heavy and slows the program down. Nor does it follow the initial rules exactly. But I never got around to it because I think the variant is inferior. It is not a serious variant, but merely entertaining. Maybe you could try Barion instead, a related variant, which Zillions plays better.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/barion.htm
/Mats

I could contact the inventor Panos Louridas and resolve some of the details
that remained untold in the article and my previous comment (19.01.2006).

First I should mention again, that an essential paramater in this game is
the _number of types_ of pieces that a player owns. If it is only 1 or 
less then for this player virtual play never occurs. This ruling principle
will help (I hope) to understand the following clarifications.

1) We should complete the rules about the capturing of pieces (real
or virtual) by the following:

If the number of types of pieces (real and potential) of a player will 
reduced by the capture to 1 and he owns virtual stones yet then the 
virtual piece(s) of this player will be replaced instantly by the 
potential pieces they stand for, and this event is not the start of 
a recycling (because such players are excluded from playing with 
virtual pieces).

2) Promotions of Pawns:

The owner of the pawn chooses (at usual) a piece to become for the pawn.
This pieces goes to the resevoir and becomes a virtual piece on the board

then and only then if the number of types of pieces in the reservoir 
will be greater than 1 (including the new piece by the promoting).
If this condition is not fulfilled the promoted piece stays a real piece.

Examples:

a) Before the promoting of a pawn the player does not own any other 
   piece.  Then the promoted piece will remain real evidently.

b) Before the promoting of a pawn the player owns only one type of other
   piece(s) (always real by the rules mentioned above). If he chooses
   for the promoting pawn the same type as he already owns then all
   of his pieces will stay real; if he chooses for the pawn a piece of
   another type then instantly all of his pieces will go to the his 
   reservoir and will be substituted by virtual piecs on the board.
   Furthermore the player also will take part again in the future
   recycling cycles.

c) Before the promoting of a pawn the player owns more than one types
   of pieces, but all of them except one are already in the real state.
   If now the player chooses the same type of piece like the one that
   is represented by his last virtual piece then the promoted piece
   stay real; if he chooses a type other than that of the virtual
   his promoted piece will become virtual and the choosen type of
   piece will be added to his reservoir.

d) Before the promoting of a pawn the player owns more than one types
   of pieces and at least two of its pieces are in the virtual state 
   and stand for different types.  In this case the promoted pieces
   always becomes a virtual piece and the choosen promotion goes to
   the reservoir.


Friendly Greetings,
Alfred Pfeiffer

now I querried in my old magazines and found the relevant text:

Panos Louridas: 'Eine Skala der Intelligenz', ROCHADE 3/1998.

Here I summarize some facts from the article:

Inventor: Panos Louridas (also known as problem composer)

First(?) public presentation: 1985 in the chess club 'Aachener Schachverein 1856'

Rules: The text does not contain a formal listing of rules, but describes the essential ideas with examples.

The pieces in this variant (execpt the King and the Pawns) exist in two states: the 'real' and the 'virtual' state.

The King and the Pawns are real pieces always.

At the start of a game on the board virtual pieces are on the places where in an orthodox game the other real pieces stand. (A common hint is to use checker disks for the virtual pieces)

The potential pieces for the changing of the virtuals are outside of the board in reservoirs for each player.

If a virtual piece moves it becomes a real piece. Each virtual piece can move like each potential piece of its player that is still outside of the board. The player who moves one of his virtual pieces replaces this (while or after the move) by one of the potential pieces (from the outside of the board) that can move in this manner so it becomes a real piece. For example: If he does a diagonal move he may take a Bishop or Queen (assuming both are still available) from the outside to replace the disk (virtual piece) with the choosen piece.

If a real piece on the board will be captured, it is out of the game (means it does not go back to the reservoir outside of the board, also it does not become a potential again).

If a virtual piece will be captured, the owner of the captured virtual stone must assign a potential piece from his reservoir (outside) that then is removed from the game.

So always the number of potential pieces (in the reservoirs) match the number of virtual pieces on the board for each player.

If the last virtual piece of a player disappears (by moving or because captured) then this event ends the actual cycle and a new cycle starts with virtual pieces for both players. This means following: All real pieces on the board (of both players) goes to their reservoirs (outside of ther board) and on the board they will replaced with virtual stones.

But there is a relevant exception: If a player owns only pieces of the same type (only Q, or only R, or only B, or only N) then he will not switch to the virtual state. (The case what will happen if in a such situation one of the player's equal pieces is still in the virtual state remained undiscussed.) Also: cycling take effect only to players with more than one kind of pieces.

Castling: Possible with the usual conditions, here for the Rook this means, that the virtual piece in the corner never moved and a player's Rook is still available in his reservoir outside of the board. Of course when castling this virtual piece then becomes a real Rook.

The article does not contain remarks about promotions.

I propose, if a Pawn promotes it becomes a usual real piece, and this piece should go into the virtualisation also when a new cycle occurs. In this manner also a player who for lack of pieces did no longer take part in the recyclings can get back this special feature of Bario.

I hope I could help,
Alfred Pfeiffer

In Reverse Bario, factors similar to the one used to deter Bishops from
occupying the same diagonal pattern could be used to deter a player from
obtaining more than the standard number of particular pieces.  For
example:

If piece to be claimed by the quantum is a Bishop,
     -n if the player has 2 or more Bishops on the field
     +n if the opponent has 2 or more Bishops on the field

If piece to be claimed by the quantum is a Rook,
     -n if the player has 2 or more Rooks on the field
     +n if the opponent has 2 or more Rooks on the field

...

If piece to be claimed by the quantum is a Queen,
     -n if the player has 1 or more Queens on the field
     +n if the opponent has 1 or more Queens on the field


As long as both players remain below the standard number of pieces, these
values would have no effect on the game.  But when one achieves the
conditions, whether through quantum or Pawn promotion, these values would
aid or deter each players' subsequent quantum claims.

I suggest that this value be 5, this should greatly assist the wanting
player while not overly penalizing the achieving player.  The positions
where a player would be able to obtain more than the standard number of a
particular piece should not be often but this potential will influence the
game.

But this value could be weighted differently for each piece type.  For
example, according to their exchange value, 3 for Bishops and Knights, 5
for Rooks and 9 for Queens.  Adding a level of difficulty for those who
enjoy such. [Hand in the air.]
 
This could also be applied to Bario with neutral quantum, making it
difficult to re-introduce a promoted piece after a Reset if there is more
than its standard number on the field.  Although a potentially rare
position.

Yes, the dynamics of Reverse Bario could be quite cruel.  But it could be
said that a player who left a powerful piece in a position of
vulnerability before a Reset deserves to have it taken from them.

One problem with looking at a game merely from its potential and not from
its actual play is that often its negative aspects are over-rated.  A
designer must take into account not only the tactics of the players but
also the overall possible strategy.

With examples, we can point out potential pit-falls but this does not
necessitate that every player will succumb.  Just as the Fool's Mate is a
potential in FIDE Chess.

And the advantage after a Reset would not be the sole propriety of one
player.  Both players will have the potential for this advantage, given
the opportunity.

Question: Would a player holding the last quantum before a Reset play it? 
Or would they allow the last neutral piece to be captured?

This would be considered an area for strategy.  Keeping a quantum in hand
to be able to control the Reset, or holding a neutral piece in reserve. 
Imagine the small battles over the control of the Reset.

In a Quantom Variant which allowed a player to obtain 3 or even 4 of the 4
Bishops, Knights, and Rooks, and both of the 2 Queens we would need
markers for the Quantoms (checkers, dimes, pennies, etc. would suffice).
But we would also need 2 chess sets to allow White and Black to get their
third Bishop, third knight, etc.  

A danger in this game [of nuetral Quantoms] is that the
'Player-on-the-move' immediately after the reset has a strong initiative
(in an otherwise equal position) because he can likely 'define and move a
Quantom' to gain control over one or more of the other Quantoms.  And, if
pieces were of nuetral color and he had lost a Queen during the opening
phase, he could now define the Bario (Quantom) as a 'Queen.' (Whereas in
the Deductive/Dedicated Bario variant, a player could not make a Queen this
way, as his lost pieces are off the board and pieces that were just on
board remain reserved for their owners, plus the color-dedicated Barios
remain the property of their owner throughout the game... however, they
can be captured.)

But it is important to note that being the one to initiate a cycle reset
can be extremely hazardous to one's chess health in a 'Neutral Quantom /
Neutral Color Variant.'

Upon further reflection, it would not be necessary for the chess pieces to
be of neutral color in Reverse Bario.  There need be the rule that only 
the player may move their King, their Pawns and any other piece occupying 
one of their quantum(and, regardless of color, all pieces other than 
Kings and Pawns may be claimed with a quantum under specific conditions).  
It just may be difficult to visualize the state of the field without much 
practice.  But this should not be impossible.  And this would mean that 
players need not obtain any special equipment to play a real-world game.

Or they could simply paint the neutral set themselves with model paint.  I 
suggest bright green, this should make the color of the Checkers(quantum) 
stand out.  Plastic Chess and Checker Sets often can be found for only a 
dollar or two. So that would not be a huge investment in material.

It is necessary to utilize similar tokens to indicate these neutral quantum
in a real-world game of Bario.  May I suggest red Checkers, they are quite
apparent on the field.  The players then put their pieces on these tokens
as they move them at the turn.  So when a Reset occurs, the players can
quickly remove their pieces but leave the quantum on the field.

Most neutral quantum will be fairly easy to determine which player has
control. There will only be a few instances where 'long' calculation
will be required, and this will often only occur during some of the
mid-game and the end-game.  

Quantum which are equal to 0 would remain un-defined.  Players would have
to perform moves in order to gain control(remember that the proximity of
the King is one of these factors).

The difference in number of pieces that the players have in hand will be a
fairly easily calculated factor.  And any advantage in the exchange will
allow the player opportunity.

Gary's suggested form of play is quite interesting, rather than the
players having potential pieces in hand they could hold owner-specified
quantum(Checkers, red for White and black for Black).  Pawns and Kings are
owner-defined, the remaining pieces in their standard set-up are all of a
neutral color.  Thus players can take control of any of these neutral
pieces, regardless of rank, under specified conditions.  When a Reset
occurs, rather then the pieces, the quantums are returned to their
specific player.  This might be called Reverse Bario.

In Reverse Bario, when a Pawn promotes the player will gain an
owner-specified quantum with the neutral piece.

The quantom mathmatical factors would change on every half move and I think
that making the calculations manually might be a bit tedious at times.  To
determine, for example, whether a quantom belonged to white or black, may
detract from the fun of the play. Aside from that, the game should be
enjoyable.  But I imagine in most cases the Bario numeric aspect could be
easily seen to be + or - and so no actual calculation would need to be
made.

A good strategy in this game would be to move (define and identify) the
quantoms that you had marginal control over... thus making them pieces
that your opponent could not control.  Another logical move would be to
capture quantoms whose numeric value favored the opponent.

To make Mr. Smith's proposed game more impressive (perhaps he already has
this in mind) I suggest not using a 'standard' chess set of Black and
White at the start of the game... but rather nuetral pieces (that will/can
become black or white).  This would allow the following, for example: 
Assume an endgame with White having King, 2 Bishops, 2 Knights.  Black
having: King: 1 Knight, 2 Rooks.  Also assume there are 3 unknown quantoms
on the board (ones that in the simple deductive variation would be 2 Black
Bishops and 1 Black Knight) .  With White previously having his Queen and
2 Rooks captured, what could he make of a Bario? [Note: In the
deductive/assigned variant these 3 Barios would already belong to
Black]... Using the nuetral quantom and neutral piece-color concept White
could make a third Knight or third Bishop.  And later a fourth knight or
fourth Bishop.  Thus, we would still be playing with a 32 piece set, but
only the King and Pawn colors would be true White or true Black at the
start of a game.  Of course, the quantoms behind each pawn are so
obviously under each players control there is no danger of the opponent
controlling these during cycle 1.  

It is the first new cycle that the undefined color aspect would really kick
in.  I would not mind playing this tye of game.  But I would not want to do
the math each time.  Of course, for most cases the Bario control would be
obvious and no calculations would be needed except in cases where the
quantom value was near '0.'  When it is at '0' is the Bario up for
grabs or off limits?  I may have missed that answer in an earlier
comment.

I think this has the potential to become a great game.

Another factor which might be used to determine a neutral quantum is the
number of potentials which each player has in hand.  This will allow one
with the larger amount more opportunity to express them.  It can also be a
decisive factor in the end-game when the players might be reduced to Kings
and a single quantum.

This will also have an effect during the mid-game, allowing players to
utilize pieces which might be rather remote from the fray.  Although the
number of quantum may be reduced by capture the number of potentials will
continue to have a factor on the field.

Thus,

+1 for each potential in hand by player
-1 for each potential in hand by opponent

This will also have an effect during the opening as the players will
express their potential in a rather even fashion, attempting to avoid the
loss of one of their quantum.  A player will be able to express several
potentials before the reduction will be a detriment to the initial set-up.

Here's a simplified formula for determining use of a neutral quantum.

Factors
(The following values are tentative.)

+1 for each friendly piece adjacent
-1 for each enemy piece adjacent
+1 for each friendly piece defending
-1 for each enemy piece attacking.
+1 if on file behind a friendly Pawn
-1 if on file behind an enemy Pawn
+10 if adjacent friendly King
-10 if adjacent enemy King
+5 if friendly King two cells away
-5 if enemy King two cells away.
+1 if friendly King three cells away
-1 if enemy King three cells away.

(The following factors are applicable if players are concerned about
the diagonal pattern of their Bishops and can be weighted accordingly
to deter Bishops occupying the same diagonal pattern.)

+n if piece is to be a Bishop and 
	there is no friendly Bishop on that particular diagonal pattern
-n if piece is to be a Bishop and 
	there is a friendly Bishop on that particular diagonal patteern

There are many other possible factors to consider when evaluating the
potential of a quantum.  All factors should be considered for each
quantum.


Conclusion:

If quantum . . .
	> 0 belongs to player
	< 0 belongs to opponent
	= 0 remains undefined

*********************************************

It may be suggested that whatever values are utilized that they should be
fairly uniform for easy recall, and that the result be a whole number
rather than a possible fraction.

I think that I will concentrate on Bario for now.  Thanks for the attempt
at distraction.

With your statement that a neutral game would result in a possible large
number of quantum located around the King.  It would be necessary that the
King is a weighted factor in the determination of which quantum will be
utilize by the player.  Thus the closer your King to a quantum, there is
an exponential factor that you will increase the opportunity to take
possession of such.

The proximity of Pawns could also play a part in determining the
possession of a quantum.  A simple rule might be to state that a quantum
located on a file behind a player's Pawn(regardless of distance) would
have an added factor.  This would increase the opportunity to gain
possession of quantum on the player's side of the field.

As pieces are delevoped, their proximity to quantum will also have an
effect.

In the penswift/CarlosCarlos game a 'full-field reset' has taken place. 
We are using Player-defined Barios.  If we were using nuetral Barios, such
that they were up for grabs by the player on the move, then I would have
had to avoid the reset as my King would be under heavy Bario attack.  This
is not a criticism of the nuetral Bario concept... it is only a note that
may help Mr. Smith in figuring out his rules for nuetral Bario use.  At
this point in time I remain in favour of Barios that belong to the
players.

However, in regard to Mr. Smith's desire to create a very complicated
game, I would suggest the idea of getting together with David Short, the
creater of Existentialist Chess and creating a Bario version of that game
(if David Short was open to the idea.)  If Mr. Smith (like the creator of
Bario) is hoping for the creation of a complex game, then I think that a
Bario Existentialist Chess (or a Existentialist Bario Chess) would be hard
to top for complexity.  But, again, if that were to be attempted I think
that David Short should be contacted.  I believe that Existentialist Bario
Chess would be a most complex game, much more so than we are likely to get
from Bario which begins with a standard chess set, and is really a variant
of Fischer Random Chess with hidden pieces and resettable pieces.  Of
course, those factors do make for a tremendous difference in the 2 games.

The original graphics for this page showed all the quantum as similar. 
They have since been changed to differentiate them. 
Right...wrong...best...worst.... At this point it appears to be a matter
of preference.

The difference between a Field and Player Reset: In a Field Reset all the
quantum on the field must be defined.   In a Player Reset, once one player
has defined all their potential quantum(there may still be other un-defined
quantum on the field).

I actually opt for the Field Reset.  It seems to comply with the stated
rules.  The same with the Actual determination of the quantum.  Thus my
preferred condition would be Full Field Actual Reset.

I would also opt for the quantum as neutral.  This would greatly increase
the level of difficulty in the play.  All that needs to be determined is
some form of conditionals by which a player may take possession of a
particular quantum.  

I have been working on a very intricate formula, involving not only the
adjacent pieces to the quantum but also including the conditions of cells
beyond.  Granted that this form of play may not appeal to most, but I
always look for ways to increase the difficulty in quantify a game rather
than making it easier.

And the author of this page states that the inventor intended for this
game to be the most difficult on Earth. ;-)

I am going to offer my interpretation/variant of the rules here.  This is
assuming each player has their own distinct set of quantae, which is how
it looks the game is played from the opening setup on this page.

A piece is not defined until it is moved, regardless of whether it can be
deduced as something or not.  In other words, the cycle is not complete
until every quantum on the board has moved and been defined.  When you
move a piece as a rook or bishop, you may choose to define it as a queen,
but you must define it as such immediately after moving it.  Once a piece
of yours has been captured, it's captured, and you can no longer define a
quantum to be that particular piece (of course, if you had two of them, and
one was captured, you can still use the other one).  If a quantum is
captured, we don't know what it was going to be, so after every piece of
yours has been defined, all the other ones that are still left are
considered captured and given to your opponent.  Of course, immediately
after the last quantum has moved, the cycle ends and each quantum suddenly
has the moving power of all the pieces you have left.

In other words, I'm for Full Actual resets, but I don't understand fully
the difference between Field and Player, so I can't say which I have just
stated I prefer.

The reason I like this method of play is that it more closely resembles
FIDE chess because once a piece is captured, it's removed from play, so
for example you can't redefine another quantum to be your Queen if
you've already lost your Queen.

Just my 2 cents.

Then I am permitted to actually move the quantum to defined it?  Many
thanks.

I have put forth a possible conditional for the use of neutral quantum. 
This could be their proximity to friendly pieces, meaning adjacent.  If a
piece was adjacent both friend and foe, it might remain un-defined or its
possesion might be determined by the surrounding material(number and/or
value).

This would create an interesting dynamic in play as quantum may pass from
one player to the other.  And players would attempt to control possession
of the quantum, while expressing their potentials when possible.  And
capturing of a quantum would still be a viable option as removing a
possible position from an opponent may be more desire-able than allow the
piece to remain on the field.

Under this rule, the quantum in the initial set-up would be under the
control of the player on that side of the field because of the proximity
to the Pawns.  Without any opposing pieces adjacent, the player is free to
express their potentials fully.

And this form of play would make a Field Reset very interesting.  As now
the player might express their pieces on other positions, creating a
possibly devastating game.  Imagine that such a Reset might actually
result in a checkmate.  If the Reset is the result of the attacked
player's last quantum, they might not be happy with the Deductive form.
;-)

Of course I am not laying claim to Bario... though if I am seen as a
'Quantom' one might see that as a possibility.  As to wanting people to
play by the rules I am using... nonsense.  Reading my previous comments
will show that this is not the case.  In fact, the other day I commented,
and I quote, 'Perhaps there should be 2 variations of Bario? (1)
Bario,Logical Deduction Variant and (2) Bario, Quantom Variant {of course,
the names could be changed). The course of time would tell us whether one
was desireable over the other, or inform us perhaps, that each was equally
enjoyable. Regardless of which variant (or both) surface, one thing is
certainly true. The rules themselves are of a Bario language. Full of
potential, but remaining undefined, or atleast defined with definitions
not agreed upon by all.'

I also commented, 'So, what will the final established rules be? Mr.
Smith, I salute your logic. I think we are seeing the same things in
Bario, just disagreeing on how our observations should be used to develop
a set of standard rules.'

To me, none of this sounds like I am trying to claim Bario.  Or to force
others to play by rules CarlosCarlos and I are using.  Apparently my
salute to logic was pre-mature.

'Quantum' is a term actually put forth by the author of this page. 
'Bario' is the name of the game.  The only other name given to the
pieces is 'un-defined pieces'.

As to whether the 'un-defined pieces' are owner-specified.  This appears
to be open to interpretation.  Granted that if the 'un-defined pieces'
are neutral there will need to be conditionals for the player to use when
taking possession.  But this is merely a matter of determination.

The author of this article has stated that they are not fully aware of all
the rules governing this game. Does anyone know of an alternative source
for this game?

Gary, are you laying claim to this game?  Are you advocating that all must
adhere to your speculations as to the possible nature in play within this
game?

So when the situation warrants, the quantum might remain a quantum although
it has moved as a specific piece.  This will be applicable if players have
a single quantum, either apiece or shared, regardless of the number of
potentials in hand.  The quantum would be moved as the desired piece and
yet never be replaced by such.

So if a player has a Knight, Bishop and Rook as their potentials and only
one quantum in which to express these, the quantum would continuously have
the power of an Amazon.  Interesting.

Larry Smith asked 'What happens if the quantum has been reduced to a
single piece and the player has only a single potential?' Answer: In the
Deductive variation we know what the final piece is (or more correctly,
what it would be if it were to move) unless an undefined Bario is in the
capture Zone. In the first case, for full-reset, if the opponent still has
Barios in play then the first player could even reveal his last Bario.  It
would be irrelevant and play would continue until reset time... which
would be determined by the opponent in this case.  In case 2, the Bario is
still unknown (as we don't know what the capture zone Bario is, or the one
on the board).  In the 'Deductive, Full-Reset' game that is now in
progress, the single Bario scenario is a non-issue in either case.  If the
identity is known, and it is the last Bario to be known, then the new cycle
starts.  

Note: In deductive variants of Bario, when a player only has one known
Bario (or 2 of the same, like two rooks in Bario guise)when a new cycle
starts he should just use the actual pieces and not the Bario piece image.

One in-game difference between a Deductive Reset and an Actual Reset is
that the player may desire to utilize the determining piece for a possible
capture.  Also, the potential capture of this un-defined piece may have an
impact on the game, both positional and strategic.

What happens if the quantum has been reduced to a single piece and the
player has only a single potential?  With the Deductive Reset, the quantum
would never be expressed and remain in an un-defined state.  Of course, the
quantum can be considered to have the effect of the possible piece on the
field, it would only threaten its potential cells and never be actually
moved to them.

I think that there might be a mis-understanding about the intention of my
remarks.  My advocation of certain forms of play are not demands for
compliance.

The whole concept of variants within the Chess game is that anything is
actually possible. Of course, the players would need to agree on the exact
form that they intend to use during a particular game.

Here is where mnemonic labels might aid in relating particular rules.  For
example:  If players want all the quantum to be re-cycled, regardless of
the determing condition, it might be called a Full Reset.  A single
player's piece being the only ones re-cycled might be called a Partial
Reset.  A Reset determined by deduction might be called, you guessed it,
Deductive.  And one by an actual move of the determing piece might be
called Actual.  And one which is determined by either player called a
Player.  And one determined by the entire field of quantum called a
Field.

So, now players could know what rules were being applied if one desired a
Full Field Actual Reset, a Partial Player Deductive Reset, etc. ;-)

Is a Partial Field Reset, whether Actual or Deductive, possible?

If a person 'knew' the coin, they might be able to surmise its potential
faces.  But if a coin is tossed by another person, there is also the
possibility of a two-headed or two-tailed coin. ;-)

Capturing a quantum does not reduce either players' potentials, just
reduce the possible number of expressions of these potentials on the
playing field.  By capturing a neutral quantum, a player not only reduces
their opponent's possibles but also their own.

Question:  If there are two quantum on the field and the player has two 
potential Rooks, would they both then be considered defined?  Thus ending 
the cycle rather pre-maturely.

I continue to advocate that all the quantum must be actually moved for a 
new cycle to begin.  Whether this cycle is predicated on one or both 
players.  If determined by one player, this should only apply to those 
quantum which are under their control.  This would allow the opposing 
player the opportunity to express all their potentials.  But does not 
guarantee such.

Of course, a new cycle can be initiated by the following:

1. One player has expressed all their potentials on the field.  Those 
particular quantum are re-cycled, or all the quantum are re-cycled.  (The
latter case would be very punitive for the player who has not had the 
opportunity to express all their potentials.  I would advocate the effect 
for the player's pieces, giving the opponent opportunity to gain 
advantage. This does not reduce the player's potential on the field, 
expect in the possible number of expressions.)

2. All the quantum have been defined and all quantum are recycled. (This 
might mean that the players have additional potentials in hand.  This 
could also be initiated by the capture of a remaining quantum when both 
players still have potential in hand.)

I slightly disagree with Larry Smith's comment which is: Quote: 'An
un-moved quantum would merely be a potential and not an actual.  It
would need to be moved to be realized.  In other words, it must be
'observed' to be that particular piece, not just surmised.'-End Quote.
I look at it this way, for example: If a remaining Bario can only be a
Rook.  Then it is a Rook.  When it moves, it will move as a Rook.  But,
for the sake of Bario one could make the rule read that 'The last Bario
must be moved and transformed into the intended piece, even if that piece
is already known.'  That would be a clear rule.  But they way the rules
are currently written, pieces need only to have their identity correctly
'defined.'  Thus, by simple logic we can correctly define a Bario when 2
exist, and 1 moves.  Is it any different than dropping a coin on a table
and being asked to define the 'face-up' and the 'face-down'?  If I see
Heads face up, I can define Tails as face down (also, I can point out this
is no trick coin.  In Bario we are using a standard chess set, so we know
the possibilities).  With the coin toss, as with 2 remaining Barios, there
is no need for me to see the final hidden item.  Labeling that hidden item
as as a 'quantum with potential' does not alter the simple reality of
the situation.

On a second note, Larry asks, 'If all quantum are neutral, would a player
be allowed to capture them?'  He then states, 'I would opt for this.'  I
agree with Larry 100% here. But in using his arguement from above, should
one really be allowed to capture a mere 'quantum potential?'

An un-moved quantum would merely be a potential and not an actual.  It
would need to be moved to be realized.  In other words, it must be
'observed' to be that particular piece, not just surmised.

Question: If all quantum are neutral, would a player be allowed to capture
them?  I would opt for this, it just would not result in the reduction of
either players' potentials.  Just in the reduction of possible quantums
of expression of the players' potentials.

As the players might have more potentials than possible quantum, the
deduction of a single remaining one might not be precise.  Meaning that it
would need to be moved to be realized.  Whether this is because of a
particular value or possible owner.

This is in regard to 2 other comments. (1) 2005-04-03 Mark Thompson had the
impression that '... when a player defines his last piece, all of THAT
PLAYER's pieces go back to being undefined' but also pointed out that
the rules don't actually state to limit it to the player's own pieces. 
CarlosCarlos and I had discussed this matter and came to agreement [at
least for for our game] that when the last Bario was known all pieces
would then revert to Bario.  This prevents a Bario reset from taking place
on every turn when a player is down to just two Barios (or 1 undefined on
board and 1 undefined in the holding zone).  In our way of playing when a
player is down to his last Bario it will be known and will therefore
remain seen as its last designated piece asignment... even if the other
player must reset his or her Barios.
(2) 2005-04-04 Larry Smith stated, 'I like the idea that ALL the quantum
on the field must be defined before the cycle starts again, and ALL fall
back into the un-defined state when the last one is actually
moved(defined).'   The rule Carlos Carlos and I are using does not
require that last Bario to move, only that it 'be defined.'  Thus, in
our game I currently have 2 Barios undefined.  If I move 1 the other is
known and CarlosCarlos can then define one of his remaining 2 Barios and
the new cycle will start (with all Barios being reset.  I do not want that
to happen so I am refraining from moving either Bario as moving 1 will
define both.  Larry Smith's rule idea would allow me to move one and
still avoid a new cycle, even though the remaining Bario would now be
known ( 'defined by deduction' in this case).

I like the idea that ALL the quantum on the field must be defined before
the cycle starts again, and ALL fall back into the un-defined state when
the last one is actually moved(defined).

This allows a player to prevent an opponent from gaining advantage with
the end of a cycle by simply not moving one of their own pieces.

But I've also considered the potential that the quantum are neutral and
can be defined by either player under particular conditions.  Such as
proximity to other friendly pieces, preferably adjacent or possibly simply
defended by.  

Of course, once a player has defined all their possible pieces, the
remaining will then become the opponent's.  Yet not be readily
define-able because of the particular conditions.

Remember that the King will always be available to initiate a new cycle.

The mind wobbles.  Me like.

My vote is for option A of rule 7. This is the most logical and simplest
interpretation for the potential of this game.

It will also encourage a player to cycle through the various pieces, in
order to achieve a positional advantage.  An opponent might have to be
quite wary of any opposing quantum within 'Amazon' range of their King.

But there does raise the potential of interesting positions.  For example,
a player only has the potential of one Rook and one Bishop for the two
remaining pieces.  And in this position, they might offer a checkmate as
un-defined.  The opposing King on the far rank, and the two pieces located
one on the far rank and the other on the next(classic two Rook checkmate). 
The opponent is unable to avoid a capture, though only one piece might
become the Rook both have the same potential.

Tony Quintanilla suggested that I add the following from my e-mail to him
earlier this week.  It consists of rule enhancements that Carlos Carlos
and I came up with during our game which is in progress as I wite this. 

Aa acknowledegment here to CarlosCarlos for his suggestions regarding
enhancing Bario rules. 

(1) The Barios for White and Black need to be different.  I suggest White
and Blue Cresents as they are part of the piece set in use and the board
looks quite nice when they are implemented. The reason they can't be the
same (like identical color disks) is that when cycle #2 starts all
non-pawn and non-King pieces revert back to Barios.  And when a future
cycle happens Barios will nolonger be neatly placed in a player's back
row.  A white Bario on d5 could be next to a Black Bario on e5... gray
disks just won't work. So we need to see who has the 'White' Barios and
who has the 'Black Barios' when the cycles begin.

(2) There needs to be a holding zone (for captured pieces and Barios). 
This allows captured Barios to sit and await their identity to be revieled
and prevents them from re-entering the game in future Bario cycles.
CAPTURED PIECES DO NOT RETURN (EXCEPT THROUGH PAWN PROMOTION, SEE RULE 8).
 Thus, for example, if Black captured White's Queen we would see that
Queen in the holding area and when cycle 2 or 3 started an
'on-the-board' Bario could not become a White Queen. (Note: see rule 8
regarding pawn promotion). 

The Chessgi Pre-set board will work for the purpose have having capture
zones.  

(3) A captured Bario need not be identified at the time of capture.  But
can be later identified while in the holding zone.  Thus, assuming white
has only 2 Barios left and that all pieces in the capture zone are known,
and assuming that white's Barios must be a Bishop and a Knight by process
of elimination (but we don't know which will be which).  Assume that Black
now captures one of these Barios.  It goes into the zone as an
'unidentified' Bario.  The remaining White 'on-board' Bario still has
the potential to be a Knight or a Bishop.  As soon as it moves its
identity is revealed, as is the identity of the captured Bario in the
zone.

(4) Castling is as in Fischer Random Chess.

(5) You may elect to have both starting Bishops on same color squares.

(6) If one Bishop is captured, then during a new Bario Cycle start the
remaining 'on-board Bishop is allowed to become a Bishop on a different
color square.  For example.  If white had a Bishop on g1 and a rook on h1,
after these became Barios he could move the h1 Bario to g2 and identify it
as a Bishop.  In the previous cycle he had a dark squared Bishop, in this
cycle he has a light-squared Bishop.

(7) Regarding 'Bario checks while on the move' at the beginning of a
cycle:  Three logical options quickly come to mind.  I prefer option A
first, then B, I don't care for C.

Introduction to the situation: When a new cycle begins the player on the
move may have a Bario which could now be identified such that it can
capture the opponent's King.  For example, Black King at g8, White Queen
at f6; pieces revert to Barios, White plays f6-g8 (he made his f6 Bario a
Knight).  Thus, in traditional chess we would have an illegal position at
the beginning of the Bario Cycle, i.e., Black in check with White to move.
 Three reasonable options are:

[OPTION A] The player in check is checkmated because he can't move out of
check, block it, or capture the checking piece as it is not his move.  In
essence, the player on the move could capture the King.  {I like this
best}  

[OPTION B] the player on the move identifies the Bario and announces
'Check' but does not move (the Bario check counts as the move in this
case); the player in check is now allowed to move out of Check or capture
or block the offending Bario. (Seems like a good alternative to rule A)

[OPTION C] The position is declared illegal (as if the one player moved
into check) and the player in check must make another move.  But what if
that was the only move that he could make? Stalemate? Option C seems to be
the most problematic of the 3. It could require a positional take-back.  (I
Don't care for rule C).

(8) Pawn promotion:  The Bario page states the use of only 1 chess set and
furthermore states you can only have one Queen, 2 rooks, etc.  But what
about pawn promotion?  I suggest that a pawn can promote to any friendly
captured piece (as in Freeling's Grand Chess.) Promotion could even be to
a Bario (in its unidentified state) if you had a Bario(unidentified) in the
Zone. 

**** A note in closing ****

I think these rule enhancements will enable players to enjoy Bario with
minimal confusion.  Until a time when rule 7 is standard (as to A, B, or
C), players should agree on one of the options at the start of the game. 
I strongly prefer option A.

Best regards to all.  Gary K. Gifford

If a Queen is captured during one cycle, is it allowed to re-appear during
another?  Or must it only be recovered through promotion?

I would think that its capture would remove its potential from the field,
and therefore it can only be recovered through promotion.  This would also
be applicable to the other potentials.

An observation: as long as a piece remains undefined, each quantum will
hold its potential.  So at the initial position, it is possible each
quantum expresses the power of an Amazon until it is actually moved.

My suggestion for castling would be as follows: the corner disk must not
have moved, and must have the potential to be a rook (castling will reveal
it to be a rook).

Pawn promotion is also potentially awkward. I propose a variant of the
Grand Chess rule (a pawn may not move to the last if the owner already has
seven quantum pieces, revealed or unrevealed, but may still give check). I
also propose that pawns promote revealed.

I would also note that this variant can be combined with many others, such
as Capablanca/GrandChess, Different Armies, or even Jetan (to practice the
mechanics, you could also go the other way and apply it to Los Alamos
Chess).

Here is an awkward Bario likelyhood: Suppose we have a White Queen and a
White Bishop a Knight-move away from the Black King.  Now suppose Black
makes the last (or second-last) Bario move so that all pieces are known. 
Cycle #2 begins and all Barios return to undefined disk status.  It is
White's move.  Could White now use his 'former Queen Bario' or 'former
Bishop Bario' as a Knight and take the Black King?  If not, could they
become Knights and move away from the Black King?  Or, would Black's last
Bario revelation be illegal because it is like moving into Check (but only
if White creates a Knight)?
Also, assume a Queen is off the board prior to Cycle #2.  When cycle #2
hits does a 'on-the-board' Bario get to be moved as a Queen?  It seems
this would be the case... but the rules do not address this issue.  I
think we somehow need to come up with an addendum that addresses the
several unknown issues so that cv players will be playing by the same
rules.  This will certainly be needed for a zrf version and for potential
tournament play.

'The rules of castling remain the same although with logical extensions
with regard to the potentiality of pieces.'

i don't really know what these are.  FRC rules perhaps?

'The cycle is over after the last undefined piece has been defined by a
player and then simultaneously all the pieces fall back into their
undefined initial state and a new cycle begins.'

this could be interpreted a couple different ways as well - EITHER player
finishes defining, or BOTH players finish defining... it reads more like 
the latter, right?  although i can see nothing wrong with the former,
which would make things interesting - you could tactically end a cycle
quickly before your opponent did something.

whichever one is correct, if all the pieces are on the board, then it will
actually be the second-to-last piece to be defined which will finish the
cycle, because then the last is automatically known.

i'm easy on the bishops rule so long as i know what it is.  

i agree with you on the other one as i think it can add a little strategy
to the game, probably in the second/third? rosters.

I have already rated the game so am not repeating a rating here.  In regard
to the issue of two 'same-color square' Bishops I believe that should be
allowed.  The Bario intro states, '... one should be able to play this
game on a normal chessboard with the traditional set of chess pieces.' 
This still seems to allow for same-color Bishops and I think it makes the
game more interesting to allow this.  In regard to rules I would like to
see:
a) captured pieces are not defined until known by deduction
b) Bishops of the same color squares are permitted

a couple questions:

a standard chess set means one bishop of each color right?  i can't
choose to have two white-square bishops?

the rules don't say anything about captured bario pieces.  if one of my
undefined pieces is captured should i immediately define it?  or can i
wait?