Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I think the way to think about the life of OrthoChess regina rabiosa is as
 arithmetic progression. Think of Chaturanga-Shatranj as living from year
600 to 1500, 900 years. Then that OrthoChess mad-queen 8x8 lasts years
1500-2000. Most know it is dead, whether declared as such in 1996 or 2000
or 2016.  Well, that is 500 years. The progression is 900, 500, 100 years.
Probably what Chesses emerge over the next few years will last the century
only, then themselves be supplanted. What 2 or 10 can CVPage come to
recommend for this 21st century, realizing as Hutnik says that once
defined, they have a lifetime label. // Obama said recently about McCain an individual needs to be able to concentrate on more than one thing at once. This topic is specific embodiments for Next Chesses perhaps to help Hutnik, or myself, evaluate and hierarchize.

Bastion of Orthodoxy more even than FIDE is the Chess Variant Pages? I think grandmasters would tend to scoff
at Shatranj, in spite of Kramnik's publicly playing similar Makruk. FIDE 8x8 just has tremendous historical leverage, and it is variantists' prerogative to tilt back. Or is Chess Variant Page just to have another generation of
orthodoxists? Come on, hundreds of CVs are better than OrthoChess. It is
matter of selecting and organizing the right ones appropriate for timely evolution. Possibly that is what Duniho and Muller are covertly leading up to, talking about readiness of the several engines. It is the reason I constantly rate and evaluate CVPage material. Hold a CV up to FIDE mad queen and maybe 10% of the time the CV is better altogether, but just does not get proper recognition. Of the 9 nominated here so far, I rate Centennial, Mastodon, Eurasian, and Switching better than standard 8x8.

Track One for year 2012: Big Board 10x10, Courier 'de la Dama' 8x12, Eight-Stone 9x8.  Concretely we also have Modern, Mastodon,
Eurasian for 2009; Centennial, Templar, Unicorn Great for 2010; and
Switching, Seirawan, Black Ghost for 2011. Acknowledge that about half the
elements within CVPage are hostile to any ''next chesses,'' and CVPage
is stuck as bastion of orthodoxy after its early glory years 1995-1999. Numbering perhaps a hundred frequenters, the variant-Orthodoxists prefer CV artwork, impossible to be played extensively, and if they are not
designers themselves, appreciation of art for art's sake in CVs. The
activity's significance is akin to figurative orthogonal basketweaving,
trying one by one, by one by one every possible pattern and material without prejudgment. Some very few among them, the very idea of abandoning OrthoChess 8x8 as the standard reference physically sickens, there is evidence. Now also perhaps an equal number hundred readers, the other
half, are openminded to outright reform and  inclined to let evidence pile up, as to what CV-types may be more logical evolution of old Crazy Queen 8x8, by organizing, hierarchizing, and then advocating.   The dilemma of OrthoChess herself, despite her smallness in mere 64 squares, is that she is  more satisfyingly-complete form within herself and not immediately suggestive of natural spinoffs, than clever excellent Xiangqi (10x9) or
mediocre regional, captivating Shogi (9x9). It is easier for CVers to
demarcate Mad Queen from Mad Queen variants, or put an occasional 8-square
rules-set as reformative not revolutionary, than it is for either Xiangqi
or Shogi. The two main Eastern standards have never had the compelling
logic of  500-year-old Scacca Alla Rabiosa.

These are all Track One. Year 2013: Wildebeest(10x11), Fantasy Grand
Chess(10x10), Venator(68 squares). As much play as possible of each of
these three enlargements during 2013 will help sort them among the CV
pantheon. Intervening years already have scheduled: 2009 Modern, Mastodon,
Eurasian; 2010 Centennial, Templar, Unicorn Great; 2011 Switching,
Seirawan, Black Ghost; 2012 Big Board, Courier de la Dama, Eight-Stone.
Wildebeest poses whether an improved return to some Turkish Great Chess
model could be solution. Fantasy Grand is the author's creation of a
Betza Chess Different Armies on 10x10. Unfortunately for Betza, he never
did that and stayed with 8x8 97% of the time, so I do not foresee any
''Betza'' here besides Black Ghost during the '8x8' year 2011. Finally, admittedly Fantasy Grand Chess is Track Two also (Joyce and I have debated the area of overlap), but deliberately we want one where sides are different, so be sure to play FGC at least once all during 2013.

Let's discuss Black Ghost Chess [a 'George 2011' proposal]. Which
variant did you have in mind? I was one of those who played a standard
black ghost game, and came to the conclusion that the piece overbalances
the game to black. Use of ghosts for both sides is problematical for a
mainstream game because it adds 2 totally different pieces to the standard
orthochess mix that behave differently than the other pieces, and are
basically used to get in the way of the other player. I guess I have an
aesthetic objection as much as anything else. The game didn't feel as
'serious' as chess does to me, because the added pieces are gadflies
rather than troops. While a fascinating idea, ghosts are as much a kludge
as castling or pawn double steps and en passant. It's a feeling of
'add-on' rather than integration. At least, that's my opinion. If
[enough] people agree with that opinion, that would disqualify games with
a ghost.

In general, I'd argue that the 'next chess' would not use outre pieces
- and by that I mean outre for chess players, not us chess heretics. I'd
also argue that the changes would not be of an add-on nature, for
aesthetic reasons. This is my problem with games like Seirawan or the
68-square boards. There is an 'add-on' or a 'lets take this and stick
it into chess' feel about these games that doesn't sit quite right with
me. I'm looking for a good, conservative re-design to upgrade, not an
aftermarket kit bolted to antiquity, for the next chess contenders. I
honestly feel the 80 square 8x10 is a better board for the games proposed
by their creators as good candidates. These games are not disqualified
from being the next chess, but they do have a mark against them.

I'd also argue that the changes would not be of an add-on nature, for aesthetic reasons. This is my problem with games like Seirawan or the 68-square boards. There is an 'add-on' or a 'lets take this and stick it into chess' feel about these games that doesn't sit quite right with me. I'm looking for a good, conservative re-design to upgrade, not an aftermarket kit bolted to antiquity, for the next chess contenders.

I agree. Seirawan has the advantage of being a baby step for Chess players who want to try something different, but it has no chance of replacing Chess, because it is just Chess with extras, not an integrated alternative with its own separate identity.

The thing with Seirawan Chess (or IAGO Chess, if you want to have more
flexibility in what you do with it), is that it is one of multiple STEPS
that need to be considered.  I will speak of IAGO Chess here, because you
are free to mess with it.  With IAGO Chess, you get a way to bring
reserves into the game.  There is also more board types, pieces types, and
also mutators that also should be considered.  You can also consider
shuffles (Chess960) as another element.  I can also say, add different
formations, as seen in Near Chess and Near vs Normal Chess.

You do ALL of these.  Don't try to presume one minute you can roll out a
single set of rules declared from on high and assume that a community of
players will adopt it.  This approach has been tried over and over, and
doesn't work.  You get certain types picking up a certain following, but
not the whole.  The reason is that the community of players don't own the
set of rules, some person does, or some business does.

I will say here the 'Next Chess' isn't going to be something with its own identity.  What it will be is an evolutionary extension of chess.  It may evolve and eventually break away, but to go 'poof' and deliver it ex-nihilo hasn't shown itself as viable in the centuries of chess being around.  The only way chess did become distinct by Shatranj was by a community of players adding different elements, that were experimented with and adopted.  And, I will add here, unless this CV community works to an evolutionary approach, you are going to be blocked from having a say in the chess world, by the chess world settling upon Speed Chess, and playing around with Bughouse and Chess960 (MAYBE Seirawan also sneaks in).  When this gets settled into, and expect it over the next 10 years for it to be so (if not sooner), expect the Chess community to totally ignore you until at least he 22nd century.  In other words, everyone here will all be dead.

Ok, I will get off my soapbox here by saying, can't people come up with a
list of interchangeable standard parts and everyone experiment and let
whatever configuration arise be the Next Chess?  Or is this topic so bound
by egos that the Next Chess has to belong to one person or one company?

Chess evolved from Shatranj, because Shatranj was BORING to the extreme.
Many pices were useless, or almost nearly so. So there was a great
incentive to replace them.

Today we face an entirely different problem: Chess is a magnificent game,
but it has been played so often that most of its possibilities have been
exhausted, and can now be mastered by rote learning. As the problem is
different, it is not obvious at all that the solution can be the same,
i.e. replace some pieces by other pieces. It is true that replacing, say,
Bishops by Cannons, or Knights by Ferz+Dabbaba pieces would make all
opening theory useless, but today we have computers. And these computers
can play the millions of GM-level games that led to the current level of
opening theory within a year. There are only a few hundred Human GMs, but
one Chess program of the level of the World Champion can easily run on
100,000 PCs...

So I guess what we need is more complexity, not different pieces per se.
Chess960 is an attempt to drive up the complexity 960 fold with the same
material, but it is ugly, ugly, ugly... The beautiful symmetry and
meticulous tuning of the opening array, where each piece starts on a
square that is not awkward, and traffic jams in the opening can be easily
avoided, is completely destroyed in most Chess960 setups. A game where
Knights start in the corner, or Bishop on b1/g1 is just no fun.

One way to get more complexity, is to start with more pieces. I am not
sure gating in pieces like Seirawan does is a good way: IMO the board gets
to crowded. Wider boards would be more natural. But this does pose the
problem of equipmet, as in some of the less fortunate parts of the World
boards larger than 8x8 are not easy to come by.

An alternative is the Superchess approach: this is played on a normal 8x8
board, with the normal number of pieces to avoid crowding. But the pieces
you play with are not the same in every game, as you start the game by
selecting pieces from a bigger set. Although Superchess does not mention
this as a requirement, you could refine the rules such that the prelude of
selecting the pieces creates an esthetically pleasing quasi-symmetric
array, and fobid certain classes of pieces on certain squares (something
that Superchess already does) to avoid awkward bottlenecks in development.


The complexity then would come from the large number of pieces you could
select from. The way I envision it, would be to have a list of Queen
replacements, a list of Bishop replacements, etc. These lists would be
chosen in such a way that developing the pieces does not cause awkward
problems.

One can argue, in one sense, that chess is a victim of its own success. 
Despite some kludginess in the rules, individuals could stumble across the
rules, and play, and find a game that could keep them busy a lifetime.  It
is when you get a community behind a game that they do wear it out.  This
is the nature of abstract strategy games, is that they set themselves up
to be solved.  The more popular the game, the sooner it wears itself out.

What I will say is happening is the chess community is gravitating towards
Speed Chess as the solution to a lot of its ills.  Reducing the time to
play a game offers the biggest bang for the buck.  So, do expect that to
become more of the norm as time goes on.

Of course, the opening book being stale is another issue, but it seems to
be not that important to the chess community normally.  Chess960 has show
enough there.  However, there does appear to be some backlash.  It will
likely, by default, be the way to address opening book staleness, unless a
better solution is offered.

And, all this being said, I believe the variant community should look into
its strengths and try to come up with some alternative that can speak to
the conversation.

By the way, the issue I see with Superchess is that it s a proprietary product, that doesn't get enough exposure, and I personally find the pieces far too confusng.  Nice idea, but it is set up where it won't spread and get needed exposure.

Rich:
| By the way, the issue I see with Superchess is that it s a 
| proprietary product, that doesn't get enough exposure, and I 
| personally find the pieces far too confusng.  Nice idea, but it 
| is set up where it won't spread and get needed exposure.

I am not sure we are talking bout the same form of Superchess, then. AFAIK 
for the version I was referring to, only the name is protected as trademark,
which apparently is is pretty poor protection, considering the number of
variants listed here that have the same name. :-)))

Of course it is to people like us to give it the exposure it needs.
Superchess is not a commercial endeavor, and I would be very surprised if
the person behind it would mind to get more exposure.

But I was not mentioning Superchess because I think te exact rules 
described in the booklet make it the ultimate variant. I only mentioned it
because of the aspect which seems to address the opening-book problem: 
picking pieces from a larger list. I think this is a vey useful general
mechanism, offering the possibility to have the players do this in a
controlled way, which protects the quality of the initial position. It has
some desirable properties that alternatives like gating or dropping re
missing. There is no danger of overcrowding, the players don't have to
worry about the very specific tactical possibilities that piece drops
introduce in the game, and the complexity (and duration) of any single
game is not different from what tey are used to.

Regarding SuperChess, I believe that it is part of the Chess Variant
community's answer to what the Next Chess can be.  I will state again I
believe everything should be look at, not just the stale openings, but the
excess of draws, and also the desire to innovate, as seen by the CV
community.  The Variant Community (not just people who are here, but all),
have a chance to come up with a system approach that would enable it to
have a say in a game that continues to develop.  I believe this approach
needs to stop treating each and every single innovation as a separate
game, but as part of something larger.  A game can be thought of as a
scenario in a larger framework.

Regarding some recent comments: 'Super Chess' (two words) is part of a proprietary name used on the web page Cardinal Super Chess, which states: 'Because of the Cardinals' unique movement, a combination of a knight and a bishop, it gathers the initiative into one sweeping action.' This naturally leads to the mistaken conclusion that it is the usual B+N piece. But the second web page given for this commercial variant shows the move to be a non-leaping Camel. I once tested the piece on the applet provided and saw the program move a Bishop to block my Cardinal check.

This nonleaping Camel strikes me as almost as bad an idea as the original Shatranj Elephant. Faced with these four Elephants, which together can attack only 32 squares on the board, players had a strong incentive to invent something better. Five years ago I started my NextShatranj project, resulting in several variants being posted here. I actually prefer playing Shatranj variants on this site to the CapaChess and Grand Chess variants - but that is a topic that deserves its own thread.

All games are 'scenarios in a larger framework'. This is why they are
called 'variants'. The are all Chess, that is the framework.

I don't think orthodox Chess has an excessive draw rate. 25-30% draws
between equal players is quite reasonable. That the draw rate between GMs
is much larger is again a result of the opening knowledge they have, which
enable them to steer the game at a very early stage towards a dull
position, in which not much can happen anymore, (to them), after wild, but
totally pre-analyzed play. They could not do that without their opening
book, as one of them would likely lose foot in the wild stage that now
brings them to a known safe haven.

On Black Ghost, Joe, how about allowing only 1, 2 or 3 drops and otherwise
B.G. moves as uncapturing King? Right, year 2011 is mostly in deference to
Seirawan and Betza. Poor great grandmasters will lose significance of
titles in their lifetimes, and we fully respect every past effort at the
obsolescence, Crazy Queen 64 squares. CVPage can still be determiner of
all the replacements, the dozen or two new standards, and that is what
NextChess2 and NextChess3 are about. To get away from prolificism with
assemblage of prospective replacements for actual play. Otherwise some
different entity(ies) will do so. Running through David Pritchard's 1994
'ECV' is theme that 64 squares is inadequate and unsalvageable, so the
fact has been known fifteen years. The last to realize it will be the
hardcore OrthoChessists, still having 99% support, before anything will
have snowballed. Shatranj was perfectly popular up to the end, and anyone
reads great enthusiasm in Arab world composition for Shatranj 800-1200.
Something clearly better came along finally, and there were still holdouts
composing in the old style of Shatranj mid-16th century, described by
Murray 'History of Chess'.

Running through David Pritchard's 1994 'ECV' is theme that 64 squares is inadequate and unsalvageable, so the fact has been known fifteen years.

I have a copy of this book. Would you please give me page numbers for some of the disparaging remarks Pritchard made about Chess in this book? I haven't found any myself.

The Capablanca serious discussion alone for two pages in 1994 'ECV'. 64 squares is
history as Track One:  the small, small board compared to Shogi's amd Xiangqi's.
 Let us get with the original program of Chess Variant Page. Less
flippantly my copy is elsewhere, so I will mention other of Pritchard's logical, reasonable
anti-OrthoChess biases next week. Thanks everyone for continued interest
in NextChess. It is tough call 
to select each group of 3 ''Track Ones'' for every subsequent year.

Chess drawing as high as it does at the highest level is a problem.

In regards to the 'variant' phrase, this would be fine for standardized
terminology, if it doesn't decide to make Xiangqi fit into this.  Into
the larger framework I describe, a 'variant' would have consistent
terminology and piece names, as other games that are considered
'variants'.

Ritch:
| Chess drawing as high as it does at the highest level is a problem.

Yes, it is, but IMO the excess draw rate is due to the large body of
opening theory available, and not intrinsic to the design. Remove the
opening knowledge (something which is desirable for other reasons anyway),
and the problem disappears.

| In regards to the 'variant' phrase, this would be fine for 
| standardized terminology, if it doesn't decide to make Xiangqi fit 
| into this.  Into the larger framework I describe, a 'variant' would
| have consistent terminology and piece names, as other games that are
| considered 'variants'.

Standard naming of pieces would be nice, but even the orthodox pieces
often have multiple names, and of course different names in different
langages. In Dutch, for instance, a Bishop can be called 'Loper'
(runner) or 'Raadsheer' (advisor), a Rook 'Toren' (tower) or
'Kasteel' (castle), a Queen 'Dame' (lady) or 'Koningin' (queen). So
multiple naming is unlikely to go away completely, ever. Even if we would
make recommendations for the most common pieces here, they would still
only be English names, and certainly not being used in other languages. So
I think this is not a realistic requirement to make.

I admit that Xiangqi is a bit of a 'flyer' amongst the Chess variants,
with its zonal board, lack of promotions, and hopper piece. So although it
is definitely a Chess variant in the broader sense, it does not seem crazy
to make a sub-division of the evolutionary tree of Chess into a Western
and Asian 'kingdoms'. (I would classify Shogi as belonging to the
Western kingdom, though.) Witin each ingdom, a major subdivision would
occur between variants with and without piece drops But. although piece
drop have a major impact on the 'feel' of the game, they have little
evolutionary relevance, as vaiants seem to acquire this trait quite easily
and independently in very late stage of their evolution (e.g. Crazyhouse).

George, on the Black Ghost, I'm afraid I have to out-conservative you on
this one. I have specific criteria I judge games on, and both mode of
movement/capture and 'feel' of game are very important to me. To me,
Black Ghost, in any variation, fails on both counts, as a next chess. I
truly feel that one of the key features of *chess* is that all pieces
capture, by replacement, the way they move. That is a very basic part of
the 'feel' of the game. Play any of the Ultima family of variants, and
you get a different feel. Maybe this expresses it a little: chess is a war
game, Ultima isn't. Chess is a power game, Ultima is an influence game, if
you will. 

This is not to say that the idea or the game is bad. It's just that I
think the discussion should lean very strongly toward rock-hard hidebound
conservatism. I'm assuming, for this argument, that orthochess players
are terrified of change, afraid of new pieces, and unwilling to think
outside the board. While this may not be a totally fair characterization
of the people, the consensus here seems to be that it is a fair
characterization of the general attitude. Fergus is quite right when he
talks of 'baby steps' to change. And maybe 1 in 100 might take that baby
step. I look at this discussion as finding those people a comfortable place
to land after a wobbly baby step or two.

As to the baby-step approach: I am currently looking at the possibilities
to modify state-of-the-art Internet Chess Server software (in particular
the 'chessd' ICS, used at FICS, where many thousands of people visit
everyday to play on-line Chess), to have it support variants. Supposing I
succeed, it would be great if we could convince FICS to make use of this
extension, and offer some more variants beside those they already do.
(They currently offer variants like Crazyhouse, Suicide, Atomic.)

This would create a great opportunity for offering the variant-unaware
Chess player a possibility to make the baby steps. We could for instance
offer variants like 8x8 Chancellor Chess or Cardinal Chess, where a single
un-orthodox piece replaces the Queen, just to get them acquainted with the
piece in question, and prepare them for other Capablanca variants.

Similarly, we could run games on bigger boards (10x8, 10x10) with only
normal pieces, but perhaps more of them. (e.g. 4 Bishops, such that you
also have Bishops on like colored squares, with which you can form
batteries.) This to get them acquainted with different boards.

By offering both, we would discover atomtically which deters ortho-Chess
players most: othe roards, or other pieces. But whatever they refer, it
would make the next step smaller.

HG, that's an interesting and excellent idea. I wish you the very best of
luck in getting it to work. You've got my support from 3 perspectives. As
a designer, I'm always happy to see my games and my friend's games get
more exposure. Speaking as an editor, a goal of this site is to bring CVs
to the masses, so to speak, which means more, easier, and more acceptable
ways to connect the game-playing public with chess variants. I'm also
involved with IAGO, and this is exactly the sort of thing any abstract
strategy game organization would promote. Sadly, none of these 3 people is
a programmer, so I can only encourage you on a personal level. :-)

This is something of great general interest here. Please keep us informed
about any progress.

Nobel try!, I really appreciate that.

I am a resonable C,C++ coder, not very good though!, I would be happy to
help.