Rich Hutnik wrote on Sat, Oct 4, 2008 10:02 PM UTC:
My understanding of 'Mad Queen Chess' (also went by Queen's Chess way
back when), was they wanted a way to accelerate the game, because they
found the game took too long to play. In addition to the Mad Queen and
Mad Bishop, castling got added, along with the double pawn move and also
en passant. Apparently all these modifications worked as evolutionary
additions. They did make he game more complicated, but they did work.
An interesting thing, assuming Chaturanga in whatever form was the base of
all chess-like games, is that when it went East, the people decided to push
the pawns up, rather than give them extra mobility. By doing this, none of
all the things we know got into the game. Apparently, the issue for
speeding up had to do with the pawns. The west gave them double
movement.
Well, what can we learn here? Flat out, if a community find something
that is 'good enough' a solution, and enough people get interested and
use it, it becomes standardized. Look at about anything being adopted,
from Microsoft Operating Systems, to the QWERTY keyboard, to http for web
pages. They are good enough, and people adopt them and they work.
Apparently Chess960 and Bughouse also fit into this to. People see it
meets a need, works, and they go with it. That is the history of how
technology gets developed. And, this is why I keep speaking of standards.
Don't follow this path, and you don't stand much of a chance of having
the NextChess happening. That is my take. Please show why it is wrong if
you disagree.
I am leaning towards the belief that people don't really believe there
will be a NextChess that will ever come about, because they don't think
they have the resources or means to make it come about. People in this
thread have thrown ideas out there, and spoke of some sort of rich and
powerful organization able to muscle its will on the world, and end up
causing FIDE chess to go extinct. I don't think people believe such will
happen, so everyone (everyone being the norm of expectations) is operating
from perfect world perspective of a fantasy dreamland, so they get way
idealistic and plug in their own personal preferences of what they want.
So, on this note, let's say you could have the 'NextChess' appear.
This is not a perfect world that it does. There is no powerful
organization to muscle itself, but it happens naturally. In light of
this, what would you want to see the game accomplish. I am NOT asking for
the specific form, but what should it accomplish? What should it do better
than FIDE chess. As I see it, I would like to see the following (please
suggest your own):
1. An introductory form that is easier to learn than FIDE chess that
people could then go to the next level with. Go has this with different
sized boards. The rules are simple enough, but the board varies. In
Chess like games, having a way to ramp up the complexity is a bonus.
2. A handicapping system that provides novices a shot to compete against
advanced players. Go has this.
3. An ability to integrate variants into play, without each variant being
seen as entirely different games. Count in this, a way for the game to
continue to evolve. NextChess allows you to develop scenarios for it.
Throw in mutators into here also. The game is able to handle mutators.
If the game Advanced Squad Leader were treated as chess, every scenario
for it would be seen as a different game. And if you go hardcore about
Chess960 the same way, it would end up being treated as 960 different
games.
4. Greatly reduce the chance of the game drawing. At LEAST have a way for
a draw to score differently for each side in a meaningful way that reflects
play. Also, in this, might as well throw in a more granular scoring system
for games. This could also work with handicapping.
5. Ways to prevent the opening book from becoming stale.... and this I
mean FOREVER. Ok, if not FOREVER, at least a long time. The game should
be robust enough that new solutions can arise without causing the
community of players to fragment.
6. Ability to integrate a variety of pieces and new pieces into it. And
these pieces can be valued properly.
7. Ability to handle more than 2 players, either as teams or individually
(ok, I am on a perfect form here, while I may find this maybe not needed,
it would be nice thugh).
8. Handles shuffles, drops, gating and reserves (ok, I am hinting here at
a way to keep the opening book fresher).
These are features I would like to see from the NextChess, whatever form
it takes in specific rules. Please list what you would like to see. I
hope this makes sense. And please DON'T say you can't do it. Maybe we
don't get all, but wouldn't it be helpful to list what FIDE Chess could
do better? Know this, and you then can know what the NextChess could
address in its design.