[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Ratings & Comments
Here's another thought: Why not take HJR Murray's 'A Brief History of Chess', and Project-Gutenberg-ize it? That would be phase 1. Phase 2: Take HJR's 'History of Chess' and Guten-ize it (ie. produce an ebook version).
Of course, phase 2 would be a huge job. Anyone know if these two books are public domain yet? HoC was published in the early 1900's. If anyone else is interested in doing this, I could check with the folks at PG.
<p>Thinking smaller... perhaps a timeline page or chess geneology page. With links of course. Perhaps this would be a good job for Hans or JL Cazaux?
The copy of Murray that I own is the 1969 reprint, not the 1909 original. It may well be that the reprint in some manner updated the copyright? Laws on this subject have changed from time to time... Project gutenburg is usually plain text files. Can Murray be appreciated fully without the diagrams? No. Can it be appreciated to some extent? Yes, of course. Modern scanners may be able to extract the text pretty well, but then if you don't proofread what the scanner said, the book is seen as if through a scanner darkly (title of a book by l cordwainer smith; always wanted to use that phrase in casual conversation.) Big job, no matter what. Big disk space, but there are so many terabytes now, how else to fill them? Big download for the reader. But, what a book! And how much we all owe to it!
The diagrams will have to be described using FFEN, which the FFEN to HTML converter will take care of the rest. And probably lots of proofreading. But it is possible.
Err, I don't think Project Gutenburg is using FFEN -- just plain text.
What I mean is that FFEN is a way to convert the diagrams to plain text. and for the people who want to read it they would understand it. Moreover this way a special reader can translat it to diagrams.
Project Gutenburg, while they concentrate on 'plain vanilla texts', also produces some works that are (or contain) non-textual information. Also, they are no averse to producing HTML products, as long as there is a plain text version available.
<p>FFEN is one option, but we could also use GIF's. Or even plain old ugly ascii diagrams. The book would definitely have to be broken up into chapters, as the full book in one file would be too huge.
<p>I'll send a request to PG to see if they feel the book (Hoc) is public domain.
I've recently had a strange idea for an 84-square chess variant, and I'd like to get some comments on it. I call it Three-Layer Wedding Cake Chess. The bottom layer is a standard 8x8 chess board with the standard chess piece placement. Above the middle 16 squares is the second layer, an initially empty 4x4 board. Above the middle four squares of the second layer is the third layer, an initially empty 2x2 board. The goal is to get your queen and king on the top layer before the opponent's king and queen can reach the top layer. There is no check, checkmate, or any true capturing. A piece (including P,R,B,N,Q, or K) can move onto a square occupied by an enemy piece only if the square immediately above that enemy is empty. When such a move occurs, the enemy piece is 'elevated' to the square immediately above its current positions. If a player can elevate an enemy piece, he or she must do so. If more than one elevation is possible, the player can choose which one to carry out. A player may move a piece to the square immediately below that piece if that square is empty. Pieces move on the top layers just as they do on the bottom layer, except that pawns may only promote on the bottom layer. FIDE rules apply except as I've contradicted them above (so, for example, there are no 3D moves other than the ones given above,). Previous variants inspiring and influencing this one include Bachelor Chess (the wedding theme), Pyramid Chess (board layout), Reenterent Chess (each square on the top two layers acting like a reentering square for 'captures' on the square immediately below), Losing Chess ('captures' compulsory), and Elevator Chess (inspiring the term 'elevate'). I hope you find this entertaining.
Well, to damn it with faint (or dubious) praise, it seems reasonable to me,
at least at first blush.
<p>
With forced captures and an attainment goal, the play will not be
particularly Chess-like, I suspect. Not that that's a problem.
<p>
It has some simularities to
<a href= '../diffobjective.dir/giveaway.html'>Losing Chess</a>, but only
in the middle. I do wonder if the board will just become hopelessly
clogged, particularly the middle board. The problem is, pieces
can only be forced to move by offering them captures, and captures can
only be offered <strong>on</strong> the squares you want to be able to
move pieces <em>off</em> of.
<p>
Perhaps some form of capture other than elevation is required for the
outer boards, such as <a href='../difftaking.dir/circe.html'>Circean</a>
capture where captured pieces are returned to their starting square.
What happens if the top squares get filled up? Is the game a stalemate, or is there a way to clear out the top to make room fo the king and queen? Also this has some resembalance to Cheops, in which one of the two objectives is to have the queen on the top level of the pyramidal board.
<h4>CV Descriptions as Literature</h4>
Ralph Betza recently complimented on how my page on <A
HREF='../other.dir/ruddigore-chess.html'>Ruddigore Chess</A> was
written. This led me to think about Ralph's excellent pages for <A
HREF='../other.dir/nemoroth.html'>The Game of Nemoroth</A>, and
wonder: can an Chess variant's description also be a work of
literature?
<P>
(Let me note that in my view, literature comes in a quite a large range
of quality, and piece of writing does not have to be to the standards
of F. Scott Fitzgerald or James Joyce to qualify. The fast and loose
definition I'm going to use here is that literature is writing of at
least reasonable quality, intended to be pleasurable or moving to
read. (The intelligentsia may now commence my immolation.))
<P>
A possibly analogous situation.
One of my two degrees is in geography, and of course I was educated in
its history. Until the late 19th Century, Geography (with the
exception of Cartography and related disciplines) was primarily a
descriptive science, and could be and was looked at as a variety of
literature -- the literature of place. A piece of geographic writing
was judged almost as much by the quality of its writing as the
correctness and completeness of its facts.
<p>
Chess variants as described in these pages are a combination of rules
and description, of algorithm and literature. While I would hardly
suggest that the quality of the writing is anywhere near as important
as the quality of the rules, yet sometimes the writing is very good.
If you search through these pages, you will admittedly, find many
bare-bones or clumsy descriptions of Chess variants. Often it is not
the fault of the author, who may be laboring with a foreign language,
or simply not have time or writing experience for the type of
description they would like to produce. And opinions vary; as editor,
I have corresponded with authors who prefered a very minimalist
presentation of their designs. But still, if you wander through these
pages, you will find stories and jokes and puns, references to arts
and popular culture, small essays on the processes of designing and
playing games, and snatches of biography and history. Sort of a
literary smorgasbord.
<p>
Does all of this additional material add or detract from the rules
that are the <I>raison d'etre</I> of the pages in the first place?
Do readers like their Chess variants straight, or with a splash of story?
I think that it depends opon the variant and the wirteing style, a bare bones rules would be preferable to a badly writen naritive which has the rules in it, on the other hand a sci-fi/fantasy based varient would seem stale or flat without somekind of backround. And when it comes to background there is a very large gray area, becuase you could easily say that why a piece was chosen to move the way it does is part of a bare bones discription, but sometimes the reasoning is so complex it could qualify as literature. There is also a question of 'What is literature?' a common question is 'Is a comicbook literature?' in this case it might be better as 'Is a discription literature?' some would say yes, others no. Certainly I would always prefer a discrtiption into which some kind of tone or voice has been put, but that is not the same as haveing something on the level of Ralph Betza's Nemoroth, which gives you the feel and atmosphere of the game. If everyone could write on that level then we would have an impressive colection of CVs and literature in one, and games that otherwise might have been overlooked would be noticed and played. I fear that I may have lost track of my point near the first or second line but if I try and go back and change it this will make even less sense. Basicly what I'm saying is that a well writen back story or setting could never hurt a discription, and in some cases it's absense would. Also a discription its self can have a certain literay flavor to it that makes it easier to read and understand than a bare rules only format. I think that the most disireable form of a discription is first and formost the rules, backround information on how the game came to be and why the pieces are the way they are, and any story or such thing that goes with it, i.e. a game claiming to be elven chess should say a bit about how the elves played the game. If the rules are mixed in with the other elements, like for example as in Nemoroth it may also be a good idea to have them listed sepreately, also as in Nemoroth, so that those that don't want to read the non rule related elements don't have to, and those that want to quickly refrence a rule can. I know I rambled and I hope it made sense and was in some way helpful.
Although the format of the CVP is like a database or encyclopedia, I think that it is actually better thought of as a 'conversation' about chess variants. Many variantists probably actually play very little, and most variants receive very little play. Therefore, the main point of the CVP, at least for some, is the communication of the ideas behind the variants. As in any 'conversation', although the primary focus is to impart information, a desire to amuse, entertain, and interact is perfectly valid. Also, some variants are better understood with the story that inspired them. A bare-bones exposition of the Nemoroth rules would seem incomprehensible and arbitrary. Other variants that are hard to appreciate without their background stories are Peter's Ruddigore Chess, or Dan Troyka's Hitchhiker Chess. One is on thinner ice with descriptions that are just plain silly, like my Pizza Kings. It is important to avoid a descent into pointless sophomoric humor, like the relentless plays on words in the headlines of bad newspapers. We should also remind ourselves, when writing rules, that the CVP has an international following. Therefore, it is likely that the point behind Ruddigore Chess is completely opaque to someone with no knowledge of or interest in late 19th C. English musical theater. We also have to be careful not to obscure the rules with verbal cleverness. The beauty of the recently improved comment system, is that it provides a forum for those so inclined to play with words and concepts, without getting in the way of the clarity of the descriptive pages. I think I might have had a point once in all this, but I ignored it and it wandered away. I like clever and amusing literate writing. I think it enhances the CVP, but it is not necessary to the CVP. Intelligent, well-thought-out, and clearly described variants are what is necessary.
Having had time to think of my earlier comment I am almost entirely sure that I lost the point, the reader, or both. I'll try to keep it short this time. I completely missed one of the points that I had wanted to make. A discription with just the rules can be writen in such a way that the author puts their own tone or flavor into it, this gives the reader a feeling that the author is speaking to them. This effect is helpful because for some reason it is easyer to understand the same information if it seems like it is said to the reader, it is also easier to remember. This probably doesn't make it all the way to literature, but it is somehow more than a barebones discription. This somewhat goes with what John said about it being a kind of conversation.
Pizza Kings is a charming piece of somewhat humorous literature; it won't make you laugh aloud like 'The Literary Offenses of James Fenimore Cooper', but it may bring a smile. Many variants recieve very little play, while others become popular. In order for a variant to become popular, people have to try it at least once. How do you get your reader interested enough to try playing the game? A good presentation can't hurt. At least if it's interesting to read, people may read it all the way through, and that's a start. Sometimes the idea of the game is sufficiently intriguing in its own right that you get people to play it without anything special in the way of presentation. 'There's nothing in the way of presentation, you can get right at it.' (That's from _It's a Gift_, right?) This was the case with Avalanche. A good presentation is Partonesque. His games were always introduced with a bit of a premise and a bit of whimsy. In other words, like all good literature, it's advertising; or even product placement, as in Refreshing Bubble Fizz Chess. I had a point here somewhere, but it wandered off. Perhaps my point was a neutral piece and my opponent moved it somewhere I can't see it.
I went back and reread Pizza Kings, and it's better than I remembered. Pizza Kings actually had a definite satirical purpose. At that time, people were suggesting various different armies with themes like leaping, or spaciousness, or fizziness. I just extended the theme to something completely irrelevant to chess, and then developed the theme deadpan. Part of the point I was making earlier is that sort of thing is only pleasing in moderation. If I had gone on to invent the Avenging Appetizers and the Beer Batterers, the result would have been far less than three times as amusing. I was also unclear in stating my preference. I much prefer an entertaining and engaging description. I am one of those variantists who actually rarely play, but, concurring with gnohmon's point, I found Nemoroth so fascinating that I am actually playing an email game. That is based on two things: the terrific description, and the original mechanics. In the case of Nemoroth, they cannot be separated. Without the story, the mechanics would seem capricious. Without the unusual mechanics, the story would just be an exercise in cleverness, without point on the CVP. Now, e.g., there is a clear picture in my mind of a Leaf Pile, what it does, and why.
MY personal preference is for CV proposals that contain a minimum of narration and a straight-forward presentation of the author's rules. I'm OK with very brief comments that actually simplify learning the rules, but I have very little interest in extended narratives.
In order to prevent the upper levels from being clogged up, perhaps I should introduce a gravity rule: before a player moves, all of his/her pieces that both (1) haven't moved in the past two turns and (2) have an empty square directly below them descend one level. Or perhaps, when an elevation isn't possible, a 'captured' piece could be placed on any empty square chosen by the capturer.
I have been studying the advices in this thread and examining some of my ideas along this line. The following is what I have developed so far: Pawnless Chess -by Jianying Ji Introduction: This variant is inspired these primary sources: 1: Kevin Maroney's Ur Chess 2: Ralph Betza's Halfling Chess One of the main motivations of this variant is similar to that of Ur Chess in that I was looking for a 'simplified' variant of chess. As I read Ur chess I saw that many of the fiddly rules he was trying to change concerned pawns, so it seemed natural to me to dispense with pawns alltogether. But that led to an immediate problem, which is with the major pieces of FIDE facing each other the opening usually end up with a lot of exchanges and not many pieces on the board after the exchanges end. To combat this, the pieces needs to be weakened and captured pieces recycled. So I used halfling chess to weaken the pieces, and added the capture return rule to recycle the pieces. I changed the knight to halfling Knightrider to strengthen the army a bit so that it won't be too slow. The details follows: Board and Setup: Use standard chess board and setup with the pawns removed r n b q k b n r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * R N B Q K B N R Rules: 1. All pieces move as they do in halfling chess, except the knight, which becomes a halfling knightrider. Motivation: To weaken the pieces so the opening will be more strategic, rather than tactical. As Peter Aaronson suggested and Ralph Betza showed. 2. A captured piece is returned to the owner, who is to put it back on its starting rank. It is the owner's choice, which open square to put the returned piece on. If the starting rank is fully occupied then the captured piece is discarded. Motivation: Since the ratio of pieces to squares is so low, to start with, this rule will keep more pieces in play longer, for a more tactical and longer endgame. 3. No repetition of a previous board position Motivation: Super-Ko rule is adopted to reduce draws. Object: Checkmate or stalemate the opponent Motivation: Stalemating the opponent is included as a winning condition to reduce draws. Notation: R a1 x a5 [a8] piece source capture destination drop location piece: name of the piece source: starting square capture: x if capture occured, - if non-capturing move. destination: ending square drop location: the location to which the captured piece is dropped Can be abbreviated if no ambiguity arises. Remember, if capture occurs, drop location must be specified. Comments: Shortest fool's mate is 2.5 moves, which is comparable to FIDE, with the added benefit of being more 'foolish'. Tempo is most important in this game. Losing tempo can be fatal. It is even more important than safety of specific pieces. Since pieces are recycled. I have done some playtesting but I would welcome more. And any more suggestions!
This is looking interesting. Have you tried it yet? If you don't have an opponent it would be easy enough to program for Zillions, given that Halflings have been figured out for ZRF.
<p>
In his page on <a href='../dpieces.dir/amontillado.html'>Amontillado
Chess</a>, Ralph Betza speculates that a Halfling Nightrider is worth
in the neighborhood of 1/2 a Queen, or approximately the value of a Halfling Queen. I don't see this as a problem with your game, mind you, but if it is correct players will have to be careful to keep in mind the new balance of power amongst the pieces.
<p>
I do wonder about the piece density -- 16 pieces on 64-squares do seem to rattle around a bit. I suppose you could double the back rows except for the Kings, although I'm not sure that would improve matters.
<p>
I'm not sure if it necessary, but if the game tends to end in draws even with the stalemate rule, you could also add victory by Bare King.
I hve played the game a few times. mate does take time but not impossible, in fact draws should be extremely rare, since captures are nearly impossible and positions can't be repeated, so a mating position will have to come up, and failing that a stalemate position which is also a loss or win depending on the player. Though I am looking for more playtesting. email: [email protected]
<h4 align=center>What's the Value of a White Elephant?</h4>
Here are some thoughts on a variant I've played around with, but never
finished as I was uncertain about the balance. I thought they might
be of minor general interest, so here they are.
<P>
Sometime back, after reading the Piececlopedia article on the <a
href='../piececlopedia.dir/alfil.html'>Alfil</a>, I started thinking about
the other sort of Elephant piece, the one that moves like a Ferz or
one step forward (fWF), found in <A
HREF='../oriental.dir/burmese.html'>Sittuyin</A> (Burmese Chess) as
the Elephant, in <A HREF='../oriental.dir/thai.html'>Makruk</A> (Thai
Chess) as the Thon, and in <A HREF='../shogi.html'>Shogi</A> (Japanese
Chess) as the Silver General.
<P>
It's a simple piece, but what is it worth? A <A
HREF='../piececlopedia.dir/ferz.html'>Ferz</A> is generally accepted
to be worth about 1/2 a Knight (balancing colorboundness with a good
forward move), but how much more does that single forward move add?
I'm not as scientific about these sorts of things like Ralph Betza is,
but it does add a lot. First, an Elephant is not colorbound like a
Ferz is, and second, its forward moves are the same as a <A
HREF='../piececlopedia.dir/man.html'>Commoner's</A>. In fact, you could
look at an Elephant as 5/8's of a Commoner, which is generally considered
a Knight-valued piece and about which Ralph Betza says:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a very short-range and very flexible piece that is much weaker
than a Knight in the opening, very strong in the middlegame if it can
occupy the center, and almost always wins against a Knight or Bishop
in the endgame.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, an Elephant is less flexible in the endgame where the
opposing pieces very well might not be in front of it. But on the
other hand, it has the three most useful moves of the Commoner for the
opening. So we'll assume 5/8's of a Knight is about right; roughly
two Pawns.
<P>
The next thought I had on the subject was what if I were to combine
the Alfil and the Elephant? This produced a piece that moved one or
two (jumping) diagonally or one square forward. Looking at this, I
realized that if I added a two square jump forward (yielding fWFfDA) ,
I would repeat the shape of the Elephant's move (supposedly four legs
and a trunk) on a slightly larger scale. Thus was born the 'Great
Elephant'.
<P>
Now, what's the Great Elephant's value? It attacks 10 squares on an
empty board, and it is neither colorbound nor colorchanging. The
simplest calculation would be a Knight and a quarter -- 3.75 Pawns.
The lack of colorchanging might kick it up to as much as 4 Pawns.
<P>
OK, the actual variant. Thinking about Ralph Betza's game of <A
HREF='../d.betza/chessvar/ghost.html'>Black Ghost</A>, where black is
given a piece worth less than a Pawn to balance white's first turn
advantage, I decided to give white an Elephant-based army worth a tiny
bit less than black's in order to balance white's first turn advantage.
<h4 align=center>White Elephant Chess</h4>
The rules for <B>White Elephant Chess</B> are as for <A
HREF='../ichess.html'>FIDE Chess</A>, except where stated otherwise.
<P>
White's Bishops are replaced by Elephants (fWF), and Knight's by Great
Elephant's (fWFfDA). Black's array is the usual FIDE array.
<P>
Pawns may promote to any non-Pawn, non-King piece that started the
game on either side (Elephant, Knight, Bishop, Great Elephant, Rook or
Queen).
<hr>
My suspicion (backed up unreliably by Zillions) is that white might be
a tad <STRONG>too</STRONG> weak. I tried adding the Alfil's move to
the white Queen's to produce the Queen Elephant, but that didn't seem
right, either.
Values are different in Shogi, where the drops and 6th-rank limited promotion rules change all values. After I sought out and visited the Shogi equivalent of the Nihon Ki-In (but decided not t play because of my limited shogi experience -- the exercize of finding it on the map and actually finding my way to a remote region of Tokyo was quite rewarding enough!), I downloaded the supremely weak shogi master program from the home of the underdogs, and played quite a bit; and my impression is that (1) having more Pawns is good, but not specific number of Pawns is worth anything; (2) fR == ffN; Gold == Silver == 2 of the previous; R == B == 2 of the previous (although R versus B may often be decisive). But in a 'normal' game, what's a Silver worth? My ancient researches seemed to indicate that adding the forward move+capture of Wazir to something else is worth nearly half as much as adding a whole Wazir; and that adding the sideways moves is worth most of the remaining half-Wazir. For the Ferz, I forget. It's written down somewhere but of course forwards is worth more than half. Thus, the basic estimate for the Silver General is roughly 3/4 of a Knight, and the basic estimat for the Gold General is somewhat more than 3/4 of a Knight. If the simplest possible estimates of the values are taken, then your Elephant may possibly be worth 3/4 N and your Great Elephant may possibly be worth 1.5 N, which is roughly the value of a Rook. According to the shock-troop theory, the combination of weak FfW which have no jumping move and the strong fWfDWA which does have jumping, this combination interferes with the harmonious development of the army; but Philidor's shock-troop theory, although it contains some truth, is not the final word. Morphy showed how one can cause great damage to the opponent by developing the Rook-valued pieces, and his example must be kept in mind when you are playing an army that includes HFD or Great Elephants as R-valued pieces. If the Great Elephant is Rookish in value, then it is logical that splicing equine genes into the Greater Elephant must produce a Q-valued piece; using this in the same army would be consistent but it would be overkill. If my guesses about the elaphantine values are somewhat near correct, then why does your playtesting seem to hint that the army is too weak? In my experience, the unreliable values produced by my pseudoscientific guesses are actually more reliable than playtesting. The most common problem with playtesting is that if you don't know how to use a piece to best advantage, it seems weaker than it really is. Learning to use every possible piece is difficult and time-consuming.
While I am certainly willing to believe in the inaccuracy of playtesting
as
a means of determining the value of pieces (unless, of course, there are
a
great number of games played by strong players), still, I have some
trouble
thinking of the Great Elephant as a Rook-equivalent piece.
<p>
And I wonder. While almost 1/2 the value of the Wazir might come from
its
forward move, does that mean that that forward move necessarily adds 1/2
of the value of a Wazir to a piece, like the Ferz, which already has
considerable forward movement? In the Great Elephant's case, the fWfD
component adds two forward moves to a piece that has four already -- it
seems to me that there ought to be some principle of diminishing returns
here. There is also the strange issue of directional colorboundness;
that
the Elephants are colorbound when moving backwards but not when moving
forwards.
'I have some trouble thinking of the Great Elephant as a Rook-equivalent piece.' It has two full atoms, half of another, and a quarter of another; this puts it already in the Rookish range, though maybe a bit weak. The partial atoms are the forward parts, which must boost it to full Rookitude. You have inspired me to write Captain Spalding Chess, of which the most important feature is that one may find an Elephant in one's Pajama.
<blockquote><i>
It has two full atoms, half of another, and a quarter of another; this puts
it already in the Rookish range, though maybe a bit weak. The partial atoms
are the forward parts, which must boost it to full Rookitude.
</i></blockquote>
Well, as I count it, it has two full atoms, and the quarter of <em>two</em>
others. Now, I am certainly willing to accept that 0.5 of the value of the
W is due to its forward move, but what I am less convinced of, I guess, is
whether the W forward move by itself <strong>adds</strong> that much to of
the value of the W to another piece that already has forward moves. It's
at least an interesting question, I think.
<p>
If the Elephant is 0.75 N, and the Great Elephant is 1.5 N, then the White
Elephants are about 0.5 N too strong (the exact amount depending on your
opinion of the relative values of the N and B). If that's the case, maybe
the Queen should be replaced by the War Elephant, Rook + Alfil Rider (RAA)
-- this should be about the proper balance, since a Rook + Alfil would
be a full 0.5 N weaker than a Queen, but since the Great Elephants are a
tiny bit weaker than Rooks, maybe, and there's the Bishop differential,
the extra strength of the AA over the A ought to just balance things.
<p>
<hr>
Captain Spalding Chess!? -- Marxist!
In the work of creating a chessvariant tournament called ChessWar I came up with the idea of having a chatroom dedicated for chessvariants and more spesific Zillion players (since the tournament will use Zillions to play). What I wonder now is if there are any interest in a chatroom from chessvariant players and creators. It would be a great place to meet other Zillion players since there aren't really any such place at the moment. It would also be a good place to go if you need players to test a game you have created. The room will open during July but I'm very interested to hear thoughts about the idea. Tomas Forsman
i'm just wondering why in most multi-level chesses the boards alternate their patterns (instead of a constant white in the bottom right), and this is the only place i could think to ask. Is it necessary for some reason? Would colorbound pieces be affected adversely if the boards weren't so arranged ? Anyone...anyone...
In Absolutely Colorboundmost Chess, there must be as little interaction as possible between pieces on squares of different colors. As a consequence, there can be no Castling. A further consequence is that you should really play it on two boards, lest the visual clutter become a sort of interaction between the two colors. The big surpsise is that it must be a doublemove game, one move on each color. If you have only one move, and must decide between colors, that is a form of interaction! (Yes, that interaction would make a better game; but the absolute extreme colorboundmost chess has to be doublemove.) Your Q is on the same color as the enemy K. This means that you start with enough material superiority to mate the opponent -- but of course the reverse is also true! I see this as a race game (pushing the boundaries of race games!), and therefore immediately thought of Parton's 'Fair race rule' from Racing Kings: if W gives mate, Black can draw by giving mate in reply. (The question of who wins first is an interaction between the colors, but it is unavoidable in a chess variant.) However, since it's a doublemove game, an even better alternative is to make it 'balanced'. W only gets to make one move first turn. To avoid interaction, the rules must specify on which color W must move on the first turn! Of course all the pieces and Pawns and Kings must be colorbound. (Also, a game with weak interaction played as a singlemove game on a single board would be more interesting; but the first step is to define the most extremely absolute colorboundmost game possible!) Am I correct in thinking that all these consequences follow inevitably from the premise? Have I missed any? Is it interesting that this much of the game can be specified without even thinking about how individual pieces move?
Oops. I forgot while I was writing. There's a specific reason not to use Parton's fair race rule with an absolute doublemove game of Absolute Colorboundmost Chess. The reason is that symmetrical play gives Black a guaranteed draw!
An alternate approach to balancing Colorboundmost Chess would to follow the path used in other double-move variants -- only have white make a single move on their first move. I would suggest having white make their first move on white, so that each player would make the first move on their King's color. Once you have white making only a single starting move, it should no longer be possible for black to mirror white, so race rules could be applied.
I have been adding board measurements for each game to our indexing database. Do people see a need for an index which cross-references games and pieces? This would enable listing all games which use a particular piece, or listing all pieces used in a particular game.
<p>If so, would the pieces be identified based on their movement or on the name of the piece? We could cross reference piececlopedia items with game items, or simply associate a list of piece names with each game. Keep in mind that building a cross reference would be a significant amount of work.
Too much work, I think. I don't think many visitors to this site would want to look up, say, all variants that use a Murray Lion. Or all variants that use a Gryphon. Or whatever. Don't worry about those cross-references. I'm sure you have enough work to do as it is. :-)
google can do a fair job:
<a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+%22murray+lion%22+site%3Awww.chessvariants.com&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&meta=">http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+%22murray+lion%22+site%3Awww.chessvariants.com&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&meta=</a>
<p>for example of the murray lion query.
<p>a script that query google probably would be sufficient
I'm with Joseph on this: too much work for the payoff. Think about keeping it up-to-date; whoever's job that was might have no life in a heavy contribution week. Also, listing all the pieces in a game is redundant to the actual game description. If it were done, it would be most useful to be identified by move, rather than name of piece. This would be a sysiphean labor. You would have to create indices based perhaps on funny notation. The syntax of funny notation is ambiguous, in that although it can describe movement precisely, there is more than one way to describe the same movement in many cases.
Quite often we get requests for information about a game that (for instance) is played on a large board and there was a piece called a 'Royal'. Now searching all chessvariant.com pages for the word 'Royal' turns up too many hits. So cross referencing can be useful when looking for games where piece names are commonly used words in other contexts.
<p>Not that I want to do all this work of course, but if there is enough demand for it, perhaps it would be worth it.
currently in the piececlopedia, many of the pieces list all the games that use that piece, even if the piece goes by a different name in a particular game. for example, the piececlopedia page for chancellor - moves as R+N - lists the chancellor from capablanca's chess, the marshall from grandchess, the champion from carrera's chess, etc. i think this is a good idea to have as much as possible, but it also sounds to me like having an automated system for this is not worth the effort. i think we'll have to settle for pointing out any additions to the list to the piececlopedia editor whenever we see something missing.
with so many submissions it might not be feasible to add gamelist to piecelopedia, rather I think it would be perhaps be more helpful for submitters to reference piecelopedia instead, this way everyone add a few links yet the pages becomes more understandable.
i have a question about opposing kings occupying adjacent spaces. I thought this was legal because kings were nuetral. I was told this was illegal, they cannot be next to each other because they would be putting each other in 'check'. Can anyone set me straight on this? Thanks
Martin,<p>
The answer to your frequently-asked question is 'Yes, it is (always) illegal to have your king adjacent to the opponent's king.'
<p>
For more details see <a href='http://chessvariants.com/d.chess/faq.html'>the Rules of Chess FAQ file</a> and the <a href='http://chessvariants.com/d.chess/chess.html'>the Illustrated Rules of Chess</a> page.
I agree with jianying, I think. Cross-referencing all the variants sounds like a LOT of work but not much gain. OTOH, it might be worthwhile to fully cross-reference a subset like the _recognized_ variants, as that's where a lot of the better pieces either originated or were popularized. (Sometimes that influenced how the game drew enough interest to become 'recognized'.)
When I go to sleep at night, I often try to think about something
interesting or pleasant while I drift off. Last night I found myself
thinking about an odd Chess piece.
<p>
The piece moves without capturing like a Dabbabah-Rider (repeated leaps
of two squares in the same orthogonal direction), but captures like a
Rook. So, mDDcWW or mDDcR in Ralph's funny notation.
<p>
And I found myself wondering: how powerful is this piece, and what sort
of game or problem would it be good for? I has a number of curious
characteristics: except for capturing, it is doubly colorbound, being
restricted to 1/4 of the board; and while it can switch by capturing,
at any time it can only attack 1/2 of the board.
<p>
It seems to me that this piece is vaguely cannon-like, being more powerful
in the opening and midgame than the endgame. It also seems to me that it
might be a very charming part of a piece mix. Any thoughts?
It seems like a most interesting piece indeed. Such a piece could be the basis for a variant along the lines of Ralph Betza's Colorboundmost Chess. I will post details as a comment to Colorboundmostr Chess.)
Hmm... very interesting. Did you consider the Bishop/Queen equivalents? Or even (gasp) the Nightrider equivalent (moves as a 2/4 rider or captures as a 1/2 rider)? The latter seems like an especially odd piece, preferably for use on really big boards. And how would a king like this work? Move as an Alf./Dab. and capture like a king, or capture like an Alf/Dab/King? And would a CV in which every piece is like this work well?
I considered the Bishop equivalent, but decided it would likely be
too weak.
<p>
Mike Nelson has proposed a game based on these sorts of pieces -- you
can see it in the comments for Colorboundmost Chess. My suspicion is
that there would not be enough power in the board in the endgame, making
the game drawish.
Perhaps this would make it less drawish: The King moves as a Ferz and captures as a King (mFcK) and cannot castle. The former change means less force is needed in the endgame, the latter enhances the chance of a middle game victory.
I think the weakened King might to the trick, though I would express the funny notation as FcW. The resulting game ought certainly to be different!
This odd piece oddly is almost a rook worth in the endgame. It still has the can-mate property, except for the rare case that the bared king is in the secure corner (If the odd piece is on a1, the secure corner is a8). In the most cases it can block the secure corner and the bared king is driven by zugzwang towards a mate. The secure spots left by the odd piece are all single fields without secure neighbours -- thus a bare king must leave them. --J'org Knappen
Jörg, I'm not sure about the can-mate part. It seems to me that in a lot
of situations the piece would result in stalemate, not mate.
<p><hr><p>
Mike, I threw together a crude ZRF of your game last night -- it seems to
play OK. But I was wondering if stalemate ought to be a loss instead of
a draw, as the nature of the game makes it more likely, as does,
unfortunately, changing the King from WF to FcW.
<p>
By the way, do you have a name for it?
No, the odd piece does not have the 'can-mate' property. If the odd piece (mDDcR) is on the seventh rank holding the bare enemy K on the eighth while the friendly K moves in, the odd piece can't move to the eighth rank to mate! If the odd piece is on the sixth rank, it can't hold the enemy K on the eighth--the whole seventh rank is safe. Two of the odd pieces, one on a even-numbered rank (or file) and one on an odd-numbered rank (or file) should mate easily.
Peter, thank you for the ZRF. I haven't though of a name--fell free to give it any name that appeals to you--the ZRF is much harder work than thinking of the game, plus the whole idea followed logically from your new piece. It think both the stalemate as win and bare king rules as in Shatranj would be good idea for this game, in fact for any game with weak pieces. (Though I've used these rules in games with strong pieces as well.)
Actually, Mike the ZRF was pretty easy -- just a quick modification of the
standard Chess ZRF. I still need to update the piece descriptions.
<p>
Names . . . hmm. Maybe:
<menu>
<p><li>
Quarterbound Chess;
</li><p><li>
Odd Piece Chess;
</li><p><li>
Stuttering Chess;
</li><p><li>
Skipping Chess;
</li><p><li>
Transfering Subsets Chess;
</li><p><li>
Nelson-Aronson Odd Piece Chess;
</li><p><li>
Separate Realms or Separate Realms Chess.
</li></menu><p>
Once we decide, someone ought to put a page together for it.
<p>
If stalemate is a loss, then by Ralph's Rule Zero, so is 3-times
repetition.
<p>
I'm not sure bare King is the best choice for this game. Given that
stalemate is a loss, and the King is fairly weak, I think you'd lose
some interesting endgame play that way.
Peter, I think you're right--bare king rule should not apply. There will be some interesting endgames with stalemate as a win. For example, K and R vs K can be a win if the pieces are in the right realms, such as R holds enemy K on the last rank as friendly K moves to stalemate. I rather like the sound of Separate Realms Chess.
R on seventh rank and bare enemy K on eight rank IS stalemate! How did I overlook that?
It is not sufficient for the king to be on a secure file or rank, to force a draw against king and oddling it has to be in the secure corner. Here is how to mate the black king with king and oddling: White: Og7,Kh6 Black: Kf8 First, White brings its king to h8, than it pushes its king forward using zugzwang until it reaches d8. White forces the Black king to a8. Now the finale: Kc7! Ka7 Og5 Ka6 Oe5 Ka7 Oa5++ J'org Knappen
With the weak King (FcW) and stalemate as a win, the proposed game isn't a bit drawish. K vs K on the same color is a forced win for whichever side can get the opposition. (This is a simple calculation: if the coordinate differences between the Kings are odd, for example a1 vs d6, the player on move wins; if the differences are even, the player not on move wins.) Similarly, if the Kings are on the same color K and any piece vs K is a forced win unless the bare K can capture the piece--the stonger side can use the mobility of the piece to avoid zugzwang.
So, Mike, who's going to do the page? <pre><g></pre>
That's a neat mate, Jörg!
<p>
Does that mean Separate Realms Chess could go back to using a standard
King? I think I like the current King, even if it isn't strictly
necessary, since it carries the theme of the game to completion -- every
piece restricted to some subset of the board when not capturing.
Peter, if you are willing to do it I would appreciate it very much. Jorg, neat mate! Possibly Separate Realms Chess is playable with an orthodox king, though I still prefer the weaker king for the game. I wonder if the starting position for the mate can be forced though--I think a defensive stategy for this game will be to keep the king away from the edges to maximize its mobility.
Obviously, the person who made the (subsequently removed) offensive comment has never maintained a web page. Broken Links are a fact of life and cannot be prevented--the best that chessvariants.com or anybody else can do is to clean them up frequently. Next time, why not make a <b>polite</b> report of broken links, then maybe you can sign your name to your comments.
<p>
I am not in any way affilated with chessvariants.com, I'm just a regular reader an occasional contributor who is very tired of the unnecessary, gratutious offensiveness of a minority of individuals. This is more common elsewhere, almost all chess players are civilized.
in addition to what mike said, i know those links are in fact correct, rather than 'not going where they're supposed to go.' the webpages they are linking to no longer exist. at chessvariants.com, they usually put a note on a webpage that contains an outgoing link that it doesn't work anymore, but this can be difficult to keep updated on something as huge as chessvariants.com
I for one am not a programmer. I bought the full version of Zillions of Games and I planned to put my entry into a Zillions format. I ran into the problem, however, that the learning curve to be able to implement the game in Zillions format was far too steep for the amount of time I had. I, for one, intend to play test the various games before I 'pass judgement' on them, since I think it is the only way that one can be able to judge with any fairness at all, even if it means I have to construct a makeshift board to do so...
Has anyone archived the chess variant 'Schach des Macchiavelli' published in the beginning of the 80ies in the german alternative newspaper 'die tageszeitung' (taz)? I remember the following facts: It was a 4 player variant on a non-checkered square board. The central field was special: If your royal piece was placed there, you had additional moves after every other player's moves. Captured pieces are left as corpses on the board. They could be moved only by a special unit, the nekromobil, which was unable to capture. Any hints are welcome. --J'org Knappen
Joerg,
<p>
That sounds like the French game described in the ECV as Djambi -- you
can find some information on the Internet if you search under that name,
including a (French) retailer who apparently still sells it. The
inventor's name is Jean Anesto.
<p>
There's an extensive page in French on the game at:
<a href="http://jeuxsoc.free.fr/d/djamb_rg.htm">http://jeuxsoc.free.fr/d/djamb_rg.htm</a>
Thanks Peter, that's it! Probably the taz article was a direct translation of that text, including the Foucault theme. I think, it's worth an external link on the link pages. --J'org Knappen
We've been talking among the editors about trying to run a multivariant PBEM tournament in 2003. The goal is to get some of the better new or obscure variants more play and exposure (although there will be room for more usual games as well). Each player would play a total of six games, in at least five different variants from a list of seven or eight. The crucial question is what variants to feature. What ought to be played more? Which games should get a chance? There are so many good ideas here that no one person can begin to evaluate them all. We ask all of our readers to consider adding a comment here. Suggest one, or two, or five, or ten games to be considered. We'll eventually use your suggestions and our editorial deliberation to put together a list of 25-40 for a formal poll. That poll will determine the games to be used, if there's enough interest. We hope there will be. Please, let your voices be heard, and help us build a cool new event.
I have a few games to recommend, some are mine, many are not:
<ul>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../41.dir/clash/clashrules.html'>Clash of Command</a> by Peter Strob.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../diffmove.dir/chosen-chess.html'>Chosen Chess</a> by Gianni Cottogni.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../41.dir/fastlane.html'>Chess in the Fast Lane</a> by Francois Tremblay.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../32turn.dir/wormhole.html'>Wormhole Chess</a> by Fergus Duniho.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../other.dir/chessonlongboard.html'>Chess on a Longer Board with a Few Pieces Added</a> by David Howe.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../diffmove.dir/augmented.html'>Augmented Chess</a> by Ralph Betza.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../diffmove.dir/golem-chess.html'>Golem Chess</a> by Peter Aronson and Ben Good.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../other.dir/rococo.html'>Rococo</a> by Peter Aronson and David Howe.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../diffmove.dir/separate-realms.html'>Separate Realms</a> by Mike Nelson and Peter Aronson.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../other.dir/ruddigore-chess.html'>Ruddigore Chess</a> By Peter Aronson.
</li>
</ul>
<p>
And that's 10, but I easily could add another 10, but that would be excessive.
I'd have to search around for games. off the top of my head, i'd also definitely recommend rococo and ruddigore by aronson. i also recommend schizophrenic chess, altho i don't know if we want to overlap this with the 84 square contest. i might also suggest my own game crazy38s. what else... captain spalding chess by betza. if we want a 3D game, i'd suggest millenium 3D by a'gostino or exchequer by hewson, since they can both be played in about the same amount of time it takes to play a standard chess game. i am also a big fan of rennaissance chess by eric greenwood. i also like the the commercial game quantum II, III and IV. i also like looneybird, even tho freeling is no longer big on it. sorry this message wasn't as organized as aronson's, nor does it link to the games.
I'd like to suggest
<a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/small.dir/feeblelosalamos.html'>Feeble Los Alamos Chess</a>.
<p>Also, I'm not against having a large variant per se, but I would like to suggest that if we do have one (or more), we try it out with 'gradual progressive' rules, or perhaps using John William Brown's two-move rule used in
<a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/contest/cenchess.html'>Centennial Chess</a>:
<blockquote>
Each player moves two consecutive pieces until capturing. Upon capturing a player loses his two-move privilege for the duration of the game. A capture must be made on the first and only move of a turn.
</blockquote>
I did a list of eight, trimmed from a first list of nearly 40, to show how a set of games might feature a wide range of styles and options. In alphabetical order: Chigorin Chess (Betza)...non-matching forces Extinction Chess (Schmittberger)...new objective Magician Chess (Whittle)...small board, new piece, board alteration Not-particularly-new Chess (Aronson)...add-a-few-squares-and-new-piece(s) genre Sudden Death Chess (Chatham)...simple rule change with radical implications Take Over Chess (Quintanilla)...small board, different captures, new piece Triplets (Sobey)...multi-moves, alternate objective ximeracak. (Overby)...sweeping piece changes to standard set I share David's nervousness about larger games, although Modern Chess, 21st Century Chess, and Chess on a Longer Board With a Few Pieces Added are on my long list. So are Crazy 38s and Separate Realms (from other people's lists). I would like to feature some prizewinners from our contests, and while the tournament should feature lesser-played designs it might not hurt to have a better-known game or two in the mix. Losing Chess is another I'd consider for that role.
I just checked Peter's linked recommendations, and I shake my head. There is so much good stuff there, and elsewhere on CVP, that you cannot track it all. :) I wonder what Ralph Betza, in particular, might suggest? He's been at this a while...
Just commenting on the overlaps, <a href='../41.dir/takeover.html'>Takeover
Chess</a> and <a href='../other.dir/captain-spalding.html'>Captain
Spalding Chess</a> were on my next list, too. And on any given day, which
game is on which list could change easily.
<p>
<hr>
<p>
It's not what you meant, David, but I had a sudden thought of Double-Move
<a href="../other.dir/chessonlongboard.html">Chess on a Long Board with a
Few Pieces Added</a>. I can see players being
<strong>very</strong> willing to expend some material to nail their
opponent's Wall! Might be fun, though.
I noticed Ben's comment on the 84-space contest. Aside from the fact that we won't want many games that size in any case, I don't think that any game being voted upon in 84-spaces should be eligible for this event. Even its presence in a poll to pick the games could affect the contest voting. We may miss a good game that way, but if this flies there's always next year.
Overby wrote: I don't think that any game being voted upon in 84-spaces should be eligible for this event. Even its presence in a poll to pick the games could affect the contest voting. <P>
this is what i was thinking also, so we should scratch my suggestion of using schizo chess. also, it occurred to me that those of us who entered will be playtesting all the games once fergus gets them up anyway, so we really don't need them in this tourney.
There certainly are a lot of worthy games to consider, and this fabulous website makes it both harder and easier to decide. Harder because so many interesting games can be found here. Easier because you can read their rules at a click, and in some cases read what others have thought. I looked at the games suggested by others, and a few games I am partial to myself, and came up with this list: Among newer variants: Rococo certainly looks very interesting -- perhaps a better Ultima. Separate Realms is new and promising enough to warrant some play. Take Over has an interesting mechanic that I'd like to see explored. Crazy 38s is so original and innovative that it begs to be played. Caissa also has a unique and interesting mechanic and I've always wondered how well it plays. Flip Shogi looks interesting. Cannon Shogi looks likes an interesting shogi variant with added power on the board. Among large variants: Centennial Chess looks fascinating, and for the adventurous, perhaps even Millenial Chess by the same inventor. Some form of Grand Chess seems like a good idea -- I think perhaps Grander Chess might even be the best choice. Reniassance Chess also looks to be a worthy entry in the large variant category. Among hexagonal games: Hexagonal Chess by Shafran has always struck me as perhaps better than Glinski's game -- it would be intersting to find out. Hex Shogi by Duniho -- perhaps a small board variant is called for, but that all look intriguing to me Among established variants: Extinction Chess has always struck me as a great, simple idea. Chessgi is an acknowledge classic, a great game. Rifle Chess has always intrigued me. And I guess I better stop there, since I've already listed more than 10. I could easily go on. I'll resist the temptation to list my only TCVP entry (Biform Chess) since I've recently had second thoughts about the starting array. And it's too bad that this is all happening just a few weeks before my own new games come out, but I suspect that interest in them will be a little limited anyway, since they're both big-board variants (10x10 and 11x11) and one of them is very unusual and Ultima-like. What kind of time frame has been proposed for these games? A move per day? Will there be a time limit? I'd love to play, but some days I'm so swamped I can't afford to think about chess.
caissa is a good game, it's fun and light and games don't take that long to play. freeling isn't so big on it anymore tho, it used to be on the mind arena and it's not anymore. but i still think it would be a good one for the tourney. flip shogi is a good one also. <P>
i'd recommend against rifle chess. i found it to be a very poor game. <P>
i'd also wondering about what we're going to do for time constraints. i know from experience that a general statement 'everybody should move as fast as possible' doesn't work; everybody moves as fast as possible until they're busy with other things in their lives, or the game gets to a complicated state. a move per day doesn't work either, too many people can't get online every day, nor does it give you extra time for complicated positions. i have to admit tho, that i don't have any good ideas for a solution right now. i'm now spoiled by richard's pbm, which clocks everybody's time and can be set so that each player has a total amount of time (such as 120 days) to finish their game.
Time limits are the headache of correspondence chess. Sigh. I, too, am spoiled by Richard's PBEM server. The Omega Chess tournament there is at G/180 days (30 days vacation with notice allowed), and that G/180 gets counted to the minute and second by the central server. Obviously we don't have that option. Suggestions for how to best count a G/XX time limit are welcome. I'd like to see a year maximum on the games, and expect to see more small variants than large for that reason (and the fact that we've had a lot of small variant design contests!). An absolute time limit of Y days for any individual move, with one warning and a notice provision for vacations, might also work in lieu of the above.
I think I like Glenn's idea of X days per move, with one warning before forfeiture, and suspension upon proper notice of vacation, illness, personal matters, etc. Since this tournament should be viewed as a friendly one between like-minded variant players, the rules shouldn't be too restrictive. I think 3 days per player-move should cover most situations other than the aforementioned major ones, and it means that in a year all games that take less than 60 full moves will be finished. In reality, games even much longer can probably be finished since players will in most cases not take 3 days for every move. For some games, and on some days, I know that I will be able to play several moves if my opponent is agreeable.
Obviously, the ten games should be Chess with Different Armies, Feeble Chess, Tripunch Chess, Half Chess, Amontillado Chess, Progressive Cambiamarce DemiChess, Torus Peacebump Punch Chess, Cloud Chess, All Go Together Chess, Nemoroth, and Alice's Chessgi. I tend to pick from games i'm more familiar with....
I'm afraid I don't recognize some of those. :) Maybe we have to do a Ralph Betza tournament some time. Then a Peter Aronson tournament the following year. Maybe Parton or Schmittberger or Freeling the year after that.
HAS ANYONE HEARD OF A MAXIMUM OF 13 ALLOWABLE MOVES TO MATE A LONE KING, ASSUMING ENOUGH OPPOSING PIECES FOR A CHECKMATE?
There is no such rule. The maximum allowable number of moves in such a position is 50, with certain conditions. (See the laws for more details about the fifty move rule.) The figure thirteen probably comes from end game studies. If I remember correctly, King and Rook vs bare King can mate in 13 moves or less starting from any legal, non-stalemated position. I belive the corresponding figures are 8 for King and Queen vs bare King, 14 for King and 2 Bishops (on opposite colors) vs bare King, and 49 for King, Bishop, and Knight vs bare King. [Someone please correct me if my memory is faulty.] But all the numbers I quoted assume perfect play--the laws do not require perfect play. (Except in the last case, but truthfully I don't know how to force mate with a Bishop and Knight in 1000 moves, nor has anyone ever done it to me.)
These are the salient points, as I see them: - There are so many good variants it's hard to even agree on a list to select from. - Large variants should be carefully considered because of playing time considerations. - Subsequent PBEM tournaments could have different themes. My proposal: - Select the variants from the top three finishers of the 38, 39, 40, and 41 square contests. This gives 12 selections to choose from, and most are not famous or recognized variants. Their playablility is proven, they are relatively small, and should generally be done quickly. I like the idea of holding a different PBEM contest each year, if there is interest. Possibilities include a Large Variant theme (selected from the Large Variant, 100 square, and 84 square contests); a Betza theme (all Betza variants); an Aronson theme. The games selected for these contests should not overlap. Other possibilities include a history theme (Shatranj, Xiangqi, Shogi, Makruk, etc.); a Shogi variant theme (Tori, Chu, Wa, etc.); etc. Count me in.
I prefer regular-sized or large variants to small ones, so I'd not like to see the contest limited to games of 38-41 squares, though I'd certainly not object to some of those games being included. I'd rather see the slate of games for any given year be eclectic -- some small, some normal-sized, some large, and from a variety of inventors or sources. You get to experience more interesting games that way, I think, and no one gets left out because all of the games in a given year are not to his/her taste.
It looks like I'll be the editor in charge of the first tournament. Right now I have compiled, with plenty of suggestions, a list of 42 games to pick from. They break down around 50% regular board size, 33% smaller, 16% larger. I am constructing a poll to allow folks to vote on any of those games they would like to see in, and indeed to suggest others. The set of games to be used _in 2003_ will be picked by the staff here guided by the polls. We want a mix of old, new, big, small, etc. Variety is key the first time out. When and if the first tourney succeeds, I'd love to see 'thematics' later, much as we have held a variety of design contests. The linchpin issue is simply whether we can get players. I'd be happy with 10, but would love 20 or more. And picking good games is a prerequisite to getting players. And I agree with the comment that there are so many good games it's hard to get agreement on a list. That's why I suggested this; lots of good games languishing in obscurity. Please keep the feedback coming...
i see quite a few things have been posted on this subject while i was out of town this weekend. i would also caution against too many large variants for the same reason that they take much longer to play. in a previous comment i listed a bunch of larger variants as possibilities, but i wasn't suggested we play all of them, just that they were all good possibilities. i would also be careful about small variants that are chosen. as both a game designer and judge, i know that designing a small chess variant is much more difficult than designing a medium or large one. i found very very few small variants that i was truly impressed with, and even fewer that were so well designed that they would not have been improved if the ideas had been extended to a larger game. even some of the games that ranked high in some of the contests i found to be quite weak.
Wonderful idea! As far as the timing, either the 3 days per move or the total day limit idea would work, I think. Total days used could be tracked manually with each PBEM exchange. As far as a list of games, here's some ideas: - Chaturanga (worthy grandad of Chess) - Jumping Chess (interesting capturing mechanic) - Glinski's Hexagonal Chess (hex mechanics) - Makruk (wonderful old and contemporary variant) - Take Over Chess (I'm partial to it!) - Chess on a Longer Board (its that Wall) - Xiangqi (another worthy variant) - Mulligan Stew Chess (crazy but fun)
Here's a little throwaway thought I had on the morning drive:
<h3>Card Chess Without Randomness or Hidden Information</h3>
People have used cards to add an element of randomness to Chess, probably
for centuries. I have no problem with this, but some people do, a fact
that led me to wonder if an interesting version of Chess with Cards
containing no random elements or other hidden information could be
constructed.
<h4>The Equipment</h4>
Each player starts with 16 cards, 15 of which contain all the possible
unordered combinations of two pieces, and the last of which is a wild
card. Thus:
<p>
PN, PB, PR, PQ, PK, NB, NR, NQ, NK, BR, BQ, BK, NQ, NK, QK, Wild.
<h4>The Play</h4>
To move a piece, a player must have a card with either that piece on the
card or they must have a wild card. Upon moving that piece, they hand the
card they used to allow the move to their opponent, who adds it to their
own cards.
<p>
If a player has no card that would allow them to move any of their pieces,
they lose. Other forms of stalemate are also losses.
<p>
Pieces give check even without their player having a card that would allow
them to move the piece.
<p>
If the King is in check, it may be moved either by playing a card with a
King on it, or by playing a card with a piece attacking the King on it.
If the King is in check and you have no card that would allow it to move,
then it is mate.
<h4>Chess with Different Armies</h4>
This scheme ought to work OK with Chess with Different Armies, although I
am not entirely sure what the consequences are, since the relative
strength of pieces from equivalent array positions differ (for example,
in the Remarkable Rookies the 'Bishop' is Rook strength, and the 'Rook' is
a minor piece; the Colorbound Clobberers are even more oddly distributed).
<h4>Comments</h4>
Since there are plenty of cards with each piece, openings ought to be
fairly standard. Things start to get weird when players lose all of types
of piece. If a player has no Knights, Bishops or Queens, then the cards
NB, NQ and BQ will never leave their hands.
<p>
Possibly there are too many cards with each piece on them.
I need to play with this. It's quite an idea. I wonder if the King shouldn't be like any other piece, even in check; if you're in check, have no card to move the King, and can't defeat the check otherwise it is mate. The concept will map with interesting results to a lot of variants that use the ordinary 8x8 and 32 pieces. The cards might even work best with a form other than orthochess. Peter, you think too much! :)
Just had another thought...a 10-card version with five cards each for King and Pawn, two cards each for others, with the Wild card. Or 9 without the Wild card. The optimum card mix, as you astutely noted, may not yet be known. KQ KB KN KR KP PQ PB PN PR (Wild)
I like your 10 card set -- it makes card hording more practical, while
allowing the Kings and Pawns reasonably mobile. And with 6 out of 10
cards showing the King, I agree the special King privilege to use the
attacking piece's card when in check is not in necessary.
<hr>
:: Peter, you think too much! :)
<p>
Well, 'Die Gedanken sind frei', I guess :)
An issue has occured to me -- under the rules I've defined, Black will always have one or two cards more than white, which is probably excessive.
<p>
Here's an idea to correct it:
<ul>
<p>
<li>
White starts with 1 copy each of all cards except the wild card, black starts with the cards white does, plus 1 wild card.
</li>
<p>
<li>
On white's first move, they use no card; thus black starts with the wild card and with one more card than white.
</li>
</ul>
Black starting with the wild card offsets white's first move advantage some, hopefully.
Does castling require one card, or two, as you see it? I vote one, a King card, since officially castling has long been viewed as a move of the King. But I could go either way. A 19-card set sounds like a plan...White with nine, Black with nine plus the Wild card, no card used on White's first move. I can see some potential for endgame draws, where mating material is hindered by a lack of sufficient cards to make the moves. :)
Castling as a King move is a good idea, I think. The endgame. Hmm. A K + Q vs K endgame could be stymied by the player with the bare King holding on to the KQ, PQ and (Wild) cards. I wonder if some additional mechanism is called for. Of course, it needs to be seen if this game comes down to situations like that. Pawns are relatively mobile, and because there are many cards that let Pawns move, they defend each other with greater effectiveness than other pieces. It seems to indicate that Pawnless endgames may not be as common as in usual Chess.
Peter, It seems like another new game is about to be born in the comments system. It looks like a very good one. If drawishness is a problem because of hoarding cards as you suggest it may be, perhaps the answer is to use a stronger than FIDE army to compensate for the difficulites of moving. K and Amazon vs K should be more winnable than K and Q vs K as fewer moves are needed=card hoarding is less effective. But I would really prefer the FIDE army if the game is playable with it.
Another possibility is to use as a base game where material doesn't decrease over the course of the game, such as Chessgi. Of course, to some extent card hording is a good thing in the context of this game, as it allows some additional tactics, and using Chessgi as a base would decrease the possibility for this.
<p>
One could go for more radical modifications, of course, but they would be less Chess-like. For instance, if a player has no Pawns, and has no cards that would allow them to move any piece but their King, they may drop a Pawn using a Pawn card on any unoccupied square on their 2nd rank. That, combined with promotion, might allow more decisive endgames.
John's way ahead of me, i was about to post the same thing. we couldn't find anything, i couldn't even find anything overseas - except the grandchess board on freeling's site, which, altho nice looking, is very expensive and has huge shipping charges. <P>
there was also the 12x12 quantum board, but i never saved the money to get a set, and reportedly the company no longer exists. <P>
george hodges sells vinyl 7x7, 9x9, 11x11, 12x12, 15x15, 17x17, 19x19 and 25x25, but again he is transatlantic and not inexpensive, and additionally the boards are uncheckered. <P>
i have found almost nothing on ebay either. <P>
i am mostly interested in a 10x10 for use with the exchess pieces. i hope to eventually make my own tile boards similar to the ones tony quintilla made, but it may be awhile before i have the time or the money to do this, and i'm not sure how well mine will come out. and i'm still interested in wood boards and exploring all options. <P>
Perhaps you might consider buying an Omega Chess set (http://www.omegachess.com), which uses a 10x10 board with extra corner squares which could be ignored for the 10x10 gaes you want to play.
Thanks, but i have an omegachess set. we're looking for something considerably nicer than the omegachess board, which is made out of cardboard and has a cut halfway through so that it can fold into quarters. it would not do the exchess pieces justice.
btw, i am also aware that the commercial variant 'roman chess' comes with a vinyl 10x10 board. it looks pretty nice, but the set is also $70, which seems rather high, especially considering that the design of the additional piece is one of the most uncreative pieces i've ever seen. <P>
sorry, looks like we have gotten into a discussion here that's become completely unrelated to the page we're actually posting it to.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.