[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Excellent concept. Sounds interesting. (I wonder when where Seirawan first published this variant.)
I am sceptical of this variant because the bishops will tend
to get exchanged too easily (by moving one's bishop from the initial square, offering exchange, while simultaneously guarding one's bishop with a hawk. As the bishop (especially when
fianchettoed) is the positional piece par excellence, I think this
game will be lacking in many positional qualities, especially since
the Elephant (N+R) and Hawk (N+B) are such tactical pieces. Something that will
help to remedy the problem is to restrict the entry squares of the
Hawks. My suggestion is that the Hawk should not be able
to enter on the bishop files, and, perhaps, the Elephant should not be able to
enter on the knight files. In other words, the external pieces should only
be able to enter when king, rook, or queen moves. (Trenholme implemented the same pieces on the Gustavian board. Perhaps it's better.)
/Mats
/Mats
I have now implemented a variant which doesn't allow piece entry when the bishop moves. This is done in order to make it more difficult to exchange bishops. /Mats
Yasser let me know that the intellectual rights of Seirawan Chess are “pending” as patents and trademark issues are worked out. If the intellectual rights are approved the game will be “commercialized”, including a book and program. Right now they are getting the physical pieces produced. It wouldn't be correct of me to publish my Zillions program, then. But it is a little curious since everything about the variant is traditional. /Mats
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2007 01:22 PM UTC:The problem of patenting the unpatentable is unlikely to go away any time soon. We have the perfect example in a Carrera/Bird/Capablanca variant that has been patented in the US. To anyone who has a bit of knowledge of chess variants and history, the patentee's claims are patently false and absurd. Unfortunately, good lawyers and bad law support this ridiculous position, and you could get badly hurt and certainly seriously harrassed for having an unauthorized Zillions implementation. I feel a proper response is to utterly boycott such products and encourage others to do the same. The only other useful response would be to mount a serious legal challenge to the ability to patent games, but this is impractical and undoubtedly Quixotic. Thank you for the information. I, for one, will never play this game unless and until it becomes freely available.
My only objection to this game is the names of the pieces. Why not choose the universally known names (Archbishop and Chancellor) and settle with it ?
It has to do with physical pieces: the elephant and hawk are
sculptural. They are depicted here. /Mats
sculptural. They are depicted here. /Mats
Ralph Betza's Tutti-Frutti Chess(1978) and Karakus' Perfect Chess(2000) are also in the subset of those putting RN and BN on small 8x8 with all the other pieces, and they even add familiar Amazon(RNB) by just dropping one R, N and B. That's a lot of power density, whereas Seirawan Chess goes for higher piece density after a few moves, a slight tilt away from those two.
Perhaps it's about the same piece density, then, because Seirawan Chess has two pieces more. A Tutti Frutti zrf can be downloaded from the Zillions site, here. As Seirawan Chess is defined it's not particularly good, because the bishops gets removed too easily. These two variants are probably better. But one thing amazes me, namely the immense popularity of the Archbishop and Chancellor. Seirawan Chess has a co-author, namely Bruce Harper. Video clips of the Seirawan Chess simul recently held is here. They plan to create Seirawan Chess tournaments. What's so strange is that they cannot see the variant's obvious flaw. /Mats
The problem with the Elephant (Chancellor) and the Hawk (Cardinal), which are known from Capablanca's Chess, and hundreds of other variants, is their tactical intricacy. They are super-knights, and in this capacity they can create a maximum of new threats: eleven enemy pieces can be exposed to new threats in one single move. A knight can threaten seven pieces (not counting the square from which it came). A queen can create six threats (not counting two on the diagonal/orthogonal from which it came). A bishop, and a rook, can create two. A Korean or Swedish Cannon can create three.
We know that amateurs have great problems with the knights, because of their notorious capacity of making double-threats. So how will they fare with eight knights on the board, four of which are super-knights? The Elephant and Hawk are ideal for professionals because they can make use of their tactical superiority, instead of having to slowly grind down their weaker opponents in long positional games. But will such a game really be attractive to amateurs? In practical endgames, especially, these pieces are practically unforeseeable for the weak player. I'd wish they had opted for pieces with positional qualities. Although these pieces are attractive, their intricacy make them inaccessible to the amateur. For this reason I am surprised to see how many variants exist that employ these pieces.
/Mats
We know that amateurs have great problems with the knights, because of their notorious capacity of making double-threats. So how will they fare with eight knights on the board, four of which are super-knights? The Elephant and Hawk are ideal for professionals because they can make use of their tactical superiority, instead of having to slowly grind down their weaker opponents in long positional games. But will such a game really be attractive to amateurs? In practical endgames, especially, these pieces are practically unforeseeable for the weak player. I'd wish they had opted for pieces with positional qualities. Although these pieces are attractive, their intricacy make them inaccessible to the amateur. For this reason I am surprised to see how many variants exist that employ these pieces.
/Mats
So how can we address this problem of the future of chess? Not all players are attracted by Fischer Random, either, although it's a good training variant. Firstly, the standard position has a great advantage. White's position is slightly better so that he can develop an initiative. It is simply the most harmonious and best position of all 960. Secondly, an important part of chess is to prepare your own variants, and to acquire specialist knowledge of certain variants. This is all gone with Chess960.
Nevertheless, even if the problem only concerns professionals, it's necessary for us to address the problem. We can't allow the professionals to dictate the future of chess because then chess will become overly technical, like the examples of Chess960 and Seirawan Chess. This is obvious also among the grandmasters who want a shortening of the time limits, something that will also increase the technical aspect of chess.
Probably most chessplayers want a standard position to start from, and not too much anarchy. We must question whether it's possible, then, to improve Seirawan's suggestion, and introduce pieces that are less tactical than those super-knights. The Swedish Cannon is an interesting piece that introduces new tactical themes (there are, of course, many alternatives). Its value seems to correspond to a bishop. To simply introduce a single external piece by way of pawn-relocation could be a way of vitalizing chess. Between the rounds one can alternate between standard chess and the new variant: Swedish Cannon Chess
/Mats
Nevertheless, even if the problem only concerns professionals, it's necessary for us to address the problem. We can't allow the professionals to dictate the future of chess because then chess will become overly technical, like the examples of Chess960 and Seirawan Chess. This is obvious also among the grandmasters who want a shortening of the time limits, something that will also increase the technical aspect of chess.
Probably most chessplayers want a standard position to start from, and not too much anarchy. We must question whether it's possible, then, to improve Seirawan's suggestion, and introduce pieces that are less tactical than those super-knights. The Swedish Cannon is an interesting piece that introduces new tactical themes (there are, of course, many alternatives). Its value seems to correspond to a bishop. To simply introduce a single external piece by way of pawn-relocation could be a way of vitalizing chess. Between the rounds one can alternate between standard chess and the new variant: Swedish Cannon Chess
/Mats
I rather doubt that we're going to address the problem of the future of chess. It will either evolve into something new and worthy without anyone's planning it, or it will go softly into the night as checkers and bridge seem to be doing. The chief problem chess faces, in my opinion, is Scrabblization. By this I mean that chess has become a game like Scrabble, in which an enormous amount of rote memorization has become almost as important, or perhaps even more important, as strategic and tactical intuition -- and this is especially so for one making the move from casual amateur to serious tournament player. Like lovers of checkers and bridge, experts who have invested that effort are emphatic that they're glad they did. But that doesn't attract others to follow after when there are plenty of other strategy games without so much 'book' where they can hope to excel just by having a knack. This is just my partly-informed opinion based on remarks I've heard from better players, so I readily admit I could be completely off-base -- I'm no expert at chess. But if I'm right, then chess has gone so far down the road toward Scrabble that, at this point, I'm suspicious that those who are experts have acquired a distorted view of the game during their years of study. Reading whole books devoted to variations on a single line of play, memorizing openings out to twenty moves, is certainly not what the inventor of Chess had in mind. This is why I think something like the random-array or (better still) the player-selected-army variants are the likeliest future for chess, if it's to have one at all.
Scrabblization is surely the fate of any game that is deterministic with the players having complete information - given that it is played and studied long enough and widely enough.
If so, and if it is a problem, the only long-term solutions are to either restrict player information or remove the determinism. But is the game we are left with still chess?
Since Scrabble has neither determinism nor perfect information, it seems that removing those elements from chess won't necessarily prevent Scrabblization.
I agree, at least in part. Removing either or both is probably necessary to prevent Scrabblization, but may not be sufficient.
I would guess, though, that their removal would prove sufficient as I suspect the causes of Scrabble's Scrabblization are not to be found in Chess.
Chess isn't complex enough in today's computer age. We need a more complex game. But as I pointed out, we needn't abandon traditional chess. If a player in the first move 'tables' the extra piece (e.g. Swedish Cannon), then the game will be played with a later possibility of extra piece entry. If both players, in the first move, refrain from 'tabling' the extra piece, then the game will be traditional. In this way there is a choice, and chess keeps its link to history. /Mats
I implemented this feature (optional extra piece) in Alternative Chess.
/Mats
/Mats
They are doing it again. Henry Bird did it 1874, Jose Raul Capablanca did it 1923 and now Yasser Seirawan does it 2007. 'Revive' as the premier alternate chess 400-year-old D. Pietro Carrera's Chess! See how the names change. Carrera's Champion(R+N) becomes Guard 19th C., then Chancellor or Marshall 20th C., now Seirawan's Elephant 21st C. Bravo for Elephant on 8x8 now instead of everyone else's 8x10! Carrera's Centaur(B+N) becomes Equerry 19th C., Archbishop, Chancellor(not to be confused) or Cardinal 20th C., now Seirawan's Hawk 21st C. New names for new millennium. Same old comfort zone. Capablanca Random shows these can be tweaked in acceptable fashion to taste 50 or 100 or 200 times good and symmetrically. So, with a new one every fifty years or so, the low-order 50 times 50 years is, well, over 2000 years, itself more than age or time of Chess. Consistency is no hobgoblin.
Does Computer detect irony? Our previous Comment of 'Excellent' Seirawan Chess could be computer test for any exclusively left-brained entities. To perspicacious observers, everything meant its opposite! Seirawan's and Hooper's name changes for Marshall and Cardinal are actually to be condemned not appreciated. When we say 'Bravo' for RN and BN on 8x8, it is really one prolonged hiss of disapproval. When projecting recycled Carrera CVs every 50 years til kingdom come, Computer may take it literally, but an effectual 'advanced' Turing test bolts (hey, sounds like 'halts': Halting problem) at a lark, red herring or wild card. How to tell? You simply have to be elite 23-paired-chromosome-carrying (apes have 24). Gary Kasparov's Advanced Chess (teaming purported 'grandmasters' and 'chess-playing' program), no other than Yasser Seirawan has called 'atrocious idea'. True enough despite source. Abominable idea too is Seirawan's Chess' crowding Marshall and Cardinal onto 8x8, foremost because of borrowing without attribution (Perfect Chess, Tutti-Frutti etc.), displaying ignorance of place among hundreds CVs. Besides, SC plays as mediocrely as Omega Chess. Is (IRONY: EUPHUISM) as 1(GRADUALISM: TRANSLOCATION) 2(PERSIFLAGE: APOLOGUE) 3(RNA: COFACTOR) 4(CONSISTENCY: HOBGOBLIN) 5 All of the above, 6 1&3 only, 7 2&3 only, 8 1&4 only ?
Very original and interesting idea about how to introduce 'new' pieces R+N and B+N to chess. Advantages over 8x10 and 10x10 variants are obvious: starting position stays the same (with usual opening patterns). The board dimension stays the same, so balance in piece values is retained. I think the names for these pieces chosen by Seirawan are fine: since ordinary chess player donesn't know them anyway, no problem to come with names you like more.
True, the drop mechanism works so that the introduced pieces fit right in by being immediately protected whatever the bank-rank move may have been. Is Seirawan Chess presented then in the same serious vein as Fischer Random Chess? Maybe instead SC is sort of Chess-light for off-time club play not so serious. Or are Seirawan and Harper wanting to join the CV community, so we can expect more of these? I personally handed Yasser Seirawan face to face a copy of USP5690334(for Falcon) back in 1998 and basically appreciate and approve their showing interest in Rules changes like this. In prolific columns YSeirawan has panned GKasparov's Advanced Chess and been mostly indifferent to FRC.
An obvious disadvantage is that the bishops tend to disappear from the board too fast. The bishop fianchetto is seldom effective because the opponent can move his bishop from the initial position, and offer an exchange while simultaneously guarding the bishop by inserting the Hawk. Likewise, a bishop at c4 can immediately be exchanged by moving a bishop to e6 and inserting the Hawk. Of course, one could solve this by disallowing piece entry when the bishop moves. Comparatively, in my Alternative Chess, pieces may only be dropped on a friendly pawn on the second rank. The removed friendly pawn must immediately be relocated two squares ahead of the dropped piece. This forces a weakening of the pawn position. Introduction of a piece comes at a price.
/Mats
So, do Knights moving out first make better openings? It does not seem advantageous not to get (RN) and (BN) out pretty early. Maybe the effect over-all is to reduce the number of feasible openings, not increase them. In the video that came with it, Yasser Seirawan joked that it was hard to tell who was ahead at some points in the 6 or 12 simultaneous games being played. Speculate that they are not really much serious about Seirawan Chess but want to break into the possibility of altenatives. MWinther Commented, so I can say we think Bifurcation Pieces are better than more Marshalls and Cardinals, but since there are so many of them and not yet adapt to 80 or 100 squares, it is hard to be specific.
Here is my spin on this: 1. I also, in 2007 (unaware of this game) happened to wonder how to do Capablanca pieces on an 8x8. End result was IAGO Standard Fantasy Chess (Capablanca 64) in its bunch of mutations, which can be found on the Zillions site (Seirawan's version isn't in it). It was different than this. I believe the best shot to get Capablanca pieces adopted is with an 8x8 board. I played with this concept years ago with my Corner Chess game also (meant to be 4 player chess on an 8x8 board) 2. I would propose that the name Sharper Chess be adopted in honor of the fact that Harper worked on it (S from Seirawan and the rest is Harper). It also sounds pretty cool as a name. 3. Here is how you settle the name controversy (people who don't want to lose the names Chancellor and Archbishop). The top two pieces in fantasy chess are the Chancellor and Archbishop. I know Seirawan wanted different, because he felt the other ones didn't make sense. Well, I say you can go with BOTH actually. If the pieces start on the board, they are Chancellor and Archbishop (or Cardinal). If they start in a POCKET position, then they would be Hawk and Elephant. I don't see it as a big deal. This way, you also know if the Capablanca pieces have entered the game or not. 4. For people arguing about this and that, and disappointed (want to have them enter different spot, have different board, and other complaints on here), please view this variant as being a METHOD to get new pieces into the game. This game is a near ideal GATEWAY to get new pieces into chess in an acceptable manner. Viewed in light of this, it is a good thing. Work with this, and then add your own tweaks. Want to have the Amazon get accepted into chess? Well, have it as a possible other piece in Seirawan chess. a. People who don't think it is radical enough, can we keep in mind, we need the FIDE crowd to adopt it to some degree for there to be enough players? b. People who feel it wrecks one line of play or another, and believe bishops will die too early (thus propose that if you move a bishop, you can't enter in the Capablanca pieces), can we play with this a bit more and see if we can keep the simplicity of what is propose, and make it lead to MORE options on play, rather than less? Also, if makes the game a LOT more open, with new lines of development, why wouldn't that be acceptable? 5. I believe an easy variant on this would be you leave the queen space blank and then players alternate turns each placing a queen, elephant/chancellor, or hawk/archbishop in the initially left empty queen space. 6. This variant can work with Chess960 as a variation of Capablanca Random Chess, and make it easier to accept. Also, it can work with Bughouse. 7. This version allows for Capablanca pieces to get into chess, without having to deal with the headaches of Gothic Chess. 8. The underlying methodology of introducing pieces here can be used with other chess-like games. Consider Shogi with this, for example. You could even go with the OLD version of Shogi without the rook and bishop on the board, and the pieces in the last two rows, and have them come into the game via the method in this game. Chinese Chess would be another. 9. Anyone want to calculate how many different ways that new ways the two new pieces can enter the game?
I looked at the home page for Seirawan Chess
http://www.seirawanchess.com/
The new plastic pieces (Hawk and Elephant) look very nice. But, I would have preferred that these pieces kept their earlier names (as we see in Capablanca and Gothic Chess and many other variants) and that they kept logical designs which reflect their piece movement, as in Gothic Chess pieces. When I see an Elephant I think of the one from Shatranj, or even the modern Elephant... but certainly not a Bishop-Knight. Seeing an Elephant move like a Bishop or Knight seems terrible to me.
Initial impression I am getting from the designers of this is that they don't want to have anything to do with the variant community. I will hopefully be able to confirm, but apparently they don't want their game changed in any way. They also don't want their game anywhere near the variant community. This being said, IAGO/IAGO World Tour may be forced to come up with its own game with the Capablanca pieces, on an 8x8 board. The version would use gating, and the objective is have things set up so that the game can continue to evolve and adapt as needed. The game would belong to the chess world, to agree on how it is, and avoid falling into the trap FIDE has, where lines of play get spelled out too much, and it becomes draw-prone. My hope is that this version gets an ok to be accepted by IAGO by the designers, and they allow for variants off of it. But, if they don't, we will still use the drop. I am working up the rules now for this, and once dust settles, I can post it. One way or the other, I want IAGO Chess to end up being a leading game for the variant community to rally behind and make their own.
If the gating issue does not work you could always use the Trojan Horse method to get the Chancellor, ArchBishop, Amazon etc on to an 8x8 board. The end-result can be made to achieve the same effect (see Shatranj of Troy for an example of how the Horse works. However... you would not want to simply recreate the Seirawan game... it would need a different setup or different pieces to avoid plagiarism.
Actually, by using the Trojan Horse you could drop the Chancellor or ArchBishop or Amazon (etc)on a square other than the horse's initial starting point. You could also stipulate ... 'must be droped not passed the 4th rank,' or something like that if you wanted to avoid drops within the opponent's camp. The Trojan Horse method was introduce in my Catapults of Troy several years ago... I do not know if there are any earlier examples...
I like the definition, except (D) looks like a drop, rather than gate. Perhaps one could argue that pawn promotion is a form of gating, if the gating space is not empty.
You are correct about 'd' being a standard Shogi drop.
I am afraid that I have to agree with George Duke's well articulated POOR comment. RN and BN too powerful on an 8x8 board with only 8 pawns to 10 pieces. Disagree with George only in that I believe Omega plays excellent compared to this shoddy little variant getting a bit too much publicity. Here s an improvement using the drop concept in this game: use Joyce's short range war machine/knight and elephant/knight compounds instead for a more balanced game. So Excellent for the whole drop concept (though I would prefer that the player pay the price of 1 move to bring in a piece), and Poor in piece selection. I understand the enthusiasm of previous commentators of bringing in new pieces via gating but why use a knight compound anyway: Just drop a real Elephant (modern type) and war machine/wazir and maybe 2 ninja pawns - thats a bit more subtlety than just going crazy with powerful knight compounds.
Charles, wrote: '...why use a knight compound anyway: Just drop a real Elephant (modern type)and war machine/wazir and maybe 2 ninja pawns - thats a bit more subtlety than just going crazy with powerful knight compounds.'
Great comment! Especially when talking about an 8x8 board. I agree wholeheartedly.
I want to add a comment here regarding why work with Capablanca pieces first on an 8x8 board. A major reason is that these are the top fantasy chess pieces, and if we can get it to work right, MAYBE we stand a chance of them being massed produced, so we can have them go forth. Games like Grand Chess or even Random Capablanca Chess have a hard time being adapted, because they are not available. And I know that people want to use a larger board, but how available are those? 8x8 is available everywhere, which is why it serves as a good place to start getting something going. I will close here by saying that, 'Gee creating chess variant pieces is half the fun of doing chess variants'. Well, I would like to say, MAYBE FOR YOU. People would want results NOW and have it easy for them to get to things. If you listen to the arguments for Seirawan chess, you see why this approach is the best one, overpowered or no. My suggestion is to work on a way to do Capablanca chess on an 8x8 board AND MAKE IT WORK. Lead with this, and then we can go forth from there. I personally believe that drops and gating are essential here. We get this to work, then we can talk about being able to drop in weaker pieces and mixing it up. As of now, let's get this going first. I would suggest working together, unless you want to have the Capablanca Archbishop and Chancellor (or whatever you want to call them) called 'Hawk' and 'Elephant' because they are the only version of pieces you can by, followed up with the whammy that you can only play Seirawan chess, because they forbid you from changing the rules for your variants. You can't add new pieces, remove them or change how they move. This will cause Grand Chess to disappear, and do I need to add that Capablanca Random Chess will be nowhere? I ask everyone to look at the big picture here. On this note, I am looking fairly soon to get what I call IAGO Chess on here for review. I would like people to get involved with this.
Seirawan Chess is important because Yasser Seirawan is the leading USA Grandmaster at present time. About average research into background of uses of the introduced pieces is evident at the webpage. To its credit, Ben Foster's Chancellor Chess is cited, predating Capablanca's. ''Rather than being test of skill, Chess has become matter of knowledge and technique,'' the write-up says.'' and ''Capablanca almost had it right.'' Our ratings on SC have been deliberately mixed from Poor to Excellent, to confront the irony. Hutnik is correct in immediate Comment that, after 400 years, RN and BN are the ''top fantasy chess pieces'' -- at least in terms of public awareness, such as it is. Much irony there. We could dump about 9975 of the 10,000 invented (and re-invented, and stolen) chess piece-types as of 2008, and upwards of 25 solid piece-movement concepts would suffice -- definitely including Carrera's venerable Centaur(BN) and Champion(RN) themselves. Give them a pass into the 25 all-time pieces for historical significance alone.
'Seirawan Chess is important because Yasser Seirawan is the leading USA Grandmaster at present time.' Actually, no. Gata Kamsky is currently the top American grandmaster.
Thanks for the rating information, our meaning is, as spokesperson to general chess-knowledgeable public, Yasser Seirawan would be first to mind. Actual current ratings, always ballyhooed, seem increasingly obsolete or at least uninteresting, as aged forms become well-understood for anyone wont to memorize lines. There is the fact of more-or-less computer dominance, continually increasing, of even those highest rated in their rote play on 64 squares, manageable to Computer. Logical extension of the same idea shows that, so increasingly solved (like tic-tac-toe), FIDE Mad Queen is clearly already game for machines to play from now on against each other, the only innovators. Seirawan Chess site points out that those on the perimeter, having left OrthoChess for other interests, grow far apace of those participating. Whereas, a great new CV like any of Rococo, Centennial, Weave & Dungeon, Altair (or...) would take computers considerable time even to catch up; and we can also design scientifically ongoing Rules changes, or built-in artifices of other natures precisely in order to try stifling Computer systematically longterm -- advantaging more sentient beings constructively, not least tapping mental skills creative not so easy to avail. At other extreme, in order to have more than ten or twenty individuals eventually interested, one would need reduction from 10^3 or 10^4, or 10^6, possible number of CV Rules-sets and far different selection out of them than pure self-promotion, belligerence, phony reuse without attribution -- or even any attempt at finding priorities -- of longstanding Rules, pieces, names, methods, sizes, mechanisms, powers, helter-skelter. One person one game, that the diehard regulars -- or irregulars -- now happen to be discussing here for some tournament or other would be one small step in some reasoning direction.
George, what I am looking to have with IAGO Chess (I am looking to get on here sometime this week), is a better framework for having a version of chess that would continue to evolve, and draw new players in. It is a framework by which we won't run into the same laments over and over that drive someone to create a stand-alone fixed rules variant, and believe it is the answer. This is the approach taken historically. Instead it is a form that allows people to contribute to a community effort, in a framework that is meant to last. It allows a large degree of freedom, while having some standardization, and enabling a version of chess to emerge from a community that will meet ongoing needs. I personally believe Seirawan Chess could meet these criterions, but it appears that they the Seirawan group, at this point and time, has no interest in Seirawan Chess being the starting point for a continually evolving form of chess. In other words, it has the same flaws that almost every other variant does. It is a game that is done for personal preferences of the creator, either to stroke their ego, or their own personal tastes. This is demonstrated in things like, 'leave my game alone', and 'I would rather the name of the piece be something I like, rather than what the community is trying to settle on'. Purely selfish in nature, and of small mind. It gets away from how chess WAS and IS supposed to be, a game that evolves by the efforts of a community of players. IAGO Chess, on the other hand, will be something whose purpose is to serve the continuing needs of the community. The first iteration of the game, does what Seirawan Chess does, but is sufficiently nuanced to be a different game. In addition, it uses the Capablanca naming conventions. It is also mean to get the Capablanca pieces in circulation, so Grand Chess and Capablanca Random Chess, and others can finally get greater exposure. I do expect the C-Class (Classic or standard) versions to likely be adjusted by the community through practical experience. Also, to be kept fresh, the M-Class (Modern, evolving) version be one that people will be able to change just it starts to get played out.
I have never been a fan of the drop, feeling it to be an alien addition to the mechanics of chess. Promotion on the other hand is not, being a well established chess mechanism.
I therefore suggest using promotion as a better means of introducing the RN and BN. Thus, for example the Rook could promote to RN on making a capture, and the Bishop likewise but to BN. The idea could be extended further allowing the Knight to promote to, say, a Nightrider.
Using promotion also goes someway towards relieving the piece-density and power increases associated with dropping; more so if the number of each of the new pieces is restricted to one.
It is my belief figuring out the best way to get the NB and NR pieces onto game board, in the most logical way as a next step for chess, is worthwhile pursing. I suggest people give thought to it, and also think on how it would work, as far as being adopted I personally believe that piece promotion of every pieces really goes way beyond the norm of chess however. This is true for several reasons: 1. Tell me where you can acquire the pieces to do this? Saying, 'Well we can make our own' isn't something someone you introduce the game to, will actually do. 2. If people thing adding two pieces between queen and rook level is too powerful, how is having a rook fly down to the other side and promote, and the other pieces going to not be overpowered? 3. Is the main concern 'congestion'? If it is, then can't something be done with a drop or gating that it is limited to how many pieces are on the board? If you want to end up being really restrictive, you have it that you can't introduce a Capablanca piece until either the queen is captured from the board, or it is promoted? Anyhow, I suggest people check out this Zillions attempt to get Capblanca pieces into an 8x8 board: http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/43367?do=show;id=1492 I also suggest the Seirawan version be looked at and adapted somehow to the CV community, because you are running a distinct risk of Seirawan catching on, and permanently removing the traditional names for the pieces, plus preventing use of their pieces for any other variant except the ones that they approve of, such as Bughouse. I will say the point about gating is that it is a useful way to integrate new pieces into older games. If you don't happen to like it, or anything drop related, you are forcing chess to follow the same way it has always been, that being fixed positions, which means a game develops static lines and formation of books openings, which kills creativity. Chess has run into the issues it has that everyone complains about, because the opening is fixed.
One more thing about promotion as a method. It IS a form of a drop. It is just you end up removing a pawn from the board and dropping a new piece in its place.
I just wanted to state that I strongly disagree with this portion of Senor Hutnik's 2008-03-22 comment where he states:
'In other words, it [Seirawan Chess] has the same flaws that almost every other variant does. It is a game that is done for personal preferences of the creator, either to stroke their ego, or their own personal tastes.' -- end of that part of the quote --
But I, Simpatica, ask is it not expected that a game's creator(s) would create something that is to their own liking? Senor Seirawan is a Chess Master with many years of experience and with deep knowledge of chess and that his game idea should be welcomed. I believe Senor Hutnik's comment of 'ego stroking' is an insult to game inventors. I myself, have considered attempting to invent a game, but it seems difficult to me to come up with anything original... but let me add, it was (is) the desire to create a game... it is a creative aspect and I never considered ego as a factor here.
Senor Hutnik continued, 'This is demonstrated in things like, 'leave my game alone', --- end of this part--
'Leave my game alone' is a fine response from a creator. Games have rules. Imagine how chaotic a game would be if everyone tampered with the rules. Shatranj was stable, and can still be played today. When change came, Shatranj still remained intact, but eventially we saw a new game Chess, which in and of itself, is stable... as are its sister games of Japan and China. So I would say, yes, leave their games alone.
Senor Hutnik wrote on, '... and 'I [the inventor]would rather the name of the piece be something I like, rather than what the community is trying to settle on'. Purely selfish in nature, and of small mind.-- end of that part--
Here I do believe that traditional pre-established names should be used. I saw that Senor Seirawan uses an Elephant, for example... but it is not the Shatranj Elephant, it is not the Elephant of Modern Shatranj... and Senor Seirawan uses a Hawk... both these pieces (as he has them move) already exist... so,for the sake of consistency, why he not rename all his pieces? Why not call his King a Turtle? I am being sarcastic, of course. So, I do agree with Senor Hutnik about the name issue... but do not agree in his conclusion of 'selfish and small mind' ... why insult people?
Senor Hutnik continued: 'It gets away from how chess WAS and IS supposed to be, a game that evolves by the efforts of a community of players.'-- end of this part--
I disagree. I believe Chess, like Shatranj, was to be a stable game with fixed rules. When it comes to change, we have a variant. And that is what this great website is all about.
I would like to comment on some of the things that senorita simpatica said. I appreciate the feedback, so let me explain a bit what I mean: 1. I personally believe that Mr. Seirawan's game is welcomed, and I like it. But IAGO World Tour ran into problems with it. Because of the dislike of variants by one of the creators of the game, it means that they don't want to associate with any other variant. Secondarily, the impression I received was that they don't want any variants made of their game. It is fixed and changes are not welcome. In other words, if the variant community really liked it, but wanted to expand on it, as a variant, they are likely to be forbidden to do so. Yes, designers have every right to be as restrictive as they like with their design. But if they adopt a very restrictive attitude, where does that leave the variant community? Seirawan chess is a 'dead end' as far as the variant community is concerned. This is why the classic version of IAGO Chess exists and will have its rules produced. It is mean to belong to the world, and for them to use it as they see fit. 2. Let me comment on what I spoke on 'flaws'. I don't mean a game is fine in its own right. What I mean is that a game, unless it is an evolving design (chess was this until the say the 19th century), it will eventually get 'solved' and people get bored of it. Of course, variants are a way to keep things fresh. But the issues with variants is you usually never get enough players behind a single version in order to have it stick. There are rare exceptions of course. This becomes an issue when you have an association that wants to have champions at games, and promote and retain them. It also needs a way to systematize variants on the whole. It also needs standards of some sort. It would also need a game that is willing to be changed, so that it never falls to the being 'solved' issue that abstracts run into. The point here is to deal with it now, so that the game continues to remain fresh. 3. The idea of 'tampering with the rules' is exactly what chess had done for centuries. The game changed as the community had new needs. I believe there is room for a version of chess that does the same. Of course, such changes do need to be managed. The issue of just spinning of variants willy-nilly is the same thing you have in regards to variants. That is what a variant is, by the way. They are great for providing a diversion, but without some concern given to treating them more seriously, they are always going to not be viewed seriously. 4. I will argue that the changing of the names of the pieces was selfish, in regards to it was a personal preference done in order to appeal to personal tastes. Not quite 'small minded', but selfish (Ok, I can recant of saying 'small minded' in my prior quote). He wanted to have a distinct look to the pieces, and there apparently is little concern for the variant community. The argument about 'small minded' is that the person would want to do it alone as a stand alone variant. 5. As far as Shatranj being stabled and fixed, ask yourself how many people are still playing the regular rules of the game. They do variants, right? The question here is whether or not you want people to just abandon a game completely when they get bored, or there be at least one version of chess that is open to change with time, to support the needs of a community. I will also add here that the likes of Chess, Shatranj, etc... are NOT games that were created by one person. They are a community developed game that is the byproduct of evolutionary input. What I am saying about a chess I am looking at, is that I propose that a version be developed that will continue to change and evolve over time, without the intent on being close ended and permanently fixed. The game can remain relatively stable, and the changes be gradual. I will say that, so long as everyone is freelancing, and not working together, then the way it is now isn't an issue. But, if you want to jointly promote variants, and a range of chess, consideration to how to do this is important. IAGO and the IAGO World Tour are looking to eventually have chess variant champions, and a champion of the chess variant world. The question is, how does one do this if things are as they are now? Also, how does one end up doing a chess game that is in the Capablanca school, when one variant that is new tells variants to buzz off, and the other one got itself blacklisted from this site, due to threats of lawsuits. In all this, that is what IAGO Chess will be heading towards.
1. Tell me where you can acquire the pieces to do this? Saying, 'Well we
can make our own' isn't something someone you introduce the game to, will
actually do
The future of chess, I suspect, is on computers and the internet within the virtual cyber-realms created by software. Any initial lack of physical pieces should not hinder the popularity of a variant.
2. If people thing adding two pieces between queen and rook level is too
powerful, how is having a rook fly down to the other side and promote, and
the other pieces going to not be overpowered?
Surely a Rook promoted to RN is a less powerful outcome than a Rook and newly dropped RN ?
3. Is the main concern 'congestion'? ...
The main concern is surely playability? Unless a variant plays well it is unlikely to gain a following, however well it is promoted.
I will say the point about gating is that it is a useful way to integrate
new pieces into older games. As is promotion.
If you don't happen to like it, or anything drop related, you are forcing chess to follow the same way it has always been, that being fixed positions
I am not forcing chess into anything, merely suggesting a way for using RN and BN within an 8x8 board. Besides, neither 'drop' nor 'promote' will change the fixed nature of the starting position. The only solution to that is to introduce non-determinism.
Senor Hutnik: Thank you for taking time to clarify the position of yours. It is now easier to understand where you are coming from and I now have a better picture of things. I wish you well with your IAGO Chess.
Senorita Simpatica, thank you for your comment. Will see how it goes. The objective of IAGO chess isn't just a variant, but a framework by which Chess can evolve over time, and have variants integrated. It will need to be tweaked of course. The variant is the starting point, using the framework, as a way to introduce the Capablanca pieces onto the boar. Graeme Neatham, I have tried to fit your suggestion into the framework of IAGO Chess. Hopefully this will work, and you can see a multitude of approaches that will help mitigate congestion and overpowered issues. Feel free to check it out and comment. My only concern now regarding the approach you have, is that it doesn't create a variable and deep opening book. This is one of the advantages Seirawan Chess has, and IAGO Chess has. The promotion is good as a way to break through at the end game, to close things out, but the opening is still the same.
Agreeing with Graeme Naetham about drops, yet we find Seirawan's 'drop' the best available, being so modest and not disruptive, and the over-all method softens further if requiring Queen captured first. For Hutnik's 'community methodology', absolutely RN and BN are the ones to start with. Because on an all-time list of 25 pieces, there would be R,N,B,K,Q,(Western two-step-once Pawn),(hold Falcon that mathematical complement to 'RNB' in abeyance), Berolina Pawn, RN, BN... That makes nine or ten piece-types, and we are preparing the other 16, to total 25, for separate thread. Now the idea that 'static lines kill creativity' may only apply up to 8x8 or so. At Centennial Chess' 10x10, it is hard to see stock lines developing much even over decades. So, it may be peculiarity of just-slightly-undersized board. After all, Xiangqi goes on 9x10 and Shogi 9x9. There are the sizes then: 64, 81, and 90. Which would become overanalyzed first? It is obvious. Forcing 64 itself on the community is only for convenience of not having to use a Checkers 10x10 board. Hutnik's iteration method (C-, M-class) is correct or ideal, a simulation of culture. In fact, it negates both democracy and fiat. That third way, neither democratic nor authoritarian, requires consensus, concept occasionally in real geopolitics. What is 'IAGO' anyway in words? ///Hutnik seems oddly a spokesman for Harper and Seirawan's game at same time he distances himself from it.
George Duke, thank you for the comments. I just wanted to add a few things in response: 1. I think you are getting the idea of what is attempted here. I believe starting with a few, and then growing to 25 works. 2. The Seirawan drop (version of gating) is as you described. It is one of the least disruptive versions and a natural evolution in chess. In addition, it provides a way to get more piece into chess. Other attempts, outside of a limited zone drop into start areas (at start or during the game), doesn't expand the opening book, causes the initial piece balance of pieces to change, or changes the initial pawn structure. When you go to a larger board, you end up with the complaints about the knight losing power, pawns unprotected, or being forced to deal with the name that shall not be named, for legal reasons. The larger boards also don't add a way to make chess expandable. either, although it extend the life of chess. Drop and gating ends up making for a way to bring new pieces into just about into chess, in the least disruptive way. 3. I am of the belief that the consensus method, which is an evolutionary one, determined from a lot of play is the best at making changes. It is how chess managed to grow and evolve over time, surviving the migration to mad queen. Other methods force things, and aren't natural. 4. I am not going to say a static/fixed opening lacks creativity. What I will say is that it creates a community that is used to a fixed configuration, and makes it hard to adapt to any needed changes, although changes can happen and does buy you a bunch of times (a few hundred years maybe). The fixed position in chess results in any changes to chess now being marginal. There is no smooth way to experiment and while keeping the foundation in order. I believe gating and drops, even if restricted a lot of ways, offer a chance to do this. Even if such is used before game begins, it helps. Let's just say that Chess960 is in the drop family, for example. It is just that where the pieces are dropped occur before the game begins, and not in the control of the players (done at random). 5. I know people might be upset about the whole 8x8 board as a start. This is done for pragmatic reasons. It doesn't mean you only have to use that board, but it makes it easier to get people to migrate over as a starting point. What is looking to be done with IAGO Chess is to allow a variant class to have larger boards and so on. As for there being 9x10 of Chinese Chess, and 9x9 of Shogi, I will say the IAGO Framework can work with these games to create an IAGO Chinese Chess and an IAGO Shogi. 6. IAGO stands for International Abstract Games Organization. It is mean to give all abstract strategy games that don't have an association for them a home, and coordinate efforts between games that do. This whole Capablanca on the 8x8 board came about due to issues it ran into looking at ways to do Capablanca chess, and finding out there was rejection on the Seirawan chess people to have anything to do with the IAGO World Tour, and the chess variants community. 7. Yes, I have mixed feelings about Seirawan chess. I like the game alot. I believe that it could serve as a foundation for a LOT of chess variants and be a basis for a migration path for chess. However, the word from the Seirawan chess people was 'get lost and keep your chess variants away', so it was time to move on. End result is you see an interest in Seirawan chess, but also the idea to be similar to Seirawan, but friendly to variants and also provide a migration path and frameworks for chess to evolve and bring all variants into IAGO. Let me sum up the one new rule brought into Chess via IAGO Chess: Thou shall have your piece mix match up with the rules, and not force people to flip a rook and then require it to be a queen only (gee, what happens if someone wants 3 knights on the board?). There are other elements in the base rules, that are recommended, but mutable for variants. If you want to see the rules to IAGO Chess, they are up on chess variants, and can be found here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste Feedback is definitely welcome, as is playtesting so we can make tweaks as needed. I suggest people start off with B-Class or C-Class rules first, before doing tweaks. I am hoping to get a Zillion adaptation done soon for this. Need to figure out how to do the gating for the game.
Anyone want to confirm whether or not Bosworth uses the same type of
gating
that Seirawan does? Only difference is that Seirawan chess makes it
optional. Here is a link to Bosworth off this site:
You can buy Seirawan Plastic pieces for reasonable prices here.
The Seirawan pieces are available there. But if the Seirawan camp is going to forbid variants done off their games, then the variant community won't be able to use them. That is one of the reasons for IAGO Chess.
I don't think the Seirawan guys are going to patent Seirawan chess; it is impossible to stop anyone with their pieces from playing another game with them, such as the closely related Energizer Chess, or any of the 8x10 or 10x10 variants using two Seirawan chess sets and a custom board.
I only have your word about the unpleasant correspondence you allegedly had with someone involved with Seirawan chess; unless they threatened a lawsuit or what not, I would just brush it off as them having a bad hair day.
One can view the B-Class version of IAGO Chess as an attempt to have an 'open-source' variant of Seirawan Chess, using the more traditional pieces, and also framing the rules so they are more variant friendly. The fullness of the rules is a framework for integrated variants into IAGO also, so that is a plus. There is only one new rule added that is more of a statement of what variants should be, make sure your pieces and rules mix. In other words, don't do like standard chess that can theoretically allow people to have 8 queens, but only provide one with the game. And do regular chess rules say anything about flipping a rook to give you another queen? At this point, I am not worried about Seirawan Chess. I will be going with IAGO Chess. If Seirawan Chess people happen to want to do anything with IAGO, they are free to get involved.
I have to say that most recent correspondence with the Seirawan Chess people has resulted in a permanent tabling of IAGO having anything to do with the Seirawan Chess, until things are said to be different.
I think the above link should be revised to be www.seirawanchess.com.
I have added a link to www.seirawanchess.com. I must still have a link to my homepage if I'm going to publish my Seirawan chess program. Were they given the patent? Seirawan chess, I think, has a huge flaw in that the bishops tend to disappear from the board too fast. The bishop fianchetto is seldom effective because the opponent can move his bishop from the initial position, and offer an exchange while simultaneously guarding the bishop by inserting the Hawk. It is the same problem if you position a bishop at, e.g., c4. Then black can develop his bishop to e6 and simultaneously guarding it by placing a Hawk on c8. While bishops are immensely important for the positional qualities of chess, it is not good if they can be neutralized easily in the opening. /Mats
M Winther, how many Seirawan Chess games have you seen actually played? I find with IAGO Chess, which is like Seirawan Chess, the Bishops don't disappear too fast. Not sure why you argue that the do disappear too fast with Seirawan. A bishop fianchetto is just one of the types of opens you can do. I don't see why bishops are diminished that much personally. In IAGO Chess, the game, you can also drop a Cap piece besides gating it in. It is also not part of castling, and there is less of a rush to get the Cap pieces in. Maybe that makes for a difference. If you don't gate in a piece in Seirawan Chess, you may not be able to get it into the game.
Of course, I test all the games I implement. I haven't made a final judgement, but I remember that it irritated me very much that it was so easy to exchange a bishop which is trying to activate itself. But maybe it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters if Seirawan chess becomes popular among amateurs. It certainly works. But I think that e.g. Gustav III's chess is better, or to have the Seirawan chess set implemented on a Gustavian board, perhaps with the new pieces in th extra corners and not in a mirrored position. I haven't looked closer on IAGO chess, but why don't you forbid entering a Hawk on the bishop squares. Then the bishop's exchange problem is solved. Mats
IAGO Chess (the game) doesn't forbid pieces entering anywhere, because entrance of pieces can be delayed. When Zillions ran it, it would sometimes delay until the end game. When you enter pieces in early, you lose the ability to enter them later, as needed. Your concerns about bishop fianchetto, I can see as something that you may give up as a result of gating. It is not a big deal to myself personally. As for losing the bishops, I don't see it at all. Maybe the way Zillions worked with yourself it happened, but how does one go down BOTH bishops when only ONE of the Cap pieces has the bishop movement. Even in games where I allow players to put down a Hawk (Cardinal), Elephant (Marshal) or Queen in the start space, instead of just the Queen in IAGO Chess (C-Class), it didn't seem a problem at all.
To me it is a concern because I don't like games that tend toward wood-chopping. Positional aspects must be strengthened. The super-knights are very technical, anti-positional, pieces. In this environment one should retain every positional aspect possible. I haven't tested your IAGO chess although you sent me the zrf because I have been so busy. It would be easy for you to prohibit simultaneous gating of the Hawk and bishop movement, however. I am sceptical of free introduction of pieces, i.e., that the player can wait as long as he wants. Generally, a game must have restrictions so that strategical problems are created for the players. There ought to be a strong current in the game toward resolution. If he can wait as long as he wants with the introduction of a heavy piece, then an immensely strong defensive force is always in prepare, while he can introduce it on so many squares. Thus, no matter how good the opponent plays positinally, he cannot achieve a strategically won game. He can only win tactically, and then the game is lopsided towards the tactical. (I know I really shouldn't criticize your variant without having tested it, but here it seems so obvious). I have introduced another method in Alternative Chess: http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/alternativechess.htm In this variant one can also choose to have both the super-knights as extra pieces, but introducing them is compelled, while one must do it on the second rank where a pawn is situated. Introduction can only occur simultaneously with a pawn moving two steps. It is strategically very dangerous to wait, because introduction will weaken your pawn chain drastically, especially if you introduce the piece on g2/g7, for instance. In this way the game has a strong current in that the pawn's double-step creates an aggressive game and also weakens the pawn chain. While the opening proceeds, the squares (unmoved pawns) where the extra pieces can be introduced become fewer and fewer. Soon the opponent can predict where the piece must be introduced and can take preventive measures. In this way, introduction of external pieces becomes a positional and strategical problem. One must alsways strive, I think, to create a problematic game, because chess players want to grapple with problems. It's no wonder that Chinese Chess is the world's most popular game. The problems start immediately in the opening. Three of five pawns are unguarded and are soon attacked, big problems concerning the development of pieces starts immediately. If the rook isn't activated in three moves it is said that the game is lost (but thats an exaggeration). There is no time to wait. Should one have an extra powerful piece to insert at any time, in the endgame even, then Chinese Chess would have been defunct, because then the player can solve his problems in a stroke. So I am sceptical about delayed introduction on any empty first rank(?) square. Mats
When the game 'IAGO Chess' (contrast with The IAGO Chess System, which is a way to systematize all of chess, and has the game IAGO Chess in it), it was meant to address issues I saw with Seirawan Chess: 1. The 9 queen problem. It is theoretically possible to have 9 queens in chess, but they don't supply 9 queens. This may seem ok to people, if the idea of flipping a rook (not in the rules) is used to signify a queen. The 9 queen problem becomes worse, when you try to add even a wider range of pieces. Exactly how does a physical version of the game handle this? As I see it, it is not able to. This hinders the adoption of chess variants, and chess continuing to evolve. What IAGO Chess states is that you are limited to your piece mix. Due to the sheer firepower added (3 queen level pieces) available. It also addresses the issue. 2. I have issues with the case of where you may not be able to get pieces onto the board from reserve, if you just only allow for gating as a way to get them onto the board. All reserve pieces should have a chance to get onto the board at some point. Not allowing this means that reserve pieces are merely an extension of the opening game. This hinders the depth of the game. 3. If one is going to work on 'The Next Chess' (Seirawan would fit into this), as opposed to a gimmick (or unplayed variant), it should represent the fullness of the chess experience. Things should lend towards maximization of options, so that continued play can show what should or should not work. From EXPERIENCE of play, of MULTIPLE people, consensus should be reached. For this reason, IAGO Chess (in the IAGO Chess System) is set up how it is. It is meant to be played and seen from multiple eyeballs. The IAGO Chess System framework allows people to adjust their own game, and take out what they want or don't want. The idea is to get enough games close enough playing, so we can see what will work. This is critically important. My take on what happens is people have pet projects they label a 'Chess' as if it is supposed to be a full-blown game, one that joins a flood of other games, and it is a discrete item that doesn't lend to the body of language at all. What should be derived is what people collective decide to play, that can collectively lend to the experience. --------------------- In all this, I do have much respect for the pieces and suggestions you have. Even your recommended form of displacement in Alternative Chess, I believe is something that should be played. However, I think what you have in Alternative Chess, is merely a rules tweak that can be applied when there are reserve pieces in play. Labeled as a full-blown game, it gets boxed in and not played. Same goes with your 'Reformed Chess', which I see as a mutator for chess, rather than a full-blown game. Same with all your neat pieces. These pieces should be put in Alternative, IAGO or Seirawan, or some other form that uses part or all. What is needed is a community to play with a range of mix of rules and pieces, and a framework to manage this. Arguing over Seirawan, IAGO or Alternative ends up not advancing anything. PLAY should dictate this, as the use of your 'Reformed Chess' pawn. If this is not done, we aren't going to have 'The Next Chess' (the proper adaptation of chess which reduces the number of draws and makes the opening less stale). We will have a variant community that is continued to be divorced from the normal chess community. And, as far as 'IAGO Chess' goes, I suggest the IAGO Chess System be looked at, and what is in it, as far as specific game rules, be proposed and adopted. IAGO Chess (the game) can be modified as play and experience dictates. Let that be what the community deems to be 'The Next Chess'. To sum up, we need a whole lot more PLAYING and less PROPOSING of ideas, and adoption, and community that will play these.
It was reported, possibly relayed through IAGO, that Seirawan and his contingent ''want nothing to do with us,'' want nothing to do with Chess Variant Page, implicitly meaning proliferation the impression being given. If true, why is that? Is there an inevitable and unbridgeable divide? Forget Chess professionals. Why does regular Chess have on the order of 10^4 to 10^6 times more followers than chess variantism does? I think CVers share in the blame for their isolation and outcast status, because the prolificist way of making CVs has only come to fruition since 2000 with Internet facility. As a result, excellent games like Rococo do not get played. Problem themes, the way of problemists, were much better at reaching and creating the Chess-loving audience. That was because T. R. Dawson published in mainstream British Chess Magazine, Betza was Chess Master before he got addicted to proliferation, Vukevich was GM for problem-solving, and so on. In other words, there was normal cooperative interface and converging interest in subject matter. It came about because of careful selection of material by the fairy chess champions, Dawson, Parton, Boyer, Loyd, Betza, with respect for their audience, and sensible outreach to OrthoChess enthusiasts.
Hello George. You may touch on why such had happened. I believe because the Chess Variant community can't agree to common standards, and it is an excess of 'every man for himself', with the CV site being a shrine to self-indulgence, the end result has been a breaking down of the community. I believe the variant community should be the vanguard of any game community, to act as play testers of how a game evolves. When they aren't in this position, being booted out as freakish and disruptive heretics, for the lack of a better word, then then the game community itself suffers from stagnation. You see elements of it even today. There needs to be dialog. I need to also add here that when the variant community spins off a variant that demands players invest in new boards and a bunch of new pieces, before such has been shown, that is yet another issue. Also, when the variant community demands players throw away everything they know, causing chess players to discard their knowledge, in order to play, you don't get crossover. You end up being nothing more than a freakshow to them. Oh, they will look at all these games here, and saw, 'wow, that is odd', but won't play. They may sneak over and try an established variant, that is old (say go from Chess to Xiangqi or Shogi), but that will be on the side. It is a reset of their knowledge. Anyhow, people are free to contact the Seirawan people to see why they feel as they do about variants.
Creating chess variants can be compared to creating chess problems, or solving crosswords. It's a challenge for the intellect and it's not intended as a challenge against Fide-chess, (although a discussion about a reformation of chess will always continue). It is a mathematical passion, similar to chess problems, which is fantasy chess positions, far removed from standard chess. It is a distraction, and it satisfies a somewhat understimulated intellect. The idea that every chess variant creator suffers from megalomania, and expects his variant to be embraced by the chess community, is bunkum. As long as it is remains a peripheral activity in one's life, like solving crosswords, then it cannot be regarded as self-indulgence. I, for one, have no expectancy that anybody is going to try any of my ZoG programs. But since I enjoy programming and testing them, then it's no harm to publish them. /Mats
It is a bad game!!, there is no strong new concept. Pieces were also introduced many times before. Putting too many heavy pieces on 8x8 make this game extremely clumsy. Modern chess or Capablanca chess is far better.
Outcast status? I don't think so. Speaking for myself, I am a loner, doing my own thing because that's what I like to do. I don't seek or need validation from Seirawan, FIDE, IAGO, or any other organization of Chess players to be happy with what I'm doing. I am content that some people are discerning enough to appreciate my games, that various people are enjoying the use of Game Courier, and that it attracts enough activity for me to find opponents to play my games with. As for why Seirawan may want nothing to do with this site, assuming that's the case, maybe he is more into his own variant than he is into variants in general. That's a perfectly fine attitude to take. Not everyone cares as much about the variety of Chess variants as we do, and that is perfectly all right. Or maybe his main contact with the world of Chess variants has been Rich Hutnick, and he was turned off, rightly so, by Hutnick trying to push his own agenda on him. I'm turned off by Hutnick trying to push his agenda on us, and it is enough to keep me from wanting anything to do with IAGO.
Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 03:23 AM UTC:Rich, you can't regulate creativity. We've had this discussion before. IAGO as an entity has no need for regulation in the CV or any other community. Its purpose is to push abstract strategy board games. Chess in any form is a quintessential representation of such. I got interested in the idea of creating an IAGO way back when, got involved, and have paid attention ever since. I can say a few things about it. Everything IAGO could possibly want from the CV site is already happening - slowly. And messily. Examples: the 'Track 1' and serious 'Track 2' game discussions. I will point out these are a constant source of new games that will challenge even the best chessplayers in a tournament. They are exactly what IAGO wants for tournaments, because they have all been playtested and examined for problems by some very creative people. Further, I will point out that the game out of the 10 or so games I've discussed as the best 'next chess' game is Fergus' Eurasian Chess. The only game I'd rule out of an IAGO-sponsored tournament of all the games I discussed is Black Ghost [sorry George - but I do think all the others are fine for not merely a CV tournament but an abstract games tournament] because it unbalances the game to black. I don't think it's a fair [enough] game. There are people here doing things from working on making CV kits to creating the new interfaces we are and will be using. But it's the free choice of everyone involved. IAGO is not a leader taking us to a promised land. Instead, IAGO is a librarian, who should be able to assist people in finding games by providing information and easy directions. Rather than make the rules, IAGO uses rules already made by others. While it may showcase some games in tournaments around the world, it's meant to direct people into the wide world of abstract games. You yourself were the one who put together the IAGO database of about 1000 games playable against human opponents over the internet. That's a card catalog for abstract strategy games you've made. That's a service, one that IAGO performs as part of its function. Being useful and user-friendly should be the main goal of IAGO. The CV site is meant to be mostly glorious chaos, as far as I can tell. But chaos spontaneously organizes into patterns, and this is where IAGO will get its infusion of games from. However, while IAGO can get its games from the order found here - George and I aren't working together for nothing; we both see theoretical and practical benefits from The Two Tracks and other such ideas - the site gets its life from the chaos it sustains. By attempting to push everyone in a particular direction, you will only get people to push back, even if they want to go that way. And many if not most of us are far too individualistic to go any way but our own. Yet if it's an interesting path IAGO offers, many of us will walk it to see what's there. [Push, and you find people roll rocks onto the path...] In trying so [too] hard, you make it difficult for the rest of us to talk about IAGO - it's overkill. I'd love to run an IAGO tournament featuring chessvariants [and other games], in New York or Baltimore or Cleveland or Boston or Albany or... but we have to get people there. I'd like to be able to feature Next Chess games and a prize or two, and pull in some people who visit the site. For that, we need more positive feelings and fewer negative ones. Ahem. I don't want people using the IAGO banner as a dartboard while I'm standing by it waiting for the ScoreFour tournament at NonCon, for example. And as an editor of this site, I have to be extremely careful of conflicts of interest, among others. As I have a standing policy of preventing or ending conflicts [not heated discussions] onsite as I am reasonably able to, I find it nicely ironic that in this I can and will say as little [more] as possible, being both a very early member of IAGO and later the junior editor here. It seems I may be obliged to both comment and not comment. I think the football game is still on...
George Duke asks:
Why does regular Chess have on the order of 10^4 to 10^6 times more followers than chess variantism does?
Followers want leadership, and the Chess world gives them that. Chess variants attract a kind of pioneering individual who is averse to being a follower. We're the Daniel Boones of the Chess world, scouting ahead where the masses of followers still fear to tread.
I think CVers share in the blame for their isolation and outcast status, because the prolificist way of making CVs has only come to fruition since 2000 with Internet facility. As a result, excellent games like Rococo do not get played.
I dealt with the outcast status bit in another message. I was going to answer that Rococo is doing fairly well. 21 games of it have been completed on Game Courier, which is better than most games, but 16 of those games were played by you. Most of the ongoing games of Rococo are also yours. So why isn't it doing better than it is? And is proliferation the cause of this? I'll deal with the first question first. There are a few reasons Rococo is not so popular. (1) Its inventors are not actively promoting it. (2) Its an Ultima variant, and I expect most Chess variant players prefer games with capture by displacement. In fact, while David and Peter were working on Rococo, I began working on my own Ultima variant, but I found myself so uninterested in Ultima-style games I never bothered to release it. (3) Rococo is too recent to have ever gained much of a following.
Now for the second question. Is proliferation the cause of people not playing Rococo? If we look at the games doing better than Rococo on Game Courier, most are older, more established games. A few are newer. Of these, one has been heavily played by its inventor, and a couple more seem to have achieved some genuine degree of popularity. Would people play Rococo more if there was less proliferation? I can't answer that. But I think it is unlikely that it would be played much more. Several of the players on Game Courier are game inventors trying out their own games. If they weren't here proliferating, they might not be here playing games either. And many others here are playing a large number of different games. It seems that Game Courier attracts people who are interested in variety and creativity. Yes, there are a lot of games, and if there were fewer games, some might get played more than they are now. But all this affects is the popularity of individual games. The important thing is that many games are being played, many more than were being played in the 1990's. This is good for Chess variants in general even if it spreads the wealth among games instead of more easily enabling a selected few to rise in popularity.
I am not sure why this method of dropping into the back rank was chosen. Its quite possible that white will have an even greater advantage because of this. Better to make the drop as a separate turn. This seems more logical and slows it down a tad. Also I just realized I had commented on this item before. Looks to me that the ability to drop ninja pawns in addition to the rook-knight and bishop -knight might actually be more interesting perhaps 2 or 4, not sure. The Rook-knight and bishop knight drop into empty space in backrank in separate turn. The ninja pawns can drop into vacant space in second rank and optionally push forward to center. The ninja pawns will move like pawns except for enpassant and ability to move 1 space sideways and also capture sideways in enemy half of board. At this point this variant has failed miserably even more so than gothic which i believe is far superior (and actually in retrospect quite a good variant). Perhaps the version I suggest above might be interesting - I wouldn't mind trying it. I may create a preset and send out a challenge. As to why does regular Chess have on the order of 10^4 to 10^6 times more followers than variant chess .. Chess variants are parallel universes - completely unexplored with weird rules /laws and strange configuration. The regular chess universe is still unexplored and overwhelming for most despite the oversaturation of opening theory at top GM level. Chess variants are for those with moderate to little interest in regular chess and with no desire to compete with regular chess players. I doubt if there are currently is any 2100+ rated (at present) chess player interested in variants. Seirawan himself must have lost interest in his own variant just like Bobby Fischer lost interest in FRC. 2100 chess rating is approximately the elo at which opening theory becomes tedious since many lines do have to be memorized. Some may say its even higher than that. Below 2100 and memorizing opening theory is not terribly important - understanding openings is of course a different matter. It is important that the chess variant community understand that nothing is to be gained by proposing to 'fix' chess or to 'convert' chess followers. Chess variants instead must attract the type of person who does not want to dedicate to one game and likes a chess-like family of games. Of course high rated players disillusioned with the game will be welcome but they must come on their own. Rather than harp on the nonexistent 'flaws' of chess, it is better to show how interesting it is to play a game of chess in which a few properties are changed. Board size, pieces etc making in many cases a radically different but still vaguely familiar game of chess. This is the appeal of chess variants. Think HORSE in poker - tournament of a family of poker games. A chess tournament like this can take place here too. The recent Cv Potluck was a good start, and SHOULD BE DONE AGAIN. Maybe one day the parallel universes of chess might appeal to a totally new audience. From that certainly a few chess variants will immediately spring to mind in the general populace just as orthodox chess does now.
The underlying reason for this dropping method is that the external pieces are forced to make an entry soon. It creates a flow in the game. If all the pieces develop and no entry is done, then the pieces cannot be introduced. If they were allowed to stay outside and enter at any time, then the game would be strategically unclear. It wouldn't be possible to decide for a plan because you wouldn't know what forces the opponent has prepared. It is not proper for Western chess which demands planning and foresight. So it's a good idea. In my Pioneer Chess I go even further. The players, in their first move, must decide from which file they aim to introduce the external piece. http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/pioneerchess.htm /Mats
Not so. Dropping it on a separate turn does not allow the drawback you stated in your site. Why should a player not decide to drop a powerful piece? My suggestion allows one player to develop quickly without dropping the piece and still have that option in reserve. An altogether more flexible situation adding more varied type of play.
In fact the game is VERY strategically clear to each player - either one or both players can choose to develop first gain the advantage and then introduce the piece.
I see no reason the dropped piece is 'FORCED' to make an entry soon. That makes the game more contrived and less flexible. If anything it is preferable to leave that up to the players. A good player will be smart enough to know that the opponent will eventually introduce the new piece. If a player is good enough to play without the piece he/she can dos so knowing that the option to introduce it still remains.
The game Wreckage uses this drop mechanism.By the way your description for Pioneer Chess is faulty. IF White turns down the piece and Black overrules - no game can be played - both players disagree on what game to play.
Charles, the common sense rule in chess is that the heavy pieces are best kept in the reserve. The heavy Capablanca pieces are awkward when surrounded by light enemy pieces on this small board. Strategically, it is more clever to keep them in the reserve until the situation is cleared up. This is coupled with the great flexibility of the introduction square. But this would create a game that is unconstrained and allows the players to play with hidden cards. It is destructive to the clarity of the game. Planning becomes very difficult. Generally, free introduction of heavy pieces is not a good idea. /Mats
Yes, but this is my point. The pieces are too heavy and most likely give white a huge advantage. Anyway, I saw the video of Seirawan introducing the game. From what I gather he seemed like a nice guy and quite honest though there is still a possibility that this variant was invented purely for profit which by itself is not bad but not with the flaws it has. Anyway, he seemed quite interested in the new pieces but i get the feeling he has not explored the game in depth and not too interested if the game is balanced. For example he showed a mate in 4 which went something like e4 e5 d4 d3 pxp pxp qxq drop elephant mate. He seemed quite excited by that - and yes these things fascinated me when i started out with chess variants. But i have come to realize that very powerful pieces on a board while interesting have their drawbacks esp on a 8x8 board. Also you are basically saying it is an advantage to be able to drop the heavy pieces anytime so there should only be a few chances at the beginning. I am saying though that the move followed by a drop is actually 2 moves. Why not simply keep the same restriction of introducing early but make the drop a separate turn? IN that case that mate in 4 could not have happened and white may not get such a huge advantage. Seirawan also mentioned that their first idea was to have the pieces exist on the board right from the beginning in a fianchetto and they rejected that idea. It seems to me that they did not playtest before and play around with the different parameters enough before releasing. Anyway this whole discussion gives me an idea for a new variant on an 8x8 very similar and in my opinion better. I really wish I could stop making variants -- and leave it to you to just make every conceivable one possible :) i guess the next 2 or 3 will be my encore and i am done for good ... hopefully :)
Three already ratings are enough. I previously rated SC Excellent, Good, and errrr Poor once too, for conflicting reasons. Of course Carrera Centaur(BN) and Champion(RN), the two exotic pieces here, have been around 400 years. They have been used in hundreds of rules sets. The vast majority would be 8x10 and 10x10. CVPagers all of a sudden have shunned them the last two years. Hopefully for good. I saw the Seirawan video without the audio once for nonverbal cues. Daniel is right Seirawan is pseudo-excited for who-knows-why and who-cares-why. Sorrowfully Seirawan admits to not even having known BN and RN exist for centuries. [Cue-in. Duhhhh. Act gleeful anyway.] We are the experts and the professionals now, not the vested-interest several hundred GMs of old-style 64-squares, their one settled version. Their expertise may not transpose very well and they know it.
/a> ////
Seirawan Chess has its good point in a weak drop system for easy familiarity. Chessbase. The foregoing describes S-Chess ignoring that in variant circles there is disenchantment with Elephant(RN) and Bird(BN) as not measuring up. For example, on specific 8x8 the immediate sense contrary to Seirawan is that the same Carrera Champion and Centaur would need more space. It is obvious to anyone with a feel for Chess. Think for instance of awkwardness in Betza's 1970s Tutti-Frutti on little 64 squares. Yasser Seirawan is ranked #93 worldwide with inactivity since 2007. He is busy immersed in OrthoChess, so the acceptable, above average CV analysis here by our standards is actually good to see in simply appearing at establishment Chessbase several paragraphs. Locked-mindset Chessbase being more the problem inhibiting advance than gms experimenting practically the same way Lasker and Capa did 80 years back. Obstinate non-mention of 400-year-old Carrera's or Bird's or others' than Capablanca becomes offensive when considering that even if called to their attention the likes of prior groundbreaking Carreras, they probably still would cite origination in 1920s Capablanca, the same decade of f.i.d.e. founding. Overcoming 8x8 obsession is automatic by regarding other standards, regional Shogi 9x9 and continental Xiangqi 9x10, and then deciding which among 9x9, 8x10 and so on are right for worldwide fundamental pieces and their supposed logical compounds.
What would Capa say about S-Chess? Not bad, but the extra mechanism in the drop is unnecessary by enlarging the board. Beyond Capa's thought, are Hawk(bn) and Elephant(rn) second fiddle? If not, why not rather pre-situate Hawk and Elephant and then serial-drop the Queen and later some one other piece, to keep the desparate 8x8 size? Start these things and there are hundreds of S-Chess subvariants at large. A designer can think of one subvariant a minute or more, and an incidental programmer can never keep up since it takes him an hour minimum to alter/add the right code to fit. So let's stay with the gm S-Chess design specifics, not to embarrass programming-savvy designers. S-Chess is intended anyway not as some Next Chess, but as a diversion and decoy, obviously intended to be picked apart. Seirawan knows it is not going anywhere but fun to analyze between rounds. Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7638. Ergo two exhibits: (I) Specifically here, for example, Knight exits b1-c3 and the next turn or two Elephant dropped (bulkily) to b1 guards that very Horse. The 'b-1' White Elephant -- pun intended -- out of nowhere cannot figure in a castling maneuvre of course. To castle Queenside, White Elephant in fact now has to clear out pronto. Thus Elephant can exit the same way original Knight did, or Elephant just wait until the b-file Pawn two-steps. Then Elephant can go Rook-style like b1-b3. Scads of fun but does it feel really justifiably Chess-like-deep, natural and inspiring? (II) In S-Chess, on little 64 squares player, without having promoted a Pawn, can have four Knight-steps attacking a given square from behind at once, for instance, 'd4' well-guarded by all of conforming Knight on c2, Knight on f3, Knight-leg Elephant e2, Knight-leg Hawk b3. Demonstrating over-the-hill soon-400-year-old 'RN' and 'BN' ex Carrera overkill to the spry space 'd4' nigh. Unaesthetic.
H. G. Muller wrote on Thu, Nov 3, 2011 07:13 PM UTC:> and an incidental programmer can never keep up since it takes him an > hour minimum to alter/add the right code to fit Not really. In Fairy-Max, for instance, the only thing you would have to do is permute the Queen, Hawk and Elephant definitions in the ini file: // Seirawan Chess (with Archbishop and Chancellor gated in during game) Game: seirawan 8x8 5 3 4 7 6 4 3 5 5 3 4 7 6 4 3 5 p:74 -16,24 -16,6 -15,5 -17,5 p:74 16,24 16,6 15,5 17,5 n:259 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7 b:296 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 R:444 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 Q:851 1,3 16,3 15,3 17,3 -1,3 -16,3 -15,3 -17,3 k:-1 1,34 -1,34 1,7 16,7 15,7 17,7 -1,7 -16,7 -15,7 -17,7 h:780 15,3 17,3 -15,3 -17,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7 E:814 1,3 16,3 -1,3 -16,3 14,7 31,7 33,7 18,7 -14,7 -31,7 -33,7 -18,7 The last two pieces mentioned (those after King) are those that start off-board, and you could move the definition of any of the pieces there. Of course you would have to start from a set-up position to tell which array you wanted on the board. But it would not take more than a minute...
(III) More general fault in S-Chess is carryover lack of symmetry. That is, RN and BN since conceived around year 1617 are two distinct types. What is the compulsion that they occur together always? Actually in Janus Chess are two Carrera Centaurs(BN) on 8x10. In CVs obviously Rooks get paired R+R, Bishop B+B, Knights N+N in all sub-genres even Carreras. Most in the Carrera/Capablanca camp rather tend to add only one each of Marshall(RN) and Cardinal(BN). All sub-genres tolerate even emphasize several interchangeable names too, as here, understanding Centaur/Archbishop/Cardinal/Janus/Hawk are one and the same compound of Bishop plus Knight, according to cv-context and chosen definition. The CV-field is that way at once peculiarly fluid and precise. Now, that there are 8 piece-types not 6 counting Pawn is more disruptive 8x8 than 8x10 and 10x10 when adding one only Hawk and Elephant -- to the detriment of these thinkable S-Chesses. Usual aesthetics dictates paired same-types: Bifurcators, Sissa, Unicorn, Centennial's Murray Lion, Betzan C.D.A. Half-Duck, Falcon, Mastodon, Shako Elephant, Bent Hero and Shaman. Note that some of the above are embedded Track Two novelty CVs, notional artwork, and others intended Track I Next Chess replacements of f.i.d.e.-incomplete 8x8 and that one's random chess subvariants. Anyway the ideal of all the others is to keep pairing same-types across the board, excepting those self-designated special-case Carreras with late incarnation S-chesses suffering same affliction.
(IV) Generally Hawk and Elephant will both enter the game before move 10. Keeping such power in reserve disadvantages the player. So basically two near-Queen-value pieces are added without strengthening the Pawns at all. Top-rank designers tend to provide Pawn enhancement when raising the power density like that. On large boards array-Pawn may acquire three-step option too. On little 8x8 Pawn may get a promotional boost where the pieces are rather strong, or additional one-step option. S-Chess design so far leaves Pawn unchanged. This style of brute force is common for beginners. Unfortunate throwaway Pawns and less subtle play that result may have to describe the imbalanced milieu where indiscrimateness or arbitrariness as to Piece/Pawn offset obtain. Artists and designers must think through the implication to avoid over-skewing important factors, not least relative strength of all pawns to that of the Piece field.
(V) Is there then something implied really special all the centuries about Carrera year 1617 Centaur(bn) and Champion(rn), so not subject to time-honoured design considerations? How could that be so if the types, unlike R-N-B-K-Q-P, figure in less than 0.5% the space of Chess tracts, histories and monographs? Even mediaeval Alfil and Ferz get mentioned more in passing reference. It appears the literature has plenty of catching up to start doing on nuance of B+N and R+N, a real gaping momentary lapse. For instant starter, how to get maximum potential advantage if opening '1 Knight g1-f3... 2 Elephant drop -g1...'? Will this '2 Elephant -g1' become standard? Think thump trunk-derivation instead, and Castle/00 (!) may become the favoured modern move to open Elephant(rn) line of attack. That scenario would lead up to '5 Elephant-h1...' where the vacated rook sat before the Castle. There are superficially 8 possibilities in the back rank, but really 10 or 12 when Castling is considered. 'Ten' possibilities because King and Rook must themselves go to an otherwise impossible square with subsequent immediate plant of the off-board Hawk or of the Elephant, upon the Rook overstep, at either vacated King's 'e1' or Rook's 'a1/h1' next turn. All the contingencies cry for complete analysation where none exists. How and when to vacate and to drop them, the Hawk and Elephant, are virgin territory. Besides, S-Chesses in their cautious original serial drop technique open the door to other related, interesting but different from each other piece-types to be used and introduced just by designing what cvers call 'subvariants'. The same conservative near-rank same-side drop can be used for other pairs than those ancient upstart, awkward rn-bn. If Centaur and Champion turn out again not to be the cat's mieow, there are many other related pairs to try in their place: Cannon and Canon, Duke and Cavalier(Renaissance Chess), Falcon and Hunter (Schultz's year 1943 Hunter-Falcon), Left Schizzy and Right Schizzy(Schizophrenic), Bent Hero and Shaman. Examples only all of the foregoing, because the list since year 2000 has to reach 100 or even 200 of intriguing, connected pairs of p-ts clearly delineated from each other. Extending the S-Chess concept to warrantable subvariants brings them on board in familiar environment for trial one by one as two only each new CV under S-Chesses 8x8 -- rather than the usual paired fixed pre-placement approach 8- or 10- or 12-wide.
S-Chess back-rank drop is good idea, but conflating the vacating and the drop in one move is bad idea. So these comments just ignore it to now, otherwise adhering to the S-Chess pieces and board. Drops from Shogi to Pocket Mutation are individual stand-alone moves with few exceptions. Technically the revision to require postponement of the drop to the very next move after piece leaves its array spot amounts to ''subvariant,'' and S-chesses could play well enough either way with better off-board piece-types. It actually makes more conservative the S-drop-mechanism to split into two moves. The author analogizes his proposal, making the drop part and parcel of the exit, to Castling. That way makes Castling itself with a drop tantamount to a triple move, which is too extreme for Chesses not deliberately plural-move category. The original S-Chess Castle with Hawk drop of the inventors means ''King slide, Rook slide over, Hawk drop,'' a three-mover. No way, too radical any prospective Track One, so under discussion only here are the revised natural first move of any piece, then next move optional drop to the piece's departure square instead.
Look at other CV works having drops. Para-Xiangqi is Black's design with drop restriction by special piece's needing to be present. Follow-up will examine those drop-cvs of Winther and Nelson.
Novelty classic Pocket Mutation, http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/pocketmutation.html, has the wide Shogi drop mechanism practically anywhere on board. In contrast, S-chesses are cautiously restricted to one specific square when at all. Broadening the S-chess drop could allow placement of the one Hawk or the one Elephant, two pieces per player, anytime to a vacant a1, b1...h1. Beyond that liberalization would no longer be serial S-chess family of subvariants, let's suppose. The essence of S-Chesses in their entirety would seem to be in the drop to vacant back-rank square. Cousins still S-chess family could work, in other words, on larger boards than 8x8, or with different better-received off-board pieces, or by allowing more than one near-rank square. Probably core-essence of an S-chess should also include starting OrthoChess R,N,B,K, and Q, but the solid innovation to note is straightforward back-rank drop. Full-range drop rather is appealing Pocket Mutation, having so many kinds of pieces, following prototype of regional Shogi. However, restricting the drop is promising Track-One Mutator for one, two, or three cv pieces. Which other better mechanisms keeping piece-drop to only one or several squares can be devised? Outside the S-Chess school are other possibilities of restricted post-array placement from reserve, among them: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MLaccessorychess, and http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MLalternativeche, to contrast and compare.
S-chess deserves sub-genre status now established by these comments since 28.October.2011. Other CV sub-genres include
year-1961 Ultima copycats and offshoots, year-1617 Carrera improvements on 8x10 and 10x10, Shogi revisions, Xiangqi revisions or look-alikes, and Mutator plural-move CVs -- to name five other examples. Now S-chess criteria are twofold in first back-rank drop and, second, array RNBQK permutated flexibly. The only one embodiment in Seirawan's write-up here is extendable by changing the reserve pieces to better ones, enlarging the board, or allowing more than one square to drop. Those three factors in combinations become thousands of CV sub-variants for thought experiments within this subgenre. In general, S-chesses are very able to introduce trouble-free new piece-types on familiar 8x8 or enlarged 8x10 preferentially, such as Bifurcators from the mid-aughts, year 1992 Falcon, Bent Hero and Bent Shaman of year 2006. Easily a thousand and more other piece-types, half developed since year 2000, are possible to bring on board post-move-one the same S-chess manner. Daunting but attainable is task to continue winnowing across subgenres those all inventive piece-types to just a few and also an auxiliary surrounding group of novelty 50 or 100 of the best cv p-ts to date. But is the S-Chess technique better than other placement techniques? Alternative_
Chess and Accessory_Chess, require instead the drop behind a Pawn to rank 2. Next question can be to compare the two, S-chesses and A-chesses, as to mechanism and effect. One or the other selected and justified, ideally, would exclude the competing idea most purposes. Designers should be able agree on an answer -- Rank 1 versus Rank 2 (or 3) at issue here. The same way problem-themes settle ''Which is the best move?'' to one right answer. Or cautiously would there be something else instead in carefully-selected hybrid? Basically, is it A-chess or is it S-chess?
Should drop be in A-Chess or S-Chess manner? Consigning the other to oblivion, there has to be unequivocal answer. Track One represents replacement chesses of the obsolete f.i.d.e. singlet. Board can remain 8x8 or expand to 8x10, 9x9, and 10x10. Even 10x10 CVs improve by invoked optional accepted drop-mechanism. At the extreme for Track One, typical '10x10' will have Queen-type and King and four pairs. The drop of one or two or three reserve pieces could mean 8th piece-type and 9th piece-type, thus maintaining the aesthetic sub-near-10% ratio of 20th-century f.i.d.e. standard, 6/64. Ask in advance, what should be the value of preferred off-board pieces only later to occupy the board? Comparing historic Shogi drops and estimating piece-values comprehensively relevant and shifting to probably more suitable 8x8 and 8x10 ought all be part of the equation. Draw on all quarters. Basically, is it S-chess or is it A-chess?
H. G. Muller wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2012 03:04 PM UTC:I have set up a web page to act as a turn-based server for a group of people that wanted to play S-Chess over the internet. For those interested, the page is at: http://hgm.nubati.net/schess/play.html
I've played over a couple of old Game Courier logs of Seirawan chess that apparently relied on at least 2 presets available through Mr. Winther, but now the links to them are broken, it seems. Not sure if they were rules enforcing, but at least they showed the extra two pieces each side has at the start of a game. There is a non-rules enforcing preset on Game Courier currently, at least, but it shows nothing but a chessboard & pieces, and the players need to be wary that they ought to each drop their non-visible Hawk & Elephant on their own first rank in good time. Not sure if all this has caused the popularity of Seirawan Chess to drop in Game Courier play for some time now.
Regarding my last post on Seirawan Chess, pertaining to Mr. Winther's presets: I had tried to find them through the credits section of the logs of fininished games, and discovered the links to said Winther presets appeared broken when clicking on them. However, it seems the Winther presets can be accessed via the 'All Games Played' page on Game Courier, by using either of said presets as given beside 'Seirawan Chess'. My apologies for any confusion.
Here's wikipedia's entry on Seirawan Chess, which includes the rules that it gives for the game, in case some of the finer points are ever difficult to find out otherwise:
It seems to me that Seirawan Chess is just one special case of Pioneer Chess invented by Mats Winther in 2009.
It seems to me that Seirawan Chess is just one special case of Pioneer Chess invented by Mats Winther in 2009.
No, there is a difference between the rules. In Pioneer Chess, you must place each additional piece behind the piece whose space it may occupy after the piece moves away before play begins. So, each additional piece has only one space it may be dropped on. But in Seirawan Chess, each additional piece has eight possible spaces it may be dropped on, and where it will be dropped is determined during the course of play, not before play begins.
H. G. Muller wrote on Sun, Feb 19, 2023 11:32 AM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from Sat Feb 18 10:09 PM:It seems to me that Seirawan Chess is just one special case of Pioneer Chess invented by Mats Winther in 2009
Musketeer Chess is a version of Pioneer Chess. Except that it allows introduction of two pieces, rather than just a single one, through the Pioneer-Chess gating mechanism.
Actually I like the Seirawan gating mechanism better. It doesn't require a game prelude governed by additional rules, and offers an interesting dilemma for when to gate the pieces: a piece that still might appear anywhere could be worth more than a piece in a known location that you currently do not need yet, but as the number of gating opportunities decreases during development of the other pieces such an advantage decreases, and turns into the risk that you might not be able to gate at all.
You are right thank you. Indeed I was confused.
92 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
/Mats