[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
How does this 'Universal Chess' differ from Superchess? ( http://www.superchess.nl/indexengels.htm ) I could find no link for it.
Interesting point of view, one I am sympathetic toward. FIDE is over-analyzed. Is shogi, or XiangQi, or any other major variant as analyzed as FIDE? I also have some reservations, but I'll reserve them for later. The things we agree on and some recent developments in those areas might be worth discussing. Carlos Cetina has likely gone the farthest with introducing the sense of wizardry and new possibilities with Universal Chess, a random, shuffle variant that uses a wide range of variant pieces as well as the usual 5 pieces and pawns. All you are guaranteed to start with is 1 king and 8 pawns. The remaining 7 pieces can come from a set of 24 pieces up to and experimental set of 70+ pieces. It's a very interesting game, very tactical. Very high-powered; Carlos is not shy about using a large number of pieces the equivalent of a queen or even stronger. I would like to see an entirely short range version of the game, which should be more strategic. Nick Wolff has a strange little offering called PK Chess that certainly takes the certainty out of the game. I don't know if this exactly has been done before, but it leads to very wild games. It's a very simple idea. The FIDE rules hold, with one addition. After each player's 5th turn, all their pawns change to knights. After the 10th turn, all knights turn to pawns. After the 15th turn, all pawns -> knights, 20th... George has been talking about this type of piece in his Pocket Polypiece comments. This is a fine example of the genre, and I've found it almost playable :-) I keep thinking that if I just calculated a little better, and planned for the changes from the beginning, I could set up a decent defense, and then work on some sort of offense... naah! The game is not stable; it swings toward chaos, you fight it back, then it takes off again. It's a fun ride, a real roller coaster. The last game I'd like to look at is one I haven't played, Shuuro. It's a commercial game that debuted here last week. For a variantist, it has a very common weakness in using only the standard FIDE pieces and pawns. [Maybe someday we'll be able to get decent variant pieces at good prices.] Beyond that, though, it shows a nice bit of imagination with a 12x12 board, roomier than most, and the slider-but-not-jumper-blocking plinths that are randomly placed. The innovation of allowing knights to land on top of them and stop as well as move 'through' them is quite nice and does a fair job of enhancing the knights' mobility, and reducing the sliders. This looks like it could be quite interesting, I'd like to play it. Can we get a preset? [Maybe if I put this comment on the Shuuro page, where they'll see it...] This is another game I would like to see shortrange pieces in, that could move through or on top of the plinths. I'd also like to try letting the players place the plinths deliberately, each player placing 1 plinth in each of the 4 quadrants - alternating who goes first in each quadrant.
''Many tribes never use the toes in counting, but signify the close of the first 10 by clapping the hands together, by a wave of the right hand, or by designating some object; after which the fingers are again used as before.'' --Levi Leonard Conant 'Counting' // How could rules be changed so that systematically less than best moves, in any conceivable rational context, would benefit by the end of a game? Betza's article ''Many Rules for One Game'' can have different rules for different squares, and also with rules subject to change, there can be no best move for computer to find.
The motif behind the preoccupation with chess variants. It's obvious that chess has become very analytical, and there is today less 'alchemy' left in chess. When chess began in India, it was commonly played with dice. The mysterious aspect of chess as a universe of variants is continually narrowing down into well-trodden paths, and chess has today become a resource of the overruling ego. I think this is what lies behind attempts as Seirawan Chess, etc., which aim at reintroducing chance and wizardry into a game which is today very much about technique and preparedness, which does not allow much room for the unexpected. There is nothing essentially wrong in a scientific and rationalistic view of chess, it's only that it might develop into a form of compulsion neurosis, where always the rationally best move must be done, with the aid of a computer. To allow chess to be enhanced, while keeping the option to play standard chess, would satisfy the part of ourselves that is not only interested in ego-power, tournament victories and rating lists. So I think that evolutions in chess reflect developments in the collective psyche. When the modern rules emerged in the beginning of the 16th century, this answered to changes in collective consciousness. The renaissance had brought with it notions of objective criteria, and the game was seen as an object of study in itself. Before, it was solely a game of parlor and wholly integrated in the social context, and that's why it was so popular among women in medieval times. Perhaps a better term than computerization is the term rationalization. I think it's a sign of the times that people are feeling that an out-and-out rationalization of every aspect of life, including chess, is too much to bear. The urge to 'irrationalize' chess, by tampering with the rules, can perhaps be seen as a reaction against an overruling ego with its rationalistic urge to control, and the accompanying vain search after recognition and self-gratification. To give the lie to rationalism, one would want a 'wizard piece' to suddenly turn up on the board, as a chance event, to reintroduce a portion of 'game alchemy' into chess. It is possible that an evolutionary turn, what occurred in the 16th century, is again taking place. It is necessary to meet the demands of a collective consciousness which cannot bear anymore of rationalistic reductionism. This is necessary if chess is to remain popular, and I think it might be inevitable to introduce an alternative. Congenially, FIDE has decided that Chess960 be included in the general chess rules, coming into force at 1. July 2009. It is a pleasing development, but there might be better alternatives than Chess960. This topic must be discussed among chessplayers. /Mats
5 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.