Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
George Duke wrote on Fri, Dec 11, 2009 09:33 PM UTC:
I just reviewed a Capablanca derivative, namely Modern Chess and like it in
the very previous comment!!! If I may respectfully suggest -- as someone did about details for your contest -- you need to attribute more depth, for example,
in that there is an entire thread on the two Carrera compounds, which now appears above. Only Mueller and Joyce also considerably contributed their thoughts at the time. I re-look everything up on this site because of the book I have in the works. I really do not know or care to look up the word you two use for this. Duniho's ongoing hostilty -- since year 2000! -- I remarked twice before and means nothing to me.

Sam Trenholme wrote on Fri, Dec 11, 2009 09:30 PM UTC:
Fergus: Seconded. And I have had someone in email tell me how annoying and nonconstructive George Duke’s posts are at times. George: You’re welcome to post here whatever you want to post, within reason. But don’t ask for other people’s posts to be deleted.

George Duke’s trollish posts about how horrible Capablanca Chess, for example, were quite annoying.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Fri, Dec 11, 2009 09:03 PM UTC:

George Duke wrote:

Appreciate it if Editor please keep Daniel out of these long-running constructive threads and start his own or leave.

George, you don't want to ask for a policy that would come down much more harshly on you if it did get implemented. Although I have appreciated reading some of the comments you have been making recently, you have also been the biggest troll on this site. So just be grateful that we don't censor you, and please don't ask us to censor anyone else.


George Duke wrote on Fri, Dec 11, 2009 08:28 PM UTC:
Thanks for appearing to read these NextChesses. Now I believe there was some censoring a year ago of Daniel. Appreciate it if Editor try please at least keep Daniel out of these
long-running constructive threads and start his own. He has unconstructively used
words like ''humourous'' in a perfectly sincere thread continually and has about
one idea to our 100 or Betza's 100 or Joyce's 100 or Gilman's 100 ideas... One or two
ideas that he repeats over and over. He like FRC, he likes F.I.D.E. chess,
it's boring and tiresome, and we continue our earnest, educated investigations ignoring rude intrusions, like the one right below. The individual appears to know about 1% or at very most 5% of CVPage material. There is considerable content in CVPage and someone like myself or Gilman or twenty others strives to keep up to 50% of it in mind and view for analysis. It's not easy. He happens to be the lowest-ranked recent prolificist if not of all time with a naive sense of what the concurrent thread Betza's standards on good CVs are all about.

Charles Daniel wrote on Fri, Dec 11, 2009 07:49 PM UTC:
Very Weak players and those with zero understanding of chess may compare
chess to tic tac toe. 
It should be noted that TicTacToe3x3 IS solved. 
IF eventually chess could be solved. The 'solution' would not be very
helpful for two humans playing each other unaided. 
The entire chess is dead claim is started by players with no understanding
of chess nor computers. 

What I dont understand is how can someone compare chess to tic-tac-toe and
then proceed to look for a next chess which is based on chess anyway? Are
we then looking for a 12x12 tic tac toe then?

George Duke wrote on Thu, Dec 10, 2009 10:59 PM UTC:
This NextChess topic began 1 1/2 years ago, has taken a lot of thought and work for selections, and there are still couple disparagers occasioning the very right. I think NextChess is by now established serious subject, like set in concrete for remaining speculation by insiders. If they would, instead of unwelcome repetition, please just start their own thread on the perfection of OrthoChess64 and TicTacToe3x3. There's a NextChess5 comment inadvertently at Betza's interview. That one comment appears later conveniently here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24522
And these are the 21 nominees: 
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24303
At Betza's interview-link above is requested, what one of each from all of Aronson's, Fourriere's, Gifford's, and Gilman's do you select for one Next Chess? That's a tall order for Gilman's 200 CVs because, when asked himself, he has given no indication. However, both Fourriere and Aronson have sort of indicated which one of their own work they favour.

Charles Daniel wrote on Thu, Dec 10, 2009 06:18 PM UTC:
To add a bit more humor to this odd little topic: 
Nakamura is currently playing this 'dead' chess very seriously despite
having the choice to simply drop the game and pursue other interests. 
Fischer decalared the original form dead well after retirement and with a
preference for his FRC form which has caught on esp for those not too
interested in learning too much opening theory. 
Must be noted that FRC uses same pieces, same board, and random arrangement
but usually gets to normal type positions during middle game. King to
Bunker Leap too with even more start positions can do this though it is a
bit less 'chess-like' than frc. 
However, even Fischer's form has not caught on as much to be considered
'next chess'.. Why? Because the average chess player cannot
learn/understand chess to the extent of a GM. For the average chess player
the game is NEVER played out and is ALWAYS creative. So while 8 GMs might
struggle to find small advantage after playing 25-30 lines of theory -
millions play completely new lines on a daily basis hacking out an average
of 5-10 blitz games in relatively short time. They drive the game not any
sanctioning body or any GM. 
One day perhaps a few decades from now but maybe more, humans would be able
to interface their brains with computers with ease. 
So what is inevitable by 2200 NOT 2020 (thats just around the corner), is
that Chess will be replaced by 
NO Chess. 
No Chess because humans having the capability of computers see no need to
use their brain alone to solve any problems and any chess-like game will
cease to be interesting.

George Duke wrote on Thu, Dec 10, 2009 05:18 PM UTC:
The Next Chess to replace 500-year-old Mad Queen 64 is all but inevitable by the 2020s. Probably the evolution will sanction 5 or 10 different embodiments on most probably larger board(s). More so than F.I.D.E. Chess itself, puny 64 squares itself is dead -- to use Fischer's and Nakamura's label. 7x7 as 49 would be termed ''puny,'' wouldn't it? To encourage these NextChesses, NextChess5 is for recapitulation of themes past. There will be 3 more Recognized NextChesses only this thread. They are deliberately from Aronson, Gilman, and Gifford who have none of the running total of 21 nominees yet.  What will improve and replace f.i.d.e. 64 squares has been a constant theme of CVPage since inception 1995. In fact, Next Chess is the very rationale of the Chess Variant Pages. Here's an important comment by Ralph Betza the premier variantist along with T. R. Dawson. Betza was the first real prolificist and at the same time last prolificist whose every game, 150 of them, rates excellent from some standpoint or other. 
[Incredibly Dawson had no rules-sets at all -- suppose he would not stoop to that -- but instead many inventive pieces.]
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=614 Since Betza never used CVPage identification, he could not edit his comments even for spelling.
Other designers' past comments that bear on ''Next Chesses'' are intended to link. Above Betza calls Chess Different Armies ''my mind's greatest invention.'' Chess Different Armies is not and will not be a nomination. Betza has Black Ghost already named here of the 21 chosen so far. Black Ghost ironically is the only one of the twenty-one on 64 squares the smallest.
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24303
The other nomination Switching Chess has 64 squares in preferred embodiment but 64 are less necessary there than Black Ghost.

George Duke wrote on Mon, Dec 7, 2009 06:34 PM UTC:
It's time for 3 more nominations. Joyce coined NextChess and here are
several comments:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=20518
...

George Duke wrote on Fri, Dec 4, 2009 05:24 PM UTC:
Okay, I see it as they, OrthoChess of F.I.D.E. 64 is on the defensive, and
we are not. Not only the tide of history. There's a big group with one CV
rules-set and also there is supposed to be some 10x10 tournament they have
this month or next. Then over here with us are 3000 or 5000 CVs equally
viable as a very first approximation, and ultimately highly differentiable
into dozens of levels of acceptability by careful trial and discernment.
The question is, who has the upper hand? Not the old-style same-style OrthoChess at last any more.  Our 3000
have to yield presentable and marginally better than the others 50-75 approved
CVs. Then how to keep those core CVs intact? Some of the 50 or 75 CVs
featured in some CVPage cousin, or Strong or some other programmers'
engines gone online, will be born from the Recognized List and some from
our NextChess list and some from the current tournaments. Then when
they're  chosen, how to make it difficult to dis-lodge them? Suppose
Eurasian is one of the first 3 or 4 featured(with approval of inventors). Then Eurasian has to become
difficult to dislodge, while on the periphery are the trial ''Beta
CVs'' that, if there are not play and approval, pass from being #40 or #50
back into the pool of 5000 CVs. In a cycle, with a nucleus not changing very much, but none has to be consigned to oblivion. There's always a chance.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Fri, Dec 4, 2009 02:29 AM UTC:
A few comments (I had been out of action trying to get a new laptop set
up):
1. In regards to invention, I believe it is one of the strengths of the
variant community, and provides both an outlet for designers and also a way
for chess variants not to get boring.  My concern with them is that each
one ends up being its own path, and doesn't lend anything to the
collective experience of playing variants, outside of just another game to
play.  I would like the experiences to be able to mingle among one another
and for the variant design, in some framework, to enable one design to be
built off of another, and that to continue to evolve, and what is learned
to be able to be reused.  Yes, we can do that to some extent now, but we
have issues with naming conventions and the like, which make it more
difficult.
1a. I have a vested interest in seeing the chess variant community produce
champions at various games, which we could help use to promote variants.  I
speak from the perspective of a sports federation when I say this.  And I
write this also, in that I would like to see IAGO to be able to recognize
and stand behind the conventions the variant community came up with for the
pieces and the like.
2. Chess on a 12 by 12 board looks like Warmaster Chess 2000.  Please let
me know how it isn't the same.  Here is word on Warmaster:
http://blog.chess.com/RooksBailey/chess-crusade-warmaster-chess-and-no-chess
3. FastChess?  We talking about a Speed/Blitz chess as the game in
question?  I am of the belief also (I say also if Speed/Blitz is what is
meant by FastChess) the chess community is deciding to speed up the clock
to solve all its ills.  And it does resolve a lot of the issues it has,
regarding openings, draws, and making the game more interesting to watch. 
Unless the variant community gets together and comes up with some way to
showcase itself more to the world, and get interest, there is a definite
interest in locking out the variant community, saying it doesn't bring
anything to the table but distraction.  I would rather not see that
happen.
4. I don't believe you will get anything to replace 8x8 unless the
physical boards become more readily available.  That is how it works.  And
I wouldn't expect 9x9 to be it either, as that totally disrupts normal
chess.  It also brings back visions of the chess variant with 2 queens
aside and the bishops on the same colors.

George Duke wrote on Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:35 PM UTC:
And it appears to be FastChess for them to replace OrthoChess. This is a
liberal forum and has entertainment and purpose both. Joe Joyce coined the
term ''NextChess.'' It is only one of my particular interests. For
example, no one else -- except Jaguaribe -- studies Gilman's extensive CV work as much.  What are several
of Daniel's but ''Next Chesses,'' though none of them yet nominated? Now Gilman himself recently spoke of
Chess having been ''handed down,'' or certain chess-piece names handed
down. Actually, we know Chess evolved and still so little 64-square 6-piece its
present form. Castling did not get standardized till circa year 1900. What larger size will be ''the next chess,'' dumping the hopeless 64-square tradition? The most likely are 9x9, or 8x10, or 10x10. These are all NextChess topics along with the nominees themselves. Who would want to be, or who will respect, world champion, when engines make the achievement as spectacular as tic-tac-toe?  If we succeed, then we become the OrthoChess forum and theirs, Chessbase, Chess Cafe, and all, the old way.  Nakamura before, Fischer before that, and Ivanchuk this week are examples of being forced to toe the line of the Ivory Tower, or be ostracized. It's down to 2 or 3 naysayers, tiresome in their exact same  hopeless, exasperated tone,  repeating themselves over and over in effect that F.I.D.E., formed 80 years ago, is going to be able to keep imposing the one rules-set, despite alternatives and vehicle of Internet.

Charles Daniel wrote on Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:15 PM UTC:
Pot Luck was a great tournament because players get to submit their own
variants. I for one will not participate in a tournament where i cant
submit my own variants. 
This 'next' chess, chess is dead thread is a bit tiresome esp in a forum
where no on is too interested in ortho chess - I would rather see this
being posted in one of many ortho chess forums for entertainment purposes! 

Nakamura said chess was dead for him at one point (because he intended a
different career) and has since renewed his interest and passion in chess
and quest to be WC. Why would he do so if its 'dead'? 
If a game was to replace chess it would do so naturally not because a few
people make their choice for others.

David Paulowich wrote on Wed, Dec 2, 2009 09:35 PM UTC:

Doug Vogel's Chess on a 12 by 12 board looks like NextChess to me. Just grab a checkered tablecloth and one of the millions of (classic) chess sets lying around! The Game Information Page should have links to my preset and Edge of the World Chess (identical opening setup, different rules) added.

We could always use Day After Tomorrow Chess for the category of near-future chess variants.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Dec 2, 2009 06:42 PM UTC:

George Duke wrote:

Same-style potluck tournaments ran their course at CVPage.

What is a same-style potluck tournament?

Everyone agrees, proven by fewer and fewer players.

The first Game Courier tournament had 12 participants, the second had 13, and the third had 20. That's not fewer and fewer players. If some people have chosen to run smaller tournaments, that hardly means that anything has run its course.


George Duke wrote on Wed, Dec 2, 2009 05:26 PM UTC:
Same-style potluck tournaments ran their course at CVPage. Everyone agrees,
proven by fewer and fewer players. The best tournaments were the first one
or two, and NextChess4 is mostly about another one. It nears 25 comments,
over which takes a backscrolling link, hence NextChess5. Finally, CVPage
tournaments in the aughts ('00 to '09), the closing decade, became
vehicles for self-promotion.  Rich Hutnik seems to agree that a big problem
is players' pushing their own so-called inventions -- inventions that half
the time are entirely just new combinations of pre-existing pieces and
rules. Proliferation ties in with that problem of players' having to play
their own games. Instead it should be Pick Your Poison. There are 21 CVs
nominated for Next Chess,
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24303
a list to be continued. They are to be workable
replacements of dead Mad Queen, to put the fun back into Chess. F.I.D.E. members in general know there are
serious problems, eventually to be insurmountable. ''Chess is dead,''
have said both Fischer and Nakamura. Notice ChessBase has curtailed
drastically computer-chess-engine coverage because the programs now beat
everyone to their rating lists' very top. It puts them in an awkward position. Something from the likes of the
21 nominees -- to be added to here 3 at a time -- can replace 64-square OrthoChess
by the 2020s. When they do, both Chess variants and Chess will have been
well served. Let the speculation continue here.

16 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.