[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I noticed that the original rules for gating were wrong. They have been changed: (a) Gating: These pieces may enter the game via gating (piece in reserve comes in and takes start space of piece that started in back row, as that piece vacates its start space). [Mutable] Gating is NOT meant as a way to swap pieces out. It is meant as a way to enter a new piece into the start space of a piece as that piece vacates it. By the way, I have been comments IAGO Chess is not original, does what has been tried before, is to restrictive, and also too ambitious. I was also told I needed to do more of a 'baby step' before attempting this. Please understand that this is meant as a framework for future work, and I am open to suggestions people would have for it. It is also meant as a way for IAGO to classify chess variants so we can have different champions over the games. In other words here, it is meant as an incremental solution to the needs of IAGO and the chess variant community. I suggest people to PLEASE input here with your ideas. Don't just blow this off as nothing special. But, that is your choice in the matter. I will add that I am trying to get a Zillions adaptation done.
Rich Hutnik mentions zones to introduce pieces within 64 squares. One meaning of 'zones' would be like F. V. Morley's or Sibahi's. Morley's book 'My One Contribution to Chess' from 1940's adds two corridors 6 squares each along the sides, making 76 squares, but there are no pieces there in the array -- modest and undisruptive like elementary back-rank 'gating'. Now Abdul-Rahman Sibahi[unlike his 64-square Energizer] adds similar zones, only 4 squares each behind the initial set-up, making 72 squares, to accomodate RN, BN. Under 'Falcon Chess Variants Several' Preset at Game Courier is 'Falcon Chess with Chancellor & Cardinal'. So, before Seirawan Chess, and other than Betza's Tutti-Frutti and Karakus' Perfect, is attempt to put RN and BN on fewer than 80 squares, like that one approved for Sibahi. Actually there are RN & BN on < 64 squares as well, if we can recall some of them(Gilman may have done this, certainly some Gilman's have RN, BN at 64-79). Another CV with ongoing drops is Altair. There Roberto Lavieri accepted my characterization of the vertical-translation capabability of about half Lavieri's piece-types as particularizing drops, since they go to any square of one other rank(3 away), regardless the piece's inherent movement; but they are already on board. Interesting game Altair. In a sense, it is held up as one of the all-time top 3 in mentioning Rococo, Centennial, and Altair together. Of course, a few years ago, we had Switching Chess in there, not so well liked anymore, partly because already invented, it turned out, excepting King switching. Really why would not Switching Chess solve all problems to do away with overuse of rote practice? It has 64 squares and would be easy even to switch one piece over to an adjacent occupied square, and instead an off-board piece onto that arrival square, with the piece thus substituted leaving the board to make room for the probably-new type(other than RNBQ) in regular move by such 'Off-Board Switching', according to availability. As if combining Pocket Piece with Switching practice on same and sure 64 squares.
Hello George. Thank you for the comments. I would to comment on what you wrote: 1. I am sure drops, in all their glory, are not new, even drops into a zone. I do like the term 'back-rank gating' to describe how Seirawan and IAGO Chess do it. Seirawan is an optional version twist of what is actually in the commercial Chess variant Bosworth. What is done here with IAGO Chess is try to have the rules acknowledge this, and have a default position of providing a restricted version of drops and gating. I will say it is NOT new. It is just done there, with B-Class IAGO Chess as a way to acclimate people to it. On this, it should be noted that B-Class isn't the only version, and it is NOT meant to say that one can't use a larger board. It is just the natural next step off standard chess, that makes for a readily available board, and the need to just add two new pieces (I would go with the Empress/Amazon) as a third, to cover the M-Class version. This is meant as a STARTING point. Let me add here regarding what the back-rank gating and drops in IAGO Chess provides (Seirawan, at this point, appears to be a strictly as is, and not to be changed): A. It allows for players to experiment with new pieces. B. It allows a handicapping system currently missing from chess. By using this version of gating, one could then mix up the reserves what pieces can come into the game. You don't change your default position on the board, BUT you are able to change it in the reserve. C. Rules governing how drops and gating in IAGO Ches can be modified per each variant in it. Some could get rid of both. Others can use one or the other. And other rules can even change how either or both work, making gating or drops restricted to a single space, or having gating tied to a piece in particular, that acts as a transport vehicle. 2. In regards to switching, which recently popped up in Reformed Chess with pawns, I am fully in favor of it as a Mutator that can be used in V-Class (or possibly M-Class). It is a great thing to add to mix things up. I don't believe it should be codified though. I also believe you can play a version of chess where it may or may not be in the game.
A sample game of IAGO Chess run with Zillions playing both sides. This game didn't use the drop feature of IAGO Chess. Feel free to review any who have Capablanca chess sets. I will look to get a version up in Zillions once I am comfortable with it (I need to tweak the promotion rules for the pawns). It is close, but I wanted to get this up now for people to see how a sample game goes. And yes, Zillions does it usual Knight happy opening. However, this doesn't always happen. I will be posting in another post my experience watching Zillions play a bunch of times. 1. Knight b1 - c3 1. Black's Turn: Knight g8 - f6 2. Knight g1 - f3 = Knight 2. Black's Turn: Pawn e7 - e6 3. Pawn d2 - d4 3. Black's Turn: Knight b8 - c6 4. Bishop c1 - f4 = Bishop 4. Black's Turn: Bishop f8 - d6 (Gate in Archbishop to f8) 5. Knight f3 - e5 5. Black's Turn: Knight f6 - d5 6. Knight c3 x d5 6. Black's Turn: Pawn e6 x d5 7. Rook h1 - g1 (Gate in Archbishop to h1) 7. Black's Turn: Pawn g7 - g5 8. Bishop f4 - g3 8. Black's Turn: Rook h8 - g8 9. Pawn e2 - e3 9. Black's Turn: Queen d8 - f6 10. Rook a1 - b1 10. Black's Turn: Rook a8 - b8 (Gate in Chancellor to a8) 11. Queen d1 - d2 = Queen (Gate in Chancellor to d1) 11. Black's Turn: Chancellor a8 - b6 12. Knight e5 x c6 12. Black's Turn: Pawn d7 x c6 13. Bishop f1 - d3 13. Black's Turn: Bishop c8 - g4 14. Pawn f2 - f3 14. Black's Turn: Bishop g4 - f5 15. Bishop g3 x d6 15. Black's Turn: Archbishop f8 x d6 16. Bishop d3 x f5 16. Black's Turn: Queen f6 x f5 17. Archbishop h1 - g3 17. Black's Turn: Archbishop d6 x g3 18. Pawn h2 x g3 18. Black's Turn: Chancellor b6 - c4 19. Chancellor d1 - c3 19. Black's Turn: Pawn b7 - b5 20. Pawn g3 - g4 20. Black's Turn: Queen f5 - e6 21. Queen d2 - d3 21. Black's Turn: Chancellor c4 x c3 22. Pawn b2 x c3 22. Black's Turn: Queen e6 - h6 23. Pawn a2 - a4 23. Black's Turn: Pawn a7 - a6 24. Pawn e3 - e4 24. Black's Turn: Pawn d5 x e4 25. Queen d3 x e4 25. Black's Turn: King e8 - f8 26. Pawn a4 x b5 26. Black's Turn: Pawn a6 x b5 27. King e1 - f1 27. Black's Turn: Rook b8 - e8 28. Queen e4 - f5 28. Black's Turn: Rook g8 - g6 29. Pawn c3 - c4 29. Black's Turn: Rook g6 - d6 30. King f1 - f2 30. Black's Turn: Pawn b5 x c4 31. Rook g1 - h1 31. Black's Turn: Queen h6 - g7 32. Pawn c2 - c3 32. Black's Turn: King f8 - g8 33. Queen f5 - c5 33. Black's Turn: Queen g7 - g6 34. Rook b1 - b2 34. Black's Turn: Queen g6 - d3 35. Queen c5 x g5 35. Black's Turn: Rook d6 - g6 36. Queen g5 - h4 36. Black's Turn: Pawn h7 - h6 37. Rook h1 - e1 37. Black's Turn: Rook e8 x e1 38. Rook b2 - b8 38. Black's Turn: King g8 - h7 39. King f2 x e1 39. Black's Turn: Queen d3 - e3 40. King e1 - f1 40. Black's Turn: Rook g6 - e6 41. Rook b8 - b1 41. Black's Turn: Queen e3 - d3 42. King f1 - g1 42. Black's Turn: Queen d3 x b1 43. King g1 - h2 43. Black's Turn: Queen b1 - a1 44. Queen h4 - h5 44. Black's Turn: King h7 - g8 45. Queen h5 - h4 45. Black's Turn: Queen a1 x c3 46. Queen h4 - d8 46. Black's Turn: King g8 - g7 47. Queen d8 - b8 47. Black's Turn: Queen c3 x d4 48. Queen b8 x c7 48. Black's Turn: Pawn c4 - c3 49. Pawn f3 - f4 49. Black's Turn: Pawn c3 - c2 50. Pawn f4 - f5 50. Black's Turn: Queen d4 - g1 51. King h2 x g1 51. Black's Turn: Pawn c2 - c1 = Chancellor (Promotion) 52. King g1 - h2 52. Black's Turn: Chancellor c1 - f1 53. King h2 - h3 53. Black's Turn: Rook e6 - e3 54. Pawn g2 - g3 54. Black's Turn: Chancellor f1 - f2 55. King h3 - h4 55. Black's Turn: Chancellor f2 - h1 (BLACK CHECKMATE AND WIN)
My experiences running IAGO Chess (near B-Class, without the recycling pawn promotion) a bunch of times on Zillions, to give a general feel how play lines up: 1. The non-static opening makes the game feel like it starts out in mid-game providing players a lot of different ways the game can go. It is real hard to say that there is opening lines. The way IAGO Chess works, with both the gatings and drops, is you can have a game where one of the Capablanca pieces (Chancellor, Archbishop) can remain off board until even mid to late game. Yes, it FEELS like regular chess when you start, but then the game can take a bunch of unexpected turns, which makes it good, in my opinion. 3. Yes, the board is a bit more congested, but you still can engage in positional play. Some games have a much more open board, others tighter. There is still a lot of tactical play. Range of pieces drop a bit perhaps, but then this congestion balances the new power in the game. What I will say is that it is more like the midgame lasts longers because more pieces are on the board. Because the power pieces gate into the back row, the back row will be a bit more full. The power pieces don't come out until they are justified to do so. 3. I have seen times where the game is slow plotting, and then everything breaks loose as the pawn structures begin to get blown away. The end game will often end up with very out of balance positions and one or more rook level or higher pieces floating around. More of the pieces also mean your pawn structure will tend to be protected more, creating stronger lines. I will say a byproduct is the end game usually has more pawns in it, with holes in the line. 4. My biased verdict on it is that I believe this works as a solid chess variant, and robust enough for people to make needed tweaks. Of course, it is my game, but it has held up. I would suggest people get ahold of the Zillions adaptation once it is out, and try it themselves, and see what they think. Even if you don't play the AI, do watch some games. It should hopefully be out in a week or two. All goes well that is. If it goes real well, B, C and a version of M-Class (two variants of M-Class that is), should be available. In this the Empress/Amazon will be added into the mix.
By the way, for those who want to fiddle around with Capablanca pieces on an 8x8 board at this moment, feel free to check out this Zillions adaptation of different ideas throughout the years (IAGO Standard Fantasy Chess, aka Capablanca 64): http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/76178?do=show;id=1492
This is a sample game run by Zillions against itself at C-Class IAGO Chess. C-Class allows players to place Chancellor, Archbishop or Queen in the Queen space before game begins. This starts off C-Class with 9 starting configurations before the players begin the game. In this, it is Chancellor against Chancellor. One configuration I have seen pop up off and on is White Chancellor vs Black Archbishop start. My take is the Archbishop provides a strong defensive configuration. I have found running it a bunch of times that within 2-3 turns, the opening book explodes in a wide range of possibilities. The game (jump to the end to see whether white or black wins): Turn 1, Initial Placement 1. (Place Reserve Chancellor onto d1) 1. (Place Reserve Black Chancellor onto d8) Turn 2 and on, movement. 2. Knight b1 - c3 = Knight 2. Black Pawn d7 - d6 3. Pawn e2 - e4 3. Black Knight g8 - f6 4. Knight g1 - f3 = Knight 4. Black Knight b8 - d7 (Gate in Reserve Black Queen onto b8) 5. Pawn d2 - d4 5. Black Knight d7 - b6 6. Bishop f1 - d3 6. Black Bishop c8 - g4 7. O-O 7. Black Pawn e7 - e5 8. Bishop c1 - e3 8. Black Pawn c7 - c6 9. Bishop d3 - e2 9. Black Bishop f8 - e7 10. King g1 - h1 10. Black Bishop g4 x f3 11. Pawn g2 x f3 11. Black Queen b8 - c8 12. Pawn a2 - a4 12. Black Queen c8 - h3 13. Rook f1 - g1 13. Black Pawn e5 x d4 14. Bishop e3 x d4 14. Black Rook h8 - g8 15. Rook g1 - g3 15. Black Queen h3 - e6 16. Pawn a4 - a5 16. Black Knight b6 - d7 17. Bishop d4 - e3 17. Black Knight f6 - h5 18. Rook g3 - g1 18. Black Queen e6 - f6 19. Pawn a5 - a6 19. Black Pawn b7 - b5 20. Rook g1 - g5 20. Black Pawn g7 - g6 21. Pawn h2 - h4 21. Black Knight d7 - e5 22. Chancellor d1 - g1 22. Black Knight h5 - f4 23. Bishop e3 x f4 23. Black Queen f6 x f4 24. Chancellor g1 - h3 24. Black Chancellor d8 - e6 25. Rook a1 - g1 = Rook 25. Black Bishop e7 x g5 26. Pawn h4 x g5 26. Black Pawn f7 - f6 27. Pawn g5 x f6 27. Black Chancellor e6 x f6 28. Rook g1 - g3 28. Black Queen f4 - c1 29. Bishop e2 - d1 29. Black Chancellor f6 - f7 30. Chancellor h3 - g1 30. Black Queen c1 x b2 31. Knight c3 - e2 31. Black Rook a8 - b8 32. Chancellor g1 - e1 32. Black Queen b2 - a1 33. Pawn f3 - f4 33. Black Knight e5 - c4 34. Rook g3 - d3 34. Black Knight c4 - b2 35. Rook d3 - d2 35. Black Pawn b5 - b4 36. King h1 - h2 36. Black Chancellor f7 - h6 37. King h2 - g2 37. Black Chancellor h6 - g4 38. King g2 - f1 38. Black Queen a1 x a6 39. Chancellor e1 - f3 39. Black Knight b2 x d1 40. Rook d2 x d1 40. Black Rook g8 - f8 41. (Drop Reserve Queen onto a1) 41. Black Queen a6 x a1 42. Rook d1 x a1 42. Black Rook b8 - b7 43. Chancellor f3 - d4 43. Black Chancellor g4 - h2 44. King f1 - g1 44. Black Chancellor h2 - h3 45. King g1 - g2 45. Black Chancellor h3 - h4 46. King g2 - g1 46. bKing e8 - d7 47. Rook a1 - a6 47. Black Chancellor h4 - g4 48. King g1 - f1 48. Black Rook f8 - c8 49. Chancellor d4 - d3 49. Black Rook c8 - c7 50. Pawn e4 - e5 50. Black Pawn d6 - d5 51. Knight e2 - d4 51. bKing d7 - e8 52. Rook a6 x c6 52. Black Pawn a7 - a5 53. Chancellor d3 - c5 53. Black Rook c7 x c6 54. Chancellor c5 x c6 54. Black Rook b7 - e7 55. Chancellor c6 - c8 55. Black King e8 - f7 56. Pawn e5 - e6 56. Black King f7 - g7 57. Chancellor c8 x e7 57. Black King g7 - h8 58. Knight d4 - c6 58. Black Chancellor g4 - f6 59. (Drop Reserve Archbishop onto a1) 59. Black Pawn d5 - d4 60. Archbishop a1 x d4 60. (Drop Black Archbishop onto g8) 61. Chancellor e7 - f7 61. Black Archbishop g8 x f7 62. Archbishop d4 x f6 (White Checkmate win)
Note that I changed the documentation to differentiate the specific game rules in the IAGO Chess System from the IAGO Chess System itself as a framework to manage change and the varieties of chess.
As of this point, the name of the pieces have been changed. The Archbishop is now a Cardinal and the Chancellor is a Marshall. The Empress piece is called an Amazon, but may get chanced back to Empress. The use of Cardinal and Marshall allows flexibility in the naming of the Amazon/Empress piece, as per the community collectively agreeing to it.
Not a member, so responding to 'Unsticking Chess' here. Regarding: 'doing all of the above should likely buy chess another 1000 years' In my opinion, not even close. As soon as someone designs a computer smart enough to improve itself, processing power explodes exponentially. The future is going to be way, way different than anything we can imagine using the current paradigm.
Singh, I will add your comment to the Unsticking Chess thread and reply there, regarding the paradigm. As far as The IAGO Chess System goes, may I suggest people give it thought as being one of the pieces to the new paradigm, and happen to come up with their own suggestions, modifications of what the IAGO Chess System says, or point out the flaws? At least discuss this. On this, I welcome people to comment about the different aspects of it. These being: 1. The classification system for types of chess. 2. The use of drops and gating to get new pieces on the board, and setting up the board to start. 3. The basic rules on how it uses drops and gating, and how the C-Class transforms to the C-Class, then to the M-Class, and and then is able to produce a V-Class version/variant of the M-Class rules. I welcome feedback, people to adopt, reject, debate, etc... I will say, however, my wish is that people not ignore this completely.
You miss my meaning of 'paradigm'. I meant it in a far larger sense than in chess variants. I meant that the future of man and of what will succeed man will bear little resemblance to the present. I think people should play the variants that interest them now and not worry about future-proofing chess because that cannot be done. If people play and discuss the games they find interesting the future will work itself out. IAGO chess does not seem to add anything to the discussion; it seems to me to be largely a matter of classification of extant chess variant ideas, something I find unnecessary.
Singh, can I give you the perspective that the IAGO Chess System comes from? It is a framework for an attempt to integrate variants into an association that promotes abstract strategy games, and insure that the play doesn't deadend so chess that is played is stuck in the margins. It is meant as a practical solution, not as some, 'WOW that blows me away as new'. It isn't meant to blow anyone away, but work. That is its intent. Anyhow, if your view is one of that it will happen, and we can't do anything about it, so don't try, then that doesn't fit anywhere into the IAGO Chess discussion. What I will say is that, in order for what you suggest to happen, it has to get there incrementally, and in a framework that will allow it. A sudden jump isn't going to happen. People won't jump all at once to something new, and abandon what they know. It will have to happen in an evolutionary manner. If you care to explain how FIDE Chess framework would enable that, please state how. If you actually have any ideas to explain how it can come about, please state them. If you just know this, but can't state, then I would say to feel free to be a player in what develops, as a recipient, and leave it sat that.
At this juncture I find myself agreeing with Singh.
I cannot help but to ask
'¿ What does IAGO Chess give to us that CV site does not already give?
CV site offers unlimited games, continuous new games, and a means to play them. I see nothing that really seems to be new in IAGO Chess... lots of categorizing... not sure what that is all about... not sure how it helps anyone.
Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Apr 3, 2008 01:12 AM UTC:If I may, I'd like to explain what I see IAGO as, and as attempting to do. First and foremost, IAGO [the International Abstract Games Organization] is an organization for the promotion of abstract strategy games; it is a marketing venture in that sense. [Richard, please correct me here if I misstate your aims and goals.] Its goal is to provide encouragement to the abstract strategy board games communities and designers, to organize groups to hold tournaments and other events, to provide cross-advertising of these events and their results, and to act as a hook for people who enjoy abstract games. If I see a game in a box with an IAGO logo on it somewhere, I will be more likely to buy that game, and I will certainly look much more closely at it than another non-logoed piece of merchandise, because I know that logo means there is a game in that box that uses skill and strategy rather than luck and random chance to determine the outcome. Rich is trying to organize the 'indies', the smaller groups of gamers, into an umbrella group that, because it has a large size, can command more of what those indie members want from the marketplace. Sure, we all play CVs online here, but when I visit my friends or family, and want to play my latest design, I cannot play a 'hotseat' computer game for a hour or three, where the participants have to wait around, sitting down and standing up over and over again to make moves in the game - no one will put up with it, not even me. So I have computer-printed boards, several chess sets in various sizes and styles, and colored twist-ties and rubberbands to use to represent pieces. Guess what - about once every 2 or 3 years, one of my brothers will [reluctantly] play one of these games with me. I want real chessvariant pieces. If IAGO works the way it's supposed to, and is supported by enough of the CV community, we can get some decent, reasonably priced variant pieces, from major chess retailers, without having to buy entire chess sets to get a couple of pieces. This post is overlong already - continued if anyone wishes to discuss it further, but this is a little bit of what I see IAGO is for.
Joe, I think you are fairly close. What IAGO/IAGO World Tour is trying to do is have abstract strategy games, as a collective whole, go through what poker has become, so we have a large-scale version of the poker craze, or what was seen in the 1970s with Chess. But it will pick up variants along the way. The point is to create an environment favorable for growth. This is also meant to coordinate with large scale abstract strategy games associations that are covering games with tens of millions of players worldwide to. As for what IAGO Chess is (aka, the IAGO Chess System) is maybe it is best to think of it as 'Chess in IAGO' rather than 'IAGO Chess'. It is meant as a way for IAGO to integrate variants and coordinate them playing together, to actually be an extension and support for the Chess Variants site. IAGO World Tour Enterprises (this is the business name for the IAGO World Tour) will be looking to promote the chess variants site, its tournaments, and so on. For this, the IAGO Chess System is meant to facilitate that in multiple ways, including having a version of Capablanca Chess on an 8x8 board that will be designed to integrate the world of Chess Variant pieces into it. The intent of that is for the community to help evolve it. It is meant to mainstream the variants community, by acting as an official body to give them credibility. It is something that my hope would be people give their two cents into to have it go right, not just stay on the sidelines and complain about this and that. And yes, one of the object is to finally get some real pieces for the variant community to have to facilitate their adoption. I would definitely like to have world championships of chess variants in physical locations somewhere, and having the real pieces helps. Getting an IAGO Store for sale would help also. But, of course, there will need to be a community that gets behind all this. Production runs of pieces will cost thousands of dollars to get going. As for why it is needed, please look around now and ask yourself if you are honestly happy with the state of things. Do you like things being small time and not able to acquire game equipment anywhere? Do you like actually having to make up game boards on the fly? And if you try to show them to people who don't play chess variants, do they actually want to play your game?
All goes well, I will be looking to submit a Zillions adaptation (the zip file should contain two adaptions of IAGO Chess) next Friday. I will keep people posted on this. I will also look to do an V-Class/X-Class Zillions version of this that will contain multiple variants off it. One thing I would be interested in playing with is an 8x8 version of Grand Chess, using the basic rules to IAGO Chess. Please send me a message if you would like to get the Zip file early to play around with.
I happened to update the terms and conditions for use. Please provide feedback here. My attempt is to make this as flexible as possible for people, while preventing the effort to use this to fragment, and not create a center point of focus, which is essential to its success.
Also the B-Class and C-Class were fixed.
This is now on Boardgame Geek: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/35433
'Calvinball Chess' is a terrible idea. How is one supposed to study a game and improve, gain a sense of accomplish, draw strategic conclusions, compose problems, discuss findings with others, if the rules keep changing? For much the same reason, it seems to me that IAGO Chess, which might as well be called 'Kitchen Sink Chess' is a bad idea.
The whole 'Calvinball Chess' question is one that raises the natural boundaries of chess variants. Is the number of variants to a game finite (bounded) or infinite (unbounded). If it is finite, unless you add luck element to it, then all variants naturally are solvable. However, if it is infinite, then that game is not solvable. Well, perhaps someone can find an underlying core direction that will universally say one side or another is solved or not. The point is that it is a THEORETICAL question asked. It, by itself, isn't the best form of chess. But it is meant to be a test for whether or not variants themselves are deadend. By the way, as far as a 'sense of accomplishment' goes, it is a game. You defeat your opponent. If you end up the top dog by being the best player, and being champion, that is the sense of accomplishment. One can get a sense of accomplishment from mastering an OPPONENT over mastering a particular set of RULES. Can I add here that when it comes to war (this is what chess is an abstracted model of), that no battle ever fought is the same? It is 'Heraclitian' in that the conditions to start the battle are never the same, and they change in the battle, independent of what the troops do. Yet, great generals are able to be evaluated.
Calvinball has some similarity to earlier Nomic. Even if all variants are solvable, for practical purposes, as someone states, we can buy all the time we want by Mutators, mixing back-rank like Alexandre and Fischer, drops or gates, moveable squares. [It turns out Aaron Alexandre, originator of idea that eventually led to what we now call FRC or Chess960, was one of hidden operators of Maelzel's automaton Turk around the 1820's.] Actually CVPage probably has 5000 Mutators and maybe 100 good ones. So deadend need not be deadend after all. Now how does any system evaluate 5000 Mutators? Can 1000 people evaluate 10,000 Mutators in reasonable time? Where are the minds set on the task? Probably instead, Chess needs to be handed down from above. Just before year 1500, likely only few dozens were playing in Northern Italy with the Queen ranging across the diagonals full-length, Pawns double-stepping etc., and that caught on, OrthoChess 64. If no one much plays CVPage games, even their inventors within own Game Courier, they may not have theoretical interest in evaluations. Equally important (and just saying the same thing differently) is practical aspect of getting respected piece-mixes or Mutators, and that is all but impossible without impartiality.
George, I think you are getting at the scope of what I am thinking about regarding Calvinball Chess. Of course, this is an extreme expression of the scope of the chess here, in that someone would NEVER play with the same set of rules twice (this includes the use of mutators). But that is meant as a way to see the theoretical bounds. Actually, what I am looking at with the 'Chess of Tomorrow' project is to bring all these methods together, coordinate and so on, and have a way for them to come into practice, so best of breed rises up. This would be a Superset of what IAGO Chess System (which is a Superset of IAGO Chess, the game). And in this, I would propose it as part of the solution, with the community and people involved modifying what is needed. The answer should be from practical experience, not ego or anything else. Of course, in all this, and mutators, a way that the rules can be varied further is by a timing element involving the introduction of when mutators would come into play, and also when new pieces enter the board. Even changing the turn order by a few moves, delaying or requiring, results in a different game. The Calvinball angle adds a timing mechanism that effect when rules come into play. And in all this, would be a general study of chess strategy, finding what the universal principles are, and their exceptions. By the way George, you come down on the side that Calvinball is theoretically possible, in that a game can have an infinite number of variants for it?
A game can have infinite number of variants of it, self-evident.
George, do you mean the simple fact that you can have an infinite number of boards for chess is proof of this? Aka, a board can theoretically by infinite size? Ok, let's say we limit the board, for discussion sake to an 8x8 board (standard chess size). Can such a game using an 8x8 board (standard chess, not movable tiles) be infinite in the number of variations? At this point also, I would then like to ask, what fixed set of rules would be needed to still identify the game as chess, and allow for infinite variations? Hey, here is a good question to ponder regarding this: What rules are by their nature unbounded that they cause a game to have infinite variety of rules associated with them? One could argue that board size is one. But what other ones?
Since the number of different possible states of the observable universe is about 10^(10^150) (give or take a few) then no game can be infinite. Nothing we can interact with can be infinite because the extent of the universe about which we can have any information is finite. It is a very big number, though, so maybe you should stick to the idea of 'practically infinite'. But it all seems rather silly.
Move-turn order rules are also unbounded. And so would anything associated with 'Moves', even restricting to 8x8 White-Black-White... IOW, drops, gates, immobilization, required capture or Check -- based on particular Move sequence or number. Of course in theoretical terms here, there is no place for such as 'artificial' 3-fold repetition.
There is a separate entry, on here, that looks at the way can be unbounded, and could produce an infinite number of variants, based on a change in how he rules are set up. I will have to ask whether or not turn-order is finite or infinite. It might be show that a player moving N moves in a row, could always win a game. This would then put a natural boundary, and would not be infinite.
You can find that thread here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=UnboundChessList
This then points to the Chess of Tomorrow Project Wiki site entry here:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested#post-140383
So, the idea of this part of the Chess of Tomorrow Project is to look at what elements of chess would be able to produce a Calvinball (never play with the same rules twice) Chess, verses being finite.
I welcome any other people to contribute here to input into this and see what may or may not fit. The Wikidot entry would be appropriate place to go.
... what fixed set of rules would be needed to still identify the game as chess, and allow for infinite variations? ...
From the CVwiki we have
The single defining quality of 'Chess' is that
the winning condition is predicated on one (the royal) of two (royal and non-royal) classes of pieces
If this statement is accepted then for a game to be a chess variant it must have these 2 rules: one to define the royal and non-royal classes; and one to define the winning condition in terms of the royal class.
It was written out 7.April.2008, ''...when it comes to war (this is what Chess is an abstracted model of), that no battle fought is ever the same? It is 'Heraclitian' in that the conditions to start the battle are never the same, and they change in the battle, independent of what the troops do. Yet great generals are able to be evaluated.'' Chess as War is just one metaphor, an unexamined comforting one. When Chess has been occasionally important culturally, it stands for far more than war. H.J.R. Murray 'History of Chess'(1913) covers the 'Chess Moralities' over two centuries, the ''best-selling'' (in sense of having the most hand-written copies made) works before invention of printing, only except for the Bible. Does diminished scope credited today arise because Napoleon played Chess, or false attribution to Alexander III as its inventor? One great website 'GoddessChess' rejects the idea as main historical rationale for Chess, to promote war. Some historical references at that site I have used for Falcon poetry introduction. At least two Chess Variant Page contributors, Andreas Bunkahle and John Ayer, also write for Goddess Chess. One of many dissident views there is that Chess is game of the Goddess: relevant symbolism the Queen as the most powerful. When Catholic Church for some years banned Chess, it was not because of objection to promoting War but more so because of promoting older, natural belief centered in Goddess -- in contradistinction to approved worship-objects of newer partriarchal religionists -- typical radical opinion in discussions at GoddessChess. [Slight rewording 9.4.08 same day]
I am under the impression that Chess operated under a ban by the Catholic Church, because they likely found people spending far too much time playing it, and was picking up a gambling angle (the use of dice in some versions, and also probably betting). The Church likely judged that chess was an unproductive use of time, and banned it. As for the war analogy, this is my take, but you did happen to find the ruling class using it to train in strategy and movement. You can also argue that perhaps it was a divination device for kings to determine outcome of battles (aka a wargame). This then also might be another call for the ban by the Catholic Church regarding chess.
There is a Zillions adaptation of the IAGO Chess game at: http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/17624?do=show;id=1576
Rich, so moving thread to topic IAGO.
I think IAGO has a few things going for it.
1. it provides a good way to class many types of variants and rules.
2. it also can serve as a unifying governing body for many types of contests/tournaments etc.
3. it can help in promoting variants in general.
As an example, if Omega chess's potential problems: not enough pawn play, rook cannot mate becomes an issue for many players - the game will sink. I even proposed a similar game if it does -
Omega Transplant but commercially it will be over if any problems arise.
I think IAGO has a few things going for it.
1. it provides a good way to class many types of variants and rules.
2. it also can serve as a unifying governing body for many types of contests/tournaments etc.
3. it can help in promoting variants in general.
However, I disagree with your approach to finding the 'next' chess - which seems basically to replace std. or FIDE chess with another ruleset - supposedly resulting in fewer draws.
Most std chess players might actually look to variants for variety and as such would be more interested in larger chess boards (or different shaped ). That is at least how I got interested. The idea of changing the rules of std chess but not much else does not appeal much to me and in any case you are still creating a 'variant'.
Consider instead of marking your approach to finding the next chess as just one of MANY possible approaches. Groups of players might investigate via large board size or however they see fit. In the end, whatever game(s) turn out to be most played (by actual players) can move through the various classes as you propose.
My preferred approach is to find the best possible chess on a large board 12x12 max, 10x10 or odd shaped 104 sq. With sufficient players participating - this goal can be reached. I envision this new large chess to be played side by side with std chess until it gains more popularity.
It might be beneficial to break up IAGO into various compartments with 'finding the next chess' being only one and also one of many approaches. Thus, we can differentiate between IAGO classification, IAGO promotions and IAGO 'finding the next chess' !
Additionally, I think most games have to be good to go. That is they are churned out and any fault found by others (via play) is going to cause the game to be dropped. The adjustments are better done by the inventor right at the beginning.As an example, if Omega chess's potential problems: not enough pawn play, rook cannot mate becomes an issue for many players - the game will sink. I even proposed a similar game if it does -
Omega Transplant but commercially it will be over if any problems arise.
Non-commercial games have a harder time getting started since they never get played and the comments are far and few between. One opinionated person going around commenting on games that suit his theoretical fetish is certainly not feedback :)
I think IAGO can certainly help with these games the most.
With regard to pieces: chess players are fine with using a salt shaker for a new queen :) so I think this is the most trivial issue of all.
Besides, I can't remember when last i played any chess game on a physical board.
A bigger issue is to get a good idea out to many - a nice chess set will be a good start. The commercial variants have this advantage.
Charles, thanks for the comments on IAGO Chess System. I do believe those are some of the objectives. More work needs to be done to make it so. Also, thanks for the reply here. It makes sense to have it attached to the IAGO Chess System. I am all in favor of coming up with some 'Universal' chess variant kit that has a larger board. I would actually like one under the IAGO banner that could encompass a wide range of games. There are several issues though that are a potential barriers to making this so (You need to keep in mind FIDE folk when proposing anything): 1. The availability to purchase such equipment. Rationalizing people can make their own boards and so on, isn't going to cut it with most people. Most people aren't interested in arts and crafts projects to do their games. Saying you can import it isn't going to cut it either. People need things more immediate. 2. You have to take an evolutionary starting point to get the FIDE crowd interested in variants. I am of the belief that the use of reserve pieces with drops and gating is the least disruptive way to do this. IAGO, Seirawan and Alternative all provide ways to get new pieces into regular chess, without disrupting the starting point. Of course, Seirawan is proprietary and the designers don't want it tweaked in any way, so I use it as a hypothetical here. I am suspect that the FIDE crowd wants to go with a larger board now. At least NOT from the perspective of investing in new equipment. The movement has to be subtle, but also opening up the doorway for variants. On this point, I think we need to do an actual survey of what they want, rather than doing presumptive speculation on what they want. I also want to add that Seirawan, IAGO and Alternative all can be adapted to a wide range of chess variants. Like the Beyond Chess board, there are more universal in how they work, thus are compatible with a range of games. This compatibility in approach is what is needed. Things like this, and mutators, are what matters. My take on the board is that, taking a wargames approach, it should be nothing more than a 'map' for a scenario. The board shouldn't be the end all and be all answer for anything. It is just a part of a larger picture. The 8x8 board is readily available and comfortable with people, so I say this should be the starting point. Let me add here also that IAGO Chess (and Alternative to some extent) are able to strengthen Chess960, by addressing any weaknesses in configuration of pieces. As for my 'next chess', I am looking for an evolutionary path for it to grow and continue to adapt, that would encompass the fullness of the variant world, in the most rational way. In this Chess960 is part of the solution, as is the use of reserves that enter via drops and gating. You also throw in mutators in this. And, players can go beyond with new boards also. The idea is to loosen things up, but provide a feedback loop on what works, that would bring the variant and FIDE crowd together. In regards to the various projects, I want 'The Next Chess' to be a separate project. I had discussed 'The Chess of Tomorrow' project as a place for this. The results are what IAGO can adopt. IAGO Chess (the game) is an example now, definitely subject to modification. It was an attempt to do Capablanca chess in IAGO, through the use of drops and gating, as a compromise. There is also the classification approach (IAGO Chess System) which I believe should be expanded and tweaked, 'The Chess of Tomorrow' project would fit into this. Also, don't diminish the 9 queen problem. It gets worse the more you have promotion and an ever wider variety of pieces. Chess players, FIDE folk, play with a fixed number of pieces. You start bring variant pieces in, then you have issues. The issue is that the salt shaker is no longer a queen, but an ever-growing number of pieces. The variant crowd does have a chance to find a practical solution for this in some form. What we need to do now is have action. We need to start doing things. We need to make variants more financially viable, and available to people, and have it interesting. In this comes standards. We need to increase the pool of games played, and see how the interplay works. Cutting the Gordian Knot of piece values would be a big help also, and figuring out how to balance the unknown would be a big plus. Throw in here a base of equipment used, with standardized names, and equipment standards, and what kind of boards apply, and you are on to something. And in this, if there is decent involvement and results, you can have IAGO get behind whatever the findings are. That is one of the roles of IAGO, to help bring about consensus.
Taxonomy of CVs themselves and rules-sets by utility or certain piece classes (RN, BN) or others as experimental. Somewhere else Hutnik has Mutators listed like Neto's.
I have an interest (can put IAGO in there if you want) of seeing a functioning taxonomy developed, that would help assist in the promoting of chess variants, and setting up meaningful tournaments. I would personally be very much in favor of a monster revamp and gutting of the internals of the 'IAGO Chess System' if it mean the variant community would get behind it. IAGO Chess System (aka IAGO Chess) is attempt 1.0 at this. It does propose that what it become be done by consensus of a community, rather than some individual trying to be a genius. To that end, I welcome a uniformed set of mutators, pieces (with standardized names and appearances), formations and whatever else people want to add, be added to the System, and the system continue to evolve. Anyhow, just my 2 cents...
Thanks Jeremy for the correction that one of the two Bent Shaman pathways is through Alfil not Dabbabah. Outside this Iago description, reference off and on has been to practical application of M-Class as Modern or Evolving but I call Mutating [it's ''Mutable'' in other paragraphs], conflating the original M-class with some sentences from other classes. Hutnik in comments points out the over-all flexibility. For example, wherever it originates, Rococo would have to be worked in some M-class for whether Chameleon has all the kinks out, or the edge squares' ambiguities are things of the past. Following the link through, I usually mean *X-class* when referencing M-class. Deciding Rococo details best served would be X-class modifications.
The basis point of the 'IAGO Chess System' is to provide a framework by which chess could continue to evolve, and also allow room for the variant community to be part of the discussion. What I lay out with classes is ONE approach. The heart of the approach is to start with A and go to Z, with the further you get away from A to be the further you get away from the base game, or original evolution point (this has an internal logic to it). If there is a need to have an E-Class and have M-Class become something else, go for it. However, we would need a consensus here, and it become a convention. I had proposed that new pieces be the starting point of evolving, but if people want another option (or set of options, like formations and shuffle) please feel free to go there. And, whatever the consensus is, IAGO could end up backing something that is the equivalent to FIDE Chess for FIDE. I will say this work does matter, because the chess community is settling on speed chess as the next step in the future of chess, and this blocks the variant community from speaking.
I have never heard of speed chess - unless you mean blitz or fast chess and the chess community never settled on that or whatever it is you refer to as a 'future'.
Interesting, when I play live chess, I do play the very common default 2+12 time controls mostly - which is according to :
FIDE handbook
still blitz since its 2+60*12/60=14 minutes which is under 15 min.
So yes, speed chess is the most common chess then.
Section F (Miscellaneous) of this handbook actually contains rules for Chess960!
The issues chess faced of excess draws, games taking too long, and stale openings all have been addressed by the fast play (blitz/speed) variant. The World Mind Sports games used the fast version of chess for its play. Because of this, the FIDE community won't feel the need to speak to the variant community at all. End result is that, rather than being an important part of the ecosystem of chess, the variant community is seen as some sort of freaks, which best go away, before they pollute things. And, with this mentality, you will see individual islands of chess variants, with individuals believing they have 'the next chess' which typically end up going nowhere. My experience with the commercial 'the next chess' variant folks (as opposed to those who just want to do fun variants) is they are close the the worst possible type of people to deal with. There is one variant, that shall not be named on here, that bears evidence to that.
I just logged onto Brainking for couple minutes. Now I know why we don't hear from Reinhard Scharnagl since they have added CapaRC there among all the 38-40 Chesses. Chess, Chinese, Japanese, Corner, Fortress.... Included are Berolina and FRC. 240 are playing now at what 8:00 p.m. Greenwich time, or the equivalent, and that's as prime time as you can get. More favourably there are 85,000 past players. Only 240/85000 shows dissatisfaction. Who's number two?
http://chessvariants.org/index,displaycomment.php?commentid=18806
Rich - I'm a bit confused here. You are referring to speed chess as a variant. The implications are astounding. Imagine if the 285 million players on the internet are told they are not playing chess but a variant! - since most do play some variety of speed chess I for one don't think so. Speed chess is simply an agreement to complete x amount of moves in y time. Even current classical chess is played at faster controls than before. Since chess was actually not meant to be played with clocks in the first place, are we all playing a variant? Clearly not. The issues of strong players drawing more often, stale opening etc only affect about 2-5 % of the chess population, and the chess community is driven by class A to class D amateurs. Draws are not even an issue at classical time control for many of them. The FIDE is not a 'community' and has absolutely no control on how online chess is played. It serves no purpose except to enforce the rules of FIDE sponsored chess events. Some variants like losing chess, Bug House catch on because they are different and not considered serious chess. IN a similar vein, one can market a game if different enough from chess such as maybe Arimma maybe even Rococo, but not as a next chess. The best one can do to promote chess variants is to advertise the events that take place. The categorization scheme works too. With the exception of Chess960, (and only because it was suggested by Bobby Fischer), it seems to me that the chess community is simply not interested in any other chess-like game. Perhaps its the nature of chess being too complex, perhaps it is their need to master the game or their inability to think outside of chess ... So I believe chess variants will have to compete on equal footing with any other unknown Board Game X to attract a niche audience. Trying to convince the chess purists that we have the 'next chess' is probably fruitless, but I will be very interested in reading the comments if anyone starts such a promotion targeting chess players on forums etc.
'Variant' in the context I am speaking, refers to changes in how chess is played to meet the needs of the community of players, based on the 'wear' to the game of chess. An original change that went on was the 'Mad Queen' and 'Mad Bishop'. After that was the need for time control for tournament play, so the chess clock was introduced. And now, it appears that the reducing of time addressed a lot of issues with chess. Again, the comment 'speed chess is a variant?' bears witness to actually variants of chess getting shut out for consideration (well, outside of maybe Chess960). The Capablanca school is persona-non-gratis.
47 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.