Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Grotesque Chess. A variant of Capablanca's Chess with no unprotected Pawns. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

🕸💡📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 05:48 PM UTC:

Charles Gilman writes: <BLOCKQUOTE> This arrangement of simple pieces opens a whole new debate. RB-N--N-BR alone protects all but the d and g Pawns. Therefore any arrangement of the four compound pieces will protect all Pawns as only one lacks the required diagonal move. </BLOCKQUOTE> You're right about that. I put the Knights so close to the center, because I knew I could protect all the Pawns by keeping pairs of diagonal moving pieces together. If I had put Knights in the same positions as Aberg had, not all Pawns would have been protected. I expect my reason for putting the Knights so close to the center blinded me to the fact that I could have then arranged the other pieces at will. <BLOCKQUOTE> What are the relative merits of the 12 distinct arrangements (or even just the 6 with a centralised King)? </BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I would favor keeping the King centralized. The six distinct arrangements you refer to are actually six sets of mathematically equivalent pairs. These are <PRE> RBGNKQNEBR and RBENQKNGBR RBENKQNGBR and RBENQKNGBR RBQNKGNEBR and RBENGKNQBR RBENKGNQBR and RBQNGKNEBR RBGNKENQBR and RBQNEKNGBR RBQNKENGBR and RBQNEKNGBR </PRE> The Grotesque Chess array is the third one down on the left. First, I favor eliminating each pair member that puts the White Queen on the King's right side. This is just to preserve the usual meanings of King-side and Queen-side. This leaves these: <PRE> RBENQKNGBR RBENQKNGBR RBQNKGNEBR RBQNGKNEBR RBQNEKNGBR RBQNKENGBR </PRE> Again, the Grotesque Chess array is the third one down. One factor to consider is which better balances the power of the pieces on both sides of the King. Since the Queen is more powerful than either Guard or Equerry, it would be one with the Queen on the King's left and Guard and Equerry on the King's right. These leaves these: <PRE> RBQNKGNEBR RBQNKENGBR </PRE> The first one is the Grotesque Chess array. The other one may be superior. It puts the weakest of the compound pieces in the center, and it separates the two compounds that move as Rooks. One thing I didn't like about Grotesque Chess was how easily the Queen and Guard could team up because of their proximity to each other, but I had regarded this as a necessary evil to protect all Pawns. I shall test this other arrangement and see if I wish to make it the new array for Grotesque Chess. This is a prerogative I take while the game is still in its infancy. I now have a ZRF that plays Grotesque Chess, and with just some slight modifications, I can do some playtesting with it. <BLOCKQUOTE> In case anyone is wondering, it may be worth stating that the origin of the piece names used here is Bird's Chess. </BLOCKQUOTE> It has already been stated on the page. <BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with the others that this variant is far from grotesque. </BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I'm pleased by that. But from the common Chess-is-the-only-Chess-variant-anyone-needs perspective, it probably is grotesque. <BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps as the distinctive feature is having Knights so near the middle a good name might be Mid(k)night Chess. </BLOCKQUOTE> That may be the best suggestion I've heard so far. But I still like the name Grotesque Chess. It's a name that's harder for people to pass by without wondering what it's about. <BLOCKQUOTE> On the other hand Grotesque Chess would be a far better name for the variant currently called British Chess, which was mentioned in an earlier comment. </BLOCKQUOTE> No, you're quite wrong about that. British Chess is a beautiful game. Also, given how the game is so based on British heraldry and other British themes, it would be a grave insult to the British to call it by that name.

Charles Gilman wrote on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 07:19 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

This arrangement of simple pieces opens a whole new debate. RB-N--N-BR
alone protects all but the d and g Pawns. Therefore any arrangement of the
four compound pieces will protect all Pawns as only one lacks the required
diagonal move. What are the relative merits of the 12 distinct
arrangements (or even just the 6 with a centralised King)?
	In case anyone is wondering, it may be worth stating that the origin of
the piece names used here is Bird's Chess.
	I agree with the others that this variant is far from grotesque. Perhaps
as the distinctive feature is having Knights so near the middle a good
name might be Mid(k)night Chess. On the other hand Grotesque Chess would
be a far better name for the variant currently called British Chess, which
was mentioned in an earlier comment.

🕸💡📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2004 11:59 PM UTC:

I perused Pritchard's ECV today, and I did find one game that had a
castling rule like Grotesque Chess's. The game is Supercapablanca Chess,
a 12x8 version of Capablanaca's Chess. Its castling rule states that a
King may move two, three, or four spaces toward the Rook. Its castling
rule would be equivalent to that of Grotesque Chess within the context of
Grotesque Chess, though as I worded the rule for Grotesque Chess, its rule
would not be equivalent to that of Supercapablanca Chess on its longer
board, since it would also allow the King to move five spaces toward the
Rook.

If I needed to, I would have just reworded the rule to match that of
Supercapablanca Chess. But I am grateful that you're willing to let
anyone 'use this form of modified free castling ... in any variant.'

I came to this form of castling mainly from a programming perspective. In
Game Courier, I had been distinguishing castling from a King's usual move
by noting where the King moves to. But when I thought of implementing
unrestricted free castling, this wasn't going to work out. Even more of a
problem from a programming perspective was giving the Rook a choice of
which space to move to. As I thought about the matter more, I concluded,
as you have too, that unrestricted free castling is basically two moves in
one, and that makes castling too powerful.

George Duke wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2004 11:37 PM UTC:

Where Grotesque's form of castling used before, from Falcon Chess Patent Text Excerpts copied on this CVP, the two sentences before 'Conclusions, Ramifications and Scope': 'Still another variation modifies free castling, whereby the squares on which the King can stop are one fewer in number excluding the square closest to the King's initial position. This arrangement is intermediate between free castling and orthodox castling.' Written in 1996, the idea may have been used in an earlier patent but not spilled over to Pritchard's 1994 ECV.

George Duke wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2004 06:54 PM UTC:

The 'one or more' and 'two or more' options for King in castling are both in the 1996 patent claims themselves. [Falcon Chess did not originate with a Chess V.P. article in 2000.] See the other major Falcon Chess article from the next year 2001 on CVP, which was written in 1996 -- being the US Patent text itself -- based on inventors' notebook back to December 1992. Anyone can use this form of modified free castling, as I have called it, in any variant. I have no idea whether it was original with my Falcon Chess claims in 1996. Probably not. It is not crucial to the 8x10, 9x10, and 10x10 Falcon games; what made them patentable was the Falcon move itself in combination with other pieces in specific embodiments. I think both the castling forms are correct ideas in order to perfect large Chesses generally.

🕸💡📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2004 05:27 PM UTC:

Regarding the names Guard and Equerry, they seemed suitable for this game, because the Guard is placed next to the King, as though it is guarding it, Guard and Equerry feature some of the letters of Grotesque, particularly G and Qu, and Equerry strikes me as a bizarre, if not grotesque, name for a piece.

🕸💡📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2004 05:22 PM UTC:

George Duke writes: <BLOCKQUOTE> The form of castling is used also in Falcon Chess since 1995. </BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite. I quote from the page on Falcon Chess: <BLOCKQUOTE> Figure 23 shows that 'free castling' in Falcon Chess permits the king to move to any of the squares between itself and a rook in a castling move. </BLOCKQUOTE> In Grotesque Chess, a King may not castle to an adjacent space. It must move at least two spaces in order to castle.

🕸💡📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2004 05:14 PM UTC:

George Duke writes:

Fergus Duniho correctly points this assortment of pieces goes back 500 yrs.(Regina Rabiosa's debut), so hardly original.

No, I didn't mention anything earlier than Carrera's Chess, which is just under 400 years old. I don't know what Regina Rabiosa is.

[EDIT: I now realize that Regina Rabiosa is Latin for Mad Queen, one of the original epithets for Modern Chess.]

George Duke wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2004 04:51 PM UTC:

Most outsiders would not know Guard and Equerry, having myself to click a few times to sort them out. Matter of particular array is relatively trivial compared to specific piece mix, since any initial position can be randomized. Fergus Duniho correctly points this assortment of pieces goes back 500 yrs.(Regina Rabiosa's debut), so hardly original. The form of castling is used also in Falcon Chess since 1995, and we still weigh whether King's moving liberally one or more would be more effective. Any other Rook arrival square than over and adjacent seems more like two moves.

David Paulowich wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2004 01:25 PM UTC:

Andreas, you have just become the latest victim of Capablanca's Curse! Five hours before this variant arrived, I posted two comments on the 'Carrera's Chess' page. Carrera Random Chess actually uses a five-step procedure where both players have a hand in determining the final setup. No dice - no castling - no former world champions.

Andreas Kaufmann wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2004 07:15 AM UTC:

I have another idea how to improve Capablanca Chess. Just combine Fisher Random Chess and Capablanca Chess. So, each initial position will be randomly chosen with constraints similar to Fisher Random Chess (rooks to different sides of the King, Bishops on different colors etc.) What do you think about it?

11 comments displayed

⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.