Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

May I propose the IAGO Chess System be considered as part of this
discussion?
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste

I am of the belief now that the Chess community is settling on Speed Chess
to resolve a lot of its issues.  I would suggest the reasons why be studied
by the variant community.

Ok, how about we start a 'syncretism project'?  We create a school of
competitive chess variant playing that involves games that are a mix of two
or more chess variants?

Anyone up for this?

http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/conversion-chess

Further syncretism. Games of this sort can be considered 'themed' and a
good method of generating themed games is to combine similar points of
existing variants.

http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/glennsdecimal.html  Meiriqi is syncretic. Syncretic the way Smith coins it.

Well, what I did was just look at some random variants, picked out some
interesting things from them, and worked a variant around those. If there
are too many special features, I try to blend them together, especially
where common points arise. (Some people don't do this, resulting in some very ugly variants.) Perhaps you can create Chimera #2, Rich.

Thanks for the clarification John.  Please give me insight into how we can
derive a more universal application from this.

I cited the inspirations for Liberation Chess in the introduction, and I
wanted people to see what elements I have used in the game.

I am not sure what I am seeing with Liberation Chess, outside of the board
looks cool, and we may have a way to handle a range of variants with it. 
Please fill me in on what I am looking for here.

http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/liberation-chess

Examine it, and perhaps you should find insight in the syncretic process
of variants.

Hello John.

I believe you are onto something here.  What you describe is what I would
like to see.  I believe an important part to this is, even if people in
their own games have their own terminology and so on, when engaging in a
common discussion, a common lexicon of terms is used to describe this. 
Also, working on ways for players to combine different works from the past
would help.

Let me chime in a sec from an IAGO perspective (PLEASE don't take this as
namedropping as a plug).  IAGO (read here myself would like to see IAGO do
this) would like to elevate the chess variant community by having different
variants on the IAGO World Tour, and also to have a recognized 'Chess
Variant Player of the Year' and also have a universal ranking for variant
players, across a pool of games.  Besides this, IAGO would also like to
have the variant community be able to input in the future of chess, by
having the common works on here lending to the discussion.  All this is
done for mutual benefit to the community, like variant pieces being
produced commercially, and variants being taken as a legitimate form of
chess.

So, for all this, IAGO (again read me seeing what I believe IAGO needs to
do) would like the variant community to come together and push things in
this direction.  Have something out of this efforts that can be used, and
IAGO get behind it.  In this, go for what has been spoken on, and get stuff
happening.

Thus, if we are not to be able to reconcile our own works, thinking too
much that our variants are the 'right' one, perhaps we should try
reconciling previous works. That bring us to syncretism. A new wave of
variants shall arrive, giving new life in amalgamation. The more different
the variants the better.

I want to see creativity in Chess also.  I also would like the variant
community to be more mainstream, and generate more player interest.  What I
see needs to he handled regarding creativity is to have is to that what
people are working on had an ability to generate synergy between different
designs, and ideas can mingle together.  I also would like it to be
structured so we can have an evolutionary migration happen.  Without any
such actions, you will end up with the chess clock being the only thing
tinkered with, any the variant community getting shut out of talks.  Of
course, the variant community could then act like it is 'too good' and
'too smart' for the masses, but that is sour grapes.

New games may also be exhausted, and people do not like constant new games,
so I think one should be created that is less exhaustible. In such we
should look at history of Chess to see all the problems and address them
specifically, as I believe that when exhaustions should be negated, it
makes for better than if new exhaustions are made, which we have with new
variants, whether good or not. If you agree, help the cause:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/drafting-page

I'm not discouraging creativity of Chess variants. The problem is that
everyone has their own solution to the next Chess, many I think
ill-considered. Some of these solutions are bland and inelegant, like the
dreaded Capablancoids, and others are kludgy or with some random new piece.
The remaining variants, while good both in theory and play, may not catch
on.

''Even the smallest rule change has significant effect. Let's call it as
it is -- we are making different chess-like games. It is a different game
regardless of how chess-like it is.'' --Charles Daniel
You had to click on extension for that part of comment, so I raised it
here. Lasker agonized to come up with simply switching Knight and Bishop and to grade Draws as to Stalemate etc. differently; only the latter subtle change became his serious suggestion and it was considered wild enough. Of course grand-masters today still revive that for subterfuge. The book with chapter on Lasker's idea for reform is not immediately available for complete accuracy. Capablanca fielded queries on what might improve OrthoChess64, that Pritchard documents under Capablanca Chess (which became 8x10). These matters should not be for idle speculation. ''Fools rush in where Angels fear to tred.'' Hypothetically CVPage could have been built all these years around extreme caution, and anything outlandish outlawed, and still have been considered fringe -- and still be the best potential revolutionary force for change. CVP chose different course, but maybe the same material to work with resides in its depths anyway.

These 'kludge' rules are what makes chess what it is. Take out stalemate
and the beautiful endgame studies of the past are gone. Stalemate is surely
not a win since the objective was to checkmate not to capture the king.
Change this and try this - it does not work. You are making a game with
LESS not more. 
Castling is a king safety rule - that speeds up the game and makes it more
dynamic. Take it away and try it - the game is slower and not as
interesting. Shuffle chess without castling or Fischer random - it seems
people have already decided. 

Eastern variants dont have the queen- Chinese chess the king is confined
to the palace - the stalemate =win seems more logical in that context .. 

The double pawn move and en passant go hand in hand as well. 

I have actually taught kids to play chess - and they have no problem
picking up the rules in one go. If anything, its the movement of the knight
that confuses them. 

I think what is important to note is that even the smallest rule change
has significant effect. Lets call it as it is - we are making different
chess-like games. Maybe for the chess variant community this is still chess
or next chess but for everyone else - it is a different game regardless of
how chess-like it is.

The 'Mad Queen' mutation of what is 'Chess' works, but ends up adding
extra complexity to the game, which makes it harder to learn, and is a
deterent to new players.  A lot of these complexities come from what was
done with the pawns.  Because of the Mad Queen, Mad Bishop and the pawns,
we now have these additional rules that were added:
* Castling
* En Passante
* Stalemate (Came in the same time) as a draw.

These rules make things more complicated for novices, and hinder the
adopting of chess.  Take the example of Near Chess (as a reference, not
made as a self-plug here) and you can keep the mad pieces, but they don't
pick up the other complicated rules.  'Mad Queen' (Modern) chess feels
like a bunch of 'kludge' fixes to a game that went how it did, and is
needlessly complicated.

I am not sure how just saying, 'Let's add one rule tweak or two that I
PERSONALLY like' is going to end up addressing this also.  By the way, reducing the time to play (Speed/Fast/Blitz) apparently is how the chess is leaning towards addressing its issues.  That and some Chess960 also.

What is making it old, then, exactly? It would become new, I believe, from
the slightest rule change. This change should, if possible, fix some other
agreed problem than just create something random, which these
'NextChesses' seem to do. Let us speak, and formulate, in concrete terms, rather than wade in this theoretical sea.

The Mad Queen variant is not really 'wrong' or 'damaged'. It is just
simply becoming 'simplified' in the collective consciousness.

Eventually(not tomorrow), it will be superseded by another variant(just as
it superseded previous variants during its time). What that one will be is
totally conjecture at this point in time.

But allow me to conjecture(or predict). The 'next chess' could be 3D.
This is simply a logical extension of the wargame. Will it be a 3D
extrapolation of the Mad Queen variant? Or some other creature entire.

Let the argument continue(hopefully rational). Maybe we'll dig this gem
from our brains one day. ;-)

I believe that the solution to the dying Chess would not be an entirely new
 game, but something that would exactly solve the problems of Chess. Let us
determine what is wrong with Chess, not simply old.

Indeed, the prove of the variant is in the playing, as the proverb says.

And this is exactly what the Superchess endeavor is attempting. Oct 12
there will be a gathering of some 40 people that will play Superchess all
day. George might not think much of it from a design or originality point
of view, and my personal preference would go to other vaiants as well. But
this variant is being played. Many others hardly so. I think that makes a
HUGE difference...

So, far I am hearing odd little items such as '8x8 Chess will be laughed
at' presumable in the not too distant future. - Actually this is a
possibility if the human race decreases in IQ, every exercise of the mind
will be laughed at! 
And forcing chess variant designers to follow standards dictated by
someone or others - *something I as a designer will never do*, 
So how exactly did 8x8 chess evolve? BY PLAYING! 
Instead of wasting this time arguing about forcing others to do things,
why not just organize more tournaments, play more chess variants and see
what comes out of that. With enough people, people will naturally
gravitate towards a few chess variants. 
We have a great tournament going on right now in which each player has 2
favorite variants to play against the others. This has taken a backseat to
this useless discussion. Why were not all the parties involved in this
tournament? 
One thing to note: the chess playing community is very large and  not
interested in ANY chess variant at this point. Feel free to post this Next
Chess idea at any chess forum to see what response you get. Perhaps, this
post is intended for ortho chess sites - it must be - it does not concern
chess variants - as the most important support for chess variants is not
mentioned: PLAYING them! 

However, I do see some benefits to what Rich is doing - probably on the
way to an excellent categorization and possible promotion of chess
variants - both of which alone are good points for IAGO.

Fergus Duniho:
| Very Good. Zillions of Games and Game Courier both provide software 
| support for numerous variants. ChessV supports several games. Shogi, 
| Chinese Chess, and selected other variants have dedicated programs to 
| play them.

You forget to mention WinBoard and Fairy-Max!

As for 'why not just have a collection of variants like we have now, and no do some NextChess'. Well, how is this working?

Let me answer this in three parts:

Software Support

Very Good. Zillions of Games and Game Courier both provide software support for numerous variants. ChessV supports several games. Shogi, Chinese Chess, and selected other variants have dedicated programs to play them.

Equipment Availability

Good. When David Howe and I were regularly playing Chess variants together when we both lived in the same city, we never had serious problems coming up with equipment for games. Between us, we had a good Chess variant construction set, and we were able to make pieces for games with pieces we didn't have readymade. In general, Chess variants tend to appeal to creative people, and creative people can usually come up with the equipment for the games they want to play.

Equipment becomes more of a problem if (1) you don't have the interest or creativity to make your own equipment, or (2) you are trying to organize large numbers of people to play Chess variants. Naturally, it will be easier to attract large numbers to Chess variants when you have some readymade equipment they can use. Some variants have sets available, and many other games can use the equipment from these sets. Your present solution is to make a large investment in multiple Chess variant sets whose pieces you can mix and match for different games, along with some mousepad boards you can cut up and piece together into different board shapes. For a cheaper alternative, you can print out piece images and affix them to poker chips or wooden discs.

Eventually, I expect 3D printers to be commonplace. The technology exists. I saw a Wired Science episode that showed them being used to build living organs for transplants. The same kind of technology could be used to build custom pieces from 3D patterns stored in your computer.

Player Interest

Poor. Some variants have fairly large followings and most don't. I'm sure it is also that way with card games, for which most everyone already has the equipment. Most people are simply interested in playing the same games everyone else already knows how to play. In most places around the world, it will be easy to find someone else who plays Chess, but probably next to impossible to find someone who plays your favorite variants. Naturally, the promotion of Chess variants helps, but I don't know what promotion of some kind of meta-game would do in addition to this.

So, we should then use a flipped rook to represent a Chancellor,
Archbishop, Amazon, Cannon, Fez, and Wazir also, and not just a queen?

Is that going to get codified in rules somewhere?

Rich:

I think you overly dramatize the issue of promotions. In normal Chess the
multiple Queen problem has in practice no importance at all. Flipped Rook
is an excellent solution, and in official tournaments one usually simply
grabs a Queen from the guys playing next to you. Bughouse in theory needs
4 additional pieces to represent N,B,R and Q obtained through promotion
(different from their original counterparts, as they revert to Pawns on
capture). In official Bughouse tournaments I participated in, the rules
were such that the promoted Pawns kept the physical shape of a Pawn (to make sure they were passed on as Pawns on capture), and that the players simply had to remember what piece that Pawn represented. (After the promoting player had yelled the name of the piece he was promoting to, which of couse was always Queen.) When playing Bughouse or Crazyhouse on Internet Chess Servers, the players see promoted Pawns represented as the piece they promoted to. So in that case they will have to remember which Queens will revert to Pawns, and which will remain Queens on capture. Crazyhouse is the most played variant on Chess Servers, and I have never heard anyone complain about this state of affairs...

Crazyhouse of course has an even larger problem with equipment, as the
pieces need to change color there. For OTB play you would need two sets,
and keep good accounting to prevent cheating. The Japanese solution to
these problems turns out inacceptable to Western players.

This whole thing is a non-issue, and addressing it is a waste of time.

As to home-made sets: the standard solution is that people use a normal
Chess set, and agree that in the upcoming game Queens represent
Withdrawers, and Knights represent Chameleons, etc. This is only
troublesome to experienced Chess players. There are plenty of low-tech
solutions to this that are within reach of even the most inept. One could
use Draughts chips or stacks of Draughts chips to represent some pieces.
They might have equipmet lying around for other board games they happen to
have. One could use wooden blocks from a building set. One could make paper
cones of two different sizes. People that feel the use of normal Chess men
is too strong  distraction, will find a solution to this that can be
implemented in 5 minutes. If they really think the game is worth a replay,
they will consider more esthetically pleasing solutions that cost money.

It would be nice, though, if a set with four extra pieces (a pair plus two
unique ones), and two Pawns (for each color, so 12 pieces in total) could
be bought. There is a huge practical problem, though: all Pawns of a Chess
set should be equal, or the solution would look too much improvised to be
worth throwing money at. And the precise shape of Pawns as it is in
standard Staunton sets is no doubt protected as intellectual property.

If I were to construct a piece set for Capablanca Chess, I would simply
buy two standard Staunton sets. The Knights of such a set consist of a
horse figure from the neck up, glued to a base. I would cut those lose
from each other, and glue the head on top of an inverted Rook, to
represent the Chancellor. Then I would glue a Bishop on the remaining
Knight base, and make a second cut in the Bishop's head, symmetrically
opposed to the original one, so that the top part (with the 'knob') comes
off. This would represent the Archbishop. So now I have 2 Archbishops, 2
Chancelors, and 8 Pawns (for each color), and I would still be left with
Kings and Queens. These I would decapitate, to make a pair of
undistinctive pieces that could be used as a wildcard. So in fact I would
have made twice as many unorthodox pieces as I needed for Capablanca
Chess, with some Pawns to spare as well. From 3 normal piece sets I would
have made two 'Capablanca+' sets, and could sell the set I did not need.
If I was not interested in playing on a 12-wide board, I could glue two of
the Pawns on a pedestal (e.g. two stacked Draughts chips of judiciously
chosen size, or just a piece cut from a cylindrical wooden stick), and have another pair of exo-pieces (e.g. usable to represent Ferz in Shatranj, or Commoner in Knightmate).

Reinhard:
It is of course OK to design X-FEN with a limited scope. But that makes it
unsuitable for applications tht require a wide scope, such as WinBoard (or
Game Courier). And when X-FEN includes features that are incompatible with
the needs for the variants in the wider scope, it makes it unacceptable for
use even for the variants it was designed for in that scope.

Fergus:
Is the FEN format you use in Game Courier described somewhere? IMO a FEN
is a device for describing game state, not for identifying the variant, so
that the variant cannot be deduced from the FEN is not really a problem. I
never thought about hexagonal boards and such, but now that I do the
logical way to implement those would be to use another charater than '/'
for separating the ranks of the FEN. E.g. '\' could mean 'start a new
rank, offsetted half a cell left w.r.t. the rank it terminates'.

Much of today's discussion in this thread has focused on the details
behind a program I do not use. But one of the things that came up in this
discussion is FEN code, which I know something about, since I have
implemented my own version of FEN in Game Courier. Since I'm not sure
what the issues are concerning the use of FEN, I'll make some general
comments about FEN and Game Courier's implementation of it. FEN is used
to represent the positions of pieces on a board. It lists pieces rank by
rank, using numbers for empty spaces. For Chess itself, FEN only needs
letters representing the pieces and numbers to represent empty spaces.
Game Courier uses an advanced form of FEN that makes it useful for
defining the shape of a board, mainly by letting you specify spaces in the
FEN grid that are not part of the board. It also allows the use of longer
piece labels than single letters, and Game Courier allows the use of
aliases, so that a set can use standardized internal names while players
use abbreviations that make sense within the context of the game.

The FEN code provides only limited information about the game. It doesn't
specify how long a rank is (though I could have coded it that way if I had
chosen to), and it doesn't specify the shape of the spaces used. Game
Courier supports squares, two types of hexagons, circular boards, and any
custom board a developer cares to code in positions for. The same sort of
FEN code is used for all of them. Just to give an example, Shogi and Hex
Shogi 81 begin with the same FEN code for the opening position, but they
differ by being played on very different boards. For two games played on
the same board with the same pieces, it would generally be impossible to
tell what the game was by the FEN code alone.

The link to Chess Variant Craft Projects could be more prominent on the
Index page of TCVP. Right now it is about halfway down the page and simply
listed as Crafts.

I really like the PDF about Origami chess pieces.

The best direction would be to simply inform players about how they can create their own sets. Instructions, graphics and a list of sources for raw materials would be all that is necessary to assist in the dissemination of real-world Chess variants.

I did this several years ago with my article on making a Chess Variant Construction Set. This seems to me a more practical approach than trying to make separate sets for each individual game. I have recently ordered some new materials and plan to rewrite the article and update it with photographs.

http://www.chessvariants.org/crafts.dir/construction-set.html

I have another heretical proposal.  The next chess is....

SPEED CHESS!

To address a multitude of issues, looks like that the chess world is
taking to speed chess, on the 'sports' level.  The World Mind Sports Games
looks like it is using Speed Chess as the basis of its events.

So, variant community, if this trend continues, the attempt to input this world of chess variants on the rest of the world.

Ok, here are daily comments on what has been written so far from my last
posting:
1. How effective of a recruiting tool into the world of chess variants are
home made sets?  If someone who plays a game, and likes it somewhat, what
are the odds they will end up continue to play and promote it, if they had
to go and make their own set?  Sure, from a totally dead end activity where
you are the only person who they may play, it is ok, but for promoting the
growth of chess variants, how well does it work?  Let's say someone has
you try a cardgame, and you like it, and then they tell you you need to
make your own cards to play it.  Will you do that?
2. Is anyone else here not confused by those SuperChess pieces?  I look a
them, and I have difficulty remembering which set of pieces is which.  I
commend the effort, but the pieces leave me confused.
3. Hmm... GREAT, there is another factor that wasn't even on my mind
until now.  How and the heck is the chess variant community going to
happen to be able to do notation for games in a way that everyone can
understand?  I believe algerbraic notation is helpful for recording moves,
but board positions?  What do we do then?  I know this will be important
down the road for IAGO, if it is going to be covering a range of chess
variants as part of the IAGO World Tour.
4. Ok, the name of the pieces (what they are as initials, also has me
confused here).  I have to see yet another set of names for games that
Capablanca used and tried to popularize?  Again, my reference at standards
points a bit at this.  If you go by a hard and fast rule that everyone
creates their own games in isolation from one another, you end up with 40+
different names for he same piece.  And actually the same name used with 5+
different pieces.  Yes, you get cool artistic expression, but how is it on
the community?  When I was doing IAGO chess, should of stuck with
'Templar' for the Knight+Bishop piece, and 'Champion' for the
Knight+Rook piece, because my artistic expression demands I do it?  How
helpful is it to the community.  I am not forbidding anyone from doing
this, but asking how reasonable is it to have this as a hardcore rule?
5. On the issue of pawn promotion, unless the chess variant community is
going to abandon completely having physical pieces (not sure how one gets
growth without then though), exactly how does one handle pawn promotion in
games where you can have a piece promote to multiple versions of Queen
power pieces.  Like take a Capablanca Chess game, and you want to get a
second Chancellor or Archbishop into play.  How is this handled?  Are we
going to permanently adapt a flipped chess rook as a 'Joker' piece that
a pawn can promote to, and the Joker can represent anything?  Are we going
to codify flipped rooks as a new piece, or demand people making chess
variants provide enough physical equipment to handle every case of pawn
promotion, or do we give up on the idea of having physical equipment
completely?  We set up a nice place for all traces of chess variants to
disappear if the Internet and all computers ever blew up with do that, by
the way.
6. If you want things to remain exactly as they are, with each game being
seen as unique creations and islands to themselves, then you don't need
to consider standardization.  You don't even need to consider any game a
'chess variant'.  It is just a game.  So, the CV site could also then
break out checkers and Go to, and play those (there are presets on here),
because heck, everyone just plays games.  There is no such thing as
'Chess Variants', just games.  I will say this is unworkable from an
IAGO perspective though, which also needs to categorize abstract strategy
games.
7. One project I am looking at is a protocol system so websites that play
games can communicate their games with IAGO.  Having it handle a wide
range of abstract strategy games, would be of big help here.  I would lead
he way for people to get rated across a categories of games or abstract
strategy games in general. The SuperDuperGames site does this.

It is not my intention to represent every variant position by X-FEN. I
would be happy to cover a lot of variants having gait combinations in
their pieces strongly related to traditional chess. Maybe you noticed
SMIRF naming itself a FullChess engine. SMIRF does it covering dual
combinations of N, B and R. Coming Octopus is intended to cover some
additional combinations, too. 

FEN stems from traditional Chess. Thus I am convinced that using X-FEN
makes sense the more the variants it supports would be related to chess.
My X-FEN approach therefore is not thought to be a base for Zillion
positions. 

As long as X-FEN belongs to that idea, the handling of variant names and
pieces names as a kind of comment will work best. Thus I will remain in
the neighbourhood of Chess.

Click on Next 25 items as follows: skipfirst=25 So far we have subject to anyone's veto: year 2009, Maura's Modern, Winther's Mastodon, Duniho's Eurasian; year 2010, Brown's Centennial, A.A. de la Campa's Templar, Paulowich's Unicorn Great Chess. Participant should take responsibility for playing one of each group per month during the calendar year.

Indeed, unifying Chess960 and Chess this way is a nice concept. But it only
works because these games nearly are the same variant. You acknowledge
yourself that you already run into problems with Janus vs CRC, which,seen
from the viewpoint of a Xiangqi or Shogi player are practically the same
game. But the promotion rules are slightly different, as are the castling
rules.

The promotion rules could be attributed as a property of the Pawn, and in
this view a CRC Pawn and a Janus Pawn are different pieces. This becomes
more obtuse in Chaturanga, where the promotion is determined by the board
square you promote on, and thus can no longer be considered a property of
the Pawn.

And how about Losers Chess vs normal Chess? How could you recognize that a
FEN represents a poition from Loser Chess rather than normal Chess. How
would you see it from the PGN if the variant tag was merely a comment? The
game might end with a resign, so the absence of checkmate might not be
apparent.

Your unified approach simply does not work when the variants differ more
than a trifle, or becomes exceedingly cumbersome. WinBoard aims at
supporting a wide variety of variants. A really universal FEN standard
should be able to handle variants the designer of the standard did not
even know. This is why X-FEN is unacceptable for use in WinBoard, both in
communication with the user and with the engine. It does a lousy job
representing Xiangqi and Shogi positons....

Indeed, I am always trying to separate variant- and piece naming from FEN
representation. In SMIRF I made a first approach to that using X-FEN as
published. But including Janus or Optimized Chess produced a lot of
encoding problems, just by having different piece type letters. I learned,
that this was an unnecessary complication, which should be avoided. Think
on different piece names and abbreviating letters in different countries
for traditional chess. Those are part of the PRESENTATION of the game,
thus belonging to the GUI. Piece letters on the surface simply are a
comment to the underlying pieces, thus not being absolute. But a
calculating engine has no need to communicate multi language wise, it
simply has to use well introduced unique international (english) letters
PNBRQK. That is, why I have not yet included SMIRF's current
representation of Janus or Optimized Chess into the X-FEN concept, because
that has been the wrong approach. X-FEN has to be extended to include a lot
of variants in a generic and universal way. Variant names are only
comments, even though I know, that Winboard handles it as a definition.
But have a look at Chess, Chess960 and castlingless random chess. Having
X-FEN will cover all of them doubtlessly, thus avoiding any need to
explain more than X-FEN to fully describe a position. Chess960 as a
variant title then therefore merely is a comment. A lot of variants
include each other, e.g. think of CRC. Sometimes it is not to be decided
to which variant a position belongs, and there is in fact no need to.
Moreover this would not make any sense, as in Shredder FEN that is
creating confusion encoding identical positions by different FEN strings.
All Chess positions e.g. could be regarded as Chess960 positions.

A suggestion: when developers post a game to this site they might also
include instructions on how to create a real-world model. Keeping in mind
that many may not have the funds to spend on expensive materials, and such
should be easily obtained.

I have found a nice source. The Dollar Store carries both Chess and
Checker sets(for just a dollar). I obtained a number of these for use when
creating games. A little cutting and pasting makes for practical any size
field(as long as it utilizes square cells).

And as stated in a previous message, pieces can be marked to differentiate
them. Checkers make excellent foundations for the application of letters
and symbols. Graphics supplied with Zillions addons can be printed out for
this purpose(if the designer has no problem with this application).

I wholeheartedly give my permission for anyone who wishes to use my
graphics in their personal games. Of course, if they intend to use them
for commercial purposes we will need to talk. ;-)

Reinhard, I am not sure what you are trying to say. How can you separate
variant-dependent naming from the FEN standard? The FEN is one of the few
places where pieces are named in the first place.

In PGN the problems are far smaller, as these have a variant tag. So a PGN
game always unambiguously specifies the variant it is for. And indeed I
exploit that in WinBoard: if you paste a OGN game into WinBoard, it
automatically switches to the variant the PGN is for. FENs encountered in
this context can benifit from the fact that the variant is known as well.

The problem is isolated FENs, in particular isolated FENs for non-starting
positions. I have not found a way to deduce the vriant from looking at the
FEN string. So FENs that obviously must belong to a different variant as
the current one, because they use non-valid piece letters or wrong board
size, are simply rejected when ou paste them into WinBoard.

It seems to me you want the variant (and by inference the rules) to be
recognizable from the FEN, without prefixing the FEN with an explicit
variant name. Otherwise there would be no reason, for instance, to specify
the type of castling in the FEN.

I think predefining many pieces in a standard is self-defeating, as you
would be forced to pick letters for pieces that are unacceptable to those
playing the particular variant, even long before you would run out of
letters. So the only thing universal in such a 'standard' would be that
it is universally not used...

The major variants (Xiangqi, Chess, Shogi, Capablanca) are fortunately
recognizable from their board size, and this could be used to define a
default piece encoding acceptable to that variant. You will never get
(Western) Shogi players to have the Gold general represented by anything
like G, or Xiangqi players to represent the Cannon by anything else but
C...

Muller, you should really read my entire message rather than responding
only to those portions which you find argumentative. I did state, 'I do
agree that they supply a fair number which can be applied to most
variants.' Could this simply be a mis-understanding caused by the
language barrier?

The number of potential pieces can be doubled simply with a little model
paint. I have found that coloring the 'crown' of pieces, Red on White
and Yellow on Black, can make them distinct. In fact, I use a Bishop
marked thus to represent a Cardinal, a marked Rook as a Marshal and a
marked Queen as a Amazon. This can also be used to denote pieces in games
with more than two opponents.

Also, some standardization of their application could prove helpful,
though not absolutely necessary. If a player has become familiar with the
use of a particular piece representing a particular movement type, they
may find it difficult to transfer that value to another. Especially if
they have used one piece to represent two distinct move types in seperate
games and are confronted with both of these move types in a single game.
Of course, this is a totally subjective condition which many may not have
difficulty.

When I was young, I had a set in which the Bishop and Pawns had similar shapes. They often became confused during the game. In frustration, I got rid of that set. Though nowadays I would simply mark the Bishop to differentiate it.

Well, Harm, I intend to seperate the variant depending renaming of piece
types from FEN, because this should be a feature of the GUI and maybe
become customizable at least. It might be accompanied by a commenting PGN
token like: [Variant='Janus Chess, J:=A']. That would give to it an
importance like a kind of comment. But the X-FEN as a communication
vehicle for engines should use merely unified and thus constant piece
letters. This should also be true for move notations (in PGN / Algebraic),
where protocols e.g. like UCI demand for one-char-letter piece symbols.

Of course this approach is not at all able to cover all piece types. But
that goal would need a much bigger approach than what I intend this
moment. (Octopus would not be able to cover every piece type, too.) And a
later extension e.g. done as proposed in your posting would not at all be
made impossible by my idea. But it would be a simple and compatible ad hoc
extension into the right direction.

Promoting possibilities should not differ through different incarnations
of the same piece type. Thus having pawns with different promotion
abilities does not make sense to me. Thus it has to be related to a given
board situation in total.

Well, I am not very happy either about the renaming of quite common pieces
in Superchess. But when in Rome, one does like the Romans...

The use of the [] came more or less automatic, as I started defining
Superchess in WinBoard as a form of Crazyhouse. I am not entirely happy
with that either, as the 'holdings' here have a different meaning than
in Crazyhouse (promotion pieces in stead of drop pieces).

OTOH, and this we discussed before, I am skeptical about your desire to be
able to encode the rules of the game in the FEN. Even requiring that each
piece has a unique letter, which is universally valid over all variants,
is doomed: as John remarked below, there are more pieces than letters. So
whatever system you devised, it would necessarily be limited to a subset
of the variants. While other variants would still need FENs.

For the sub-variant of Superchess played at the Dutch Championship, it
would be feasible to unify it with Capablanca-type variants.

If you want a FEN format which uniquely specifies the variant, which is
usable over a wide range of variants, I think you should build in a way to
specify exotic pieces (for which no standard letter exists). What I would
do is to allow replacement of a single piece letter by a description of
the piece in parentheses. E.g. in stead of G for Giant/Amazon you could
use (QN). 

So you would get FENs like:

3k4/6(QN)1/8/8/8/8/8/3KN w - - 0 1

Then you would only need a fairly limited set of move-descriptor
letters for use within the parentheses. You could use B,R,Q to indicate
sliders (where Q would be shorthand for RB), and the Betza system ( http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/betzanot.html ) built on F, W, A, D, N, H, L, J, G for leapers. Repetition of a leaper symbol would indicate a slider with that step (i.e. (NN) would be Nightrider, B would be shorthand for (FF)).

For compactness, you could allow definition of shorthand letters within
the FEN: (NN=H) would mean that subsequent H or h (without parentheses)
would indicate white and black Nightriders, respectively. This would be
especially important for Pawns, of which there usually are a lot. And
promotion rules are a property of a Pawn, so Pawns with non-standard
promotion rules would need to be described. A Pawn that could promote only
to Ferz (like in Shatranj) could be designated as (P:F). I would use an
explicit negation character for excluding pieces, like (P:!C) in Janus.
And of course define a shorthand letter for it, as there are likely to be
many Pawns in most Janus positions, (P:!C=P), so all subsequent Pawns
would be simply P or p. (P:*) could mean promotable to every captured
piece. Superchess positions would allow promotion to some pieces that were
replaced in the prelude as well as to captured pieces, which could be
written as (P:*qbbn=P), where lower-case indicates the piece is in finite
supply.

Thank you, Harm, for your explanations. Concerning X-FEN I would prefer to
have piece letters being unique and compatible to nearly established
Archbishop and Chancellor. I do not want to change used letters with the
variants playing them.

Smirf unfortunately cannot be extended to handle all those four super
pieces because of its piece codes' bit encoding their properies. But in
Octopus there will be a more flexible bit encoding, so that a lot more of
gait combinations might be possible in Octopus, e.g.: Q+N, K+N, K+B, K+R.

When I read Superchess documents correctly, a promotion to Q+N is not
permitted. The union of all usable pieces seems to be constant, thus it
might be unnecessary to have the unused pieces listed seperately inside of
an X-FEN. Nevertheless it is not obvious, that it would be a notation from
Superchess. To have a unique X-FEN method I intend to do following:
instead of a []-list of captured pieces (which I am not yet able to
support, but maybe later ...) there could be an optional separated tag '
:' followed directly by forbidden pieces' symbols (if any). By default
at 8x8 NBRQ and at 10x8 NBRACQ are promotable pieces. For e.g. Janus Chess
thus ' :C' would symbolize, that a Chancellor would not be allowed to be
selected for promotion in this situation. Extending this to Superchess'
piece set there could be a representing symbol '*'. So ':*G' could
symbolize that any available castling piece has to be selected within the
unused super pieces set and that the (G = Giant) Q+N piece is not allowed
to be promoted in.

Reinhard:

When I rigged WinBoard and Fairy-Max to play Superchess, I interpreted the
rules that are given on the superchess website rather liberally, in order to
have a quick result. (The Dutch Championship takes place Oct 12!)

I did not feel like implementing the prelude as it is described in the
rules. The prelude in my eyes is merely a way to randomize the opening
array without the aid of any external equipment, so that it can be used in
Human over-the-board play. No strategical advantage can be derived from it,
as one is forced to symmetrize after every choice by the opponent, undoing
every advantage the choice could have had. It is just a clever way of
making sure both players have an effect on the opening position, so that
neither of them can be sure what he gets to play, and derive opening
theory for it.

When a computer participates, there is no need for this. Even if the
engine cannot be trusted not to cheat, one can have the GUI set up a
shuffled array, and transmit it as a FEN to the engine(s). So this is what
I do. The GUI creates a random setup according to the rules, by starting
with the FIDE array, and then randomly deleting 2 pieces from a1-d1, and
two pieces from f1-h1, and then randomly filling the holes with the four
'exo-pieces'. If people object that this gives them less influence on
the opening array than with te prelude method, they are in fact wrong:
when playing a computer, they can click 'new game' until they get a
position that they like, and if they are patient enough, they could even
get exactly what they want. (There are 6 x 3 x 24 = 432 arays possible.)

This avoids the problem of having to design a protocol for exchanging the
pieces. (These are basically drop moves to occupied squares, so I could
have used the WinBoard crazyhouse syntax for drop moves, e.g. A@d1. But it just did not seem worth it.)

You are right about the FEN complication. In implementing Superchess, I
leaned strongly on the WinBoard Crazyhouse capabilities: in Crazyhouse
captured pieces are also put next to the board. And of course there you
also have the problem that these 'holdings' are part of the game state.

WinBoard uses for Crazyhouse, Bughouse and Shogi (the three variants with
holdings it supports) a FEN format that contains between board and stm field an optional holdings field. This field contains all pieces in the holdings (indicated by the same letter as they woud be on the board), enclosed in brackets []. So a FEN for an opening position could look like this:

rnavkser/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNAVKSER[NBBQnbbq] w KQkq - 0 1

(I used A=Amazon=QN, E=Empress=RN, S=Princess=BN and V=Veteran=KN, but in
WinBoard this is user-adjustable.) On input WinBoard also understands the
b-FEN standard, which encodes the holdings as an extra rank of the board.

Castling in Superchess is possible only with a Rook; the fact that all
Rooks are still on the board in the FEN I gave is accidental. You might
have no Rooks at all, and then there is no castling.

It would be great if you could make SMIRF play Superchess. If it would
play through Smirfoglot uder WinBoard, it would just be a matter of
implementing the two new pieces, and adapting the promotion choice.
(Something I haven't fixed in Fairy-Max yet. It is a bit hard to fix
this, as Fairy-Max / micro-Max used to be an 'always-promote-to-Queen
engine'.) WinBoard already takes care of shuffling the opening array.

According to 'Superchess and Monarch: The Laws', section 10.3, 'A
castling is a move of (i) a King or Emperor and exclusively (ii) a Rook of
the same colour...'  There's more about how it's done on a 10-file
board, but otherwise it's normal castling.
As part of his entire Superchess 'system', Henk van Haeringen defines 50 different piece types, so it would be impossible to define single letter abreviations for all of them, and stick with the Roman alphabet.

Harm, according to your Superchess note I ask, whether the implementation
of those four piece types: Amazon (Q+N), Empress (R+N), Princess (B+N) and
Veteran (K+N) would be suffcient. It presume that it would not be
important, to name those piece types differently in SMIRF/Octopus:
Archangel (A = B+N), Centaur (C = R+N), Giant (G = Q+N) and Hydra (H =
K+N) thus defining new unique letter symbols for those types.

But still I see some problems in defining a compatibly extended X-FEN
because of the differing promotion behaviour, which could be derived from
the whole game only. Additionally it is unclear to me, how those first
PRELUDE moves have to be encoded (PGN/algebraic). Moreover it is not
clear, whether castling rights would be occupied by super-piece
replacements or not.

Well, the person selling these does not do it for profit (he is retired),
so my guess is this is close to manufacturing cost.

I am not sure what you mean by 'cover all piece types'. What is 'all'?
The number of possible piece types is unlimited, but except for the
orthodox Chess pieces no Staunton shape is defined for any of them. People
do not even agree about how they should be called, so taking a shape that
could be considered a logical representation for that name is already a
hopeless task.

So any unorthodox piece can represent what you want it to represent. If
there are enough different models, you won't have too much trouble
picking a subset for playing any given variant.

Btw, about the Superchess software: I have instructions available in
English for that, on my website:
http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/superE.html .

But do they provide the pieces to cover all the possible types(or at least
a large percentage of them)? I do agree that they supply a fair number
which can be applied to most variants.

It would be interesting to see their sales figures in regards to this
particular line of pieces. What is their volume of sales on this
particular line? Exactly what is their profit margin? Sale price minus
cost.

| 2. The cost of designing and manufacturing, not to mention maintaining a
| stockpile for sale, of all the potential piece types is nearly prohibitive
| if applied to the Staunton-style appearance. Thus the use of simple
| colored discs with either letters or symbols embossed or painted.

Yet this is exactly what some people do:

OK, €89,95 for this entire set of 32 pieces (16 white, 16 black) is not extremely
cheap. It amounts to €2,81 a piece. (For more pictures, look here.)

One of the positive things about the computer is the ability to present an
extremely large variety of games in a single package. And with the proper
programming, it can 'prove' the playability of such games(or at least
the non-triviality of the game).

With a printer, a player can run off the necessary graphics for the
real-world. The set can be kept simply paper, or with a little more effort
these can be affixed to more durable material.

I have done some research into the viability of manufacturing material for
chess variants, and have come to the following conclusions:

1. Playing fields and pieces should be made available as individual units,
allowing a player to pick and choose the needed material for their
particular variant.

2. The cost of designing and manufacturing, not to mention maintaining a
stockpile for sale, of all the potential piece types is nearly prohibitive
if applied to the Staunton-style appearance.  Thus the use of simple
colored discs with either letters or symbols embossed or painted.

3. Playing fields could be simply printed on light-weight durable
material. I am leaning toward cloth, mainly for its compact nature(a
player could literally carry a set around in their pocket).

The start-up cost of such a project could be in the thousands of dollars.
Does anyone around here have the disposable income that allows for such an
investment? And the manufacturer would be hard-pressed to realize a simple
return on their investment, much less realize a substantial profit. In
other words, they would be doing all this for the love of Chess variants.

The best direction would be to simply inform players about how they can
create their own sets. Instructions, graphics and a list of sources for
raw materials would be all that is necessary to assist in the
dissemination of real-world Chess variants.

I want to add a few comments for the night, before I end up going to sleep
here:
1. Any 'large organization with a large budget' that proposes to wrestle
away the chess community into something new, is one that wants to
completely take over the community itself, and have it for itself.  You
can see this in what happened with the Capablanca variant that began with
G, and another that is a chess variant I know with a movable board (the guy thinks he will own the chess world, and his board is the future) and others.  Such an individual or organization doing it is doing it either out of some power trip for personal glory, or the belief there is so much money in it, that they are going to stomp out the competition.  Is this something people here want to deal with, or would you rather input into the process collectively and hit some middle ground that all stakeholders can buy into.   This would be an open-source project.
2. As for 'why not just have a collection of variants like we have now,
and no do some NextChess'.  Well, how is this working?  Is what we have
now here nothing more than just an monsterously large collection of
discrete games?  Is it resulting in the building up of anything?  Is such
resulting in us getting any commercial equipment to buy?  Is it viable? 
Or, do people want to rationalize how it is GREAT to end up making your
own pieces, cutting off pieces here and there, and gluing them back
together?  Or, how about using Seirawan Chess pieces in ways the designer
of the game objects to, because they don't make elephant pieces?  In a
nutshell, is this working.  Anyhow what I am saying with 'NextChess' is
NOT that it should replace all these variants out there, but it could be a
way to act as a way for all these variants to work together and enhance one
another.
3. On a practical level, IAGO wants to have tournaments in physical
locations using actual pieces.  At this point, pieces to do chess variants
are not available really anywhere in a way that people can acquire them.  I
have practical reasons for standards.  Also, there will be an interest in
holding chess variants tournament, and working towards having a world
champion of chess variants.  The idea of just picking a single game and
doing that way isn't as effective then taking chess variants as a
category unto itself, and enabling a champion to emerge.
4. It has been shown that standards are how you get anything to take off. 
Now, you can end up having these standards shoved down the throats of
people by some power on high, who has bucks, or you can agree to reach
them.  The former is the Borg, and the later is the Federation.  If you
don't want to work to having standards, then you will get stuff shoved
down your throat.  Who here wants the Knight+Rook combo piece to be an
elephant, and a Knight+Bishop to be a hawk?  Well, unless you care to work
on this and agree, it is entirely possible that, because they are the only
pieces for sale that have this, the pieces would get that name.  Expect
that to happen if the Seirawan group decides, for financial reasons,
people can use their pieces in variants.  From an IAGO perspective, it
wouldn't mind that happening, because at least there is SOMETHING for
sale out there.  Well, let me say from my take on what I feel IAGO needs
to do, it makes sense.  Boards and committees would formally decide this.
5. The standards should always be between games and for translation
purposes and when you decide to have two different designs mash together,
for example.  It also enables people to understand what the heck one is
talking about in their game, when describing it.  When wanting to discuss
and compare pieces, then you need standards for this.
6. I do understand that designers can call something anything they like.  However, a game being viable is no only designers creating, but also a community of players who play.  It is a dialog between the two.  Standards help with the communications.  Also, when you get standards, you allow people to specialize.  You get people who are good at designing pieces types just working on those.  You also get people who are good at combining pieces together in games to do that, and so on.  
7. What was stated about FIDE is what I have been looking to address. 
Unless there is some way to enable to have the FIDE Chess crowd and
variant community be able to communicate, you aren't going to get much
recognized here, and possible expansions to take place.  Both sides need
to recognize and work together, then you may have something.

My comment about a large organization and a large advert budget had to do
with 'in the short run'. This is only if the developer is determined to
achieve world acceptance within their lifetime.

Of course, allowing the normal evolution of Chess is best. Unfortunately,
FIDE is actually hindering at this point in history. Remember that the
group is less than a century old.

Do I actually know what the 'Next Chess' will be? At this point it is a
toss-up. There are a large number of potentials.

Do I have a preference for the 'Next Chess'? Well, of course, but since
this may be a highly subjective opinion I am reluctant to climb out on
that limb. I am more interested in what others think.

But, as I stated earlier, simply 'fixing' the Mad Queen variant is only
a stop-gap solution. The 'Next Chess' should be an 'evolutionary
leap'.

Rich, as I understand it, you want the Next Chess to be a meta-game of
sorts that incorporates all kinds of different Chess variants into itself. Why? Why not just have a variety of different games, as we have now? Is
there anything to be gained by combining them into a single behemoth of a
Chess variant? This vision of the Next Chess strikes me as being like the Borg (from Star Trek: TNG and Star Trek: Voyager). The Borg tell me that my individuality will become part of the Borg and enhance their collective. What should I do? Should I join the Borg?

There are some problems with coming up with standards. 1) If we enforced
them, it would alienate many game designers. 2) Enforcing them would be a
monumental task. 3) There are sometimes good thematic reasons for giving a
piece a new name, such as when I renamed the Vao for Yang Qi and Eurasian
Chess. 4) We wouldn't actually enforce the standards if we had them,
making them nothing more than ineffectual recommendations.

Besides these practical problems, the idea of having standards violates my
moral principle that game designers should be free to choose whatever
terminology they wish for their games. Of course, in a commercial product,
the marketing department might get some say on terminology. But we're not
commercial game publishers. We're an archival project that catalogs the
variety of Chess variants without rewriting them to fit our own
standardization.

Although I am morally opposed to a full-scale standardization project, I
do believe it is good to educate people about the history of pieces and
other concepts, and I believe it is useful to have and advocate a common
vocabulary about some things. For example, I advocate the awareness of
terms like leaper, rider, and hopper to describe certain types of pieces.
I also favor categorization of games. In general, I favor standardization
on a meta-language for discussing Chess variants, but I oppose enforcing
standards on what game designers choose to call things within the context
of their own games.

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.

By the way, less-playable Modern was selected with Eurasian and Mastodon
for year 2009 on account of its historical effort at being Next Chess -- and thanks to Hutnik for linking that record. By the same
token, Centennial for year 2010 is my top choice among the first six track
ones. I want to name the next three for 2011. Probably Next Chess as such
will never be a Chess Variant Page project, but CVP is great place to
discuss the idea. Finally Hutnik mentions many CVs besides meager Seirawan chess, as
opposed to frameworks. Hutnik hopefully will take the 500 CVs and try his hand at winnowing --
no small task. (Actually, Rich understands the difficulty, based on look at his extensive work already in Mutators.) What happened in the 1480's and 1490's may be
instructive. We can mostly  only speculate, but probably one form ''felt''
right, and seemed exactly like the Chess they wanted. Now 500 years
later, CVPage did not even call OrthoChess ''Mad Queen Chess'' until
recently; and who knows but that half of 1000 GMs do not know even the name regina rabiosa? So constantly taking  re-learning process. This very Topic of
''NextChess'' makes tacit assumption not evaluated, namely, that there
was a Prior Chess. Once some real next Chess becomes established, one may suppose by
year 2100, then what was done before, small 20th century fide 8x8 OrthoChess, will probably be laughed
at and scoffed as incredibly petty and unsatisfactory. They probably cannot comprehend and come to wonder why so much time was devoted to it.

I am not going to say a one man band, or small group, can work to promote
an abstract strategy game, and make it successful.  If you look at
Othello, that is the case.  A small group market and promote it, and have
had success with it.  They did manage to put in place an organization
(World Othello Federation), to make sure that there would be annual world
championship in the game, and foster community.  This is needed.  Of
course, with Othello, they reworked Reversi with a better set of rules,
but it didn't really match anything else out there.  In the area of
chess-like games, we do have chess, and numbers of variants of it.  This
makes a chess variant much harder to sell than say Othello.  In the case
of where the variant doesn't require people to buy new equipment, then
there is one less revenue stream to the people who would promote it.

I do agree the number of people who would promote is far less relevant
than whether a community will take to a game.  This community is what
makes a game relevant.  And I believe they are the ones who need to find
and adapt whatever form the game and its rules take, to make it viable.

On this community front, an objective of IAGO is to provide a community
for games that may no be able to sustain a community for their survival if
they went it alone.  By also getting people who play multiple games to have
a place to play, the game has a better chance of making it.  In this also
is coordinating the effort of abstract strategy games that do have
communities with them, and also help them grow.  These communities provide
the place for variants and smaller games to be able to find players and
hang around long enough to grow up on their own.

I checked out the Supechess program at superchess.nl.  Looks nifty, but
I'd better wait for the English instructions, since my Dutch is weaker
than weak.  I have played Superchess via email (with Ben Good) and found
it to be quite a lot of fun.

Well, as most varints are backed by zero-person organizations, one person
seems already a huge leap forward. I would say it doesn't really matter
very much how many persons you throw at this: if people do not like the
game, it will not catch on even if you would throw 100 people at promoting
it. If they do like it, it shoul propagate itself whereever you plant the
seeds, and one person could do that easily.

Apologies for the multiple posting of the previous message. I received an error message when it was submitted, so naturally I re-sent it.

In fact, I received several such error messages. So, there were several duplicates. I guess I was not the only one who had this problem.

Sorry to post off-topic here, but I have been trying to send e-mail to
Fergus, but it seems that the POP-server at chessvariants.org is no
longer
working. So as Fergus was posting here, I hope to catch his attention. I
wanted to submit an entry for the piececlopedia.

A second question that I am not sure where to direct:
I am looking for the e-mail address of Bill Angell, the author of the
Capablanca version of GNU Chess (of which the executable is available
from
the CV website). This because I wanted to ask him for the source code.
But
the CVpage says 'contact us' for Bill's e-mail address. Does
CVpages still have a valid e-mail address for Bill Angell? The
cais.cais.com address was not working.

Names of pieces have changed constantly, whether shifting languages or
being applied thematically. Even the Mad Queen variant does not utilize
the original names of its pieces.

Creating a nomeclature standard will not guarantee absolute compliance.
How will such be enforced? The Chess Police?

If this is simply the fear that another developer will take a proprietary
item and, just by re-naming it, attempt to lay claim, vigilance is the
answer. Part of owning a copyright or patent is enforcing it. The
paperwork does not magically force the world into acceptance, it merely
provides a reference point of legal proof. And some countries do not fully
honor the copyrights and patents of others.

And obtaining a copyright or patent does not guarantee the ability to
capitalize. That is the sole responsibility of the holder.

Keeping track of the various names of pieces, not to mention the vast
potential of movement types, will prove to be an arduous task.

Hopefully there will not be those who simply take an un-used form of
movement and give it a name, without regard to actual application in a
game. But there really is nothing to prevent this.

Do you see any chance of SuperChess becoming a giant success worldwide if
it is merely a one man operation?

While I can commend the success it has had, I am curious how far its
approach would get.  This being said, if SuperChess does offer a
sufficient foundation for the NextChess, I would be interested in having
IAGO help back it.  At the least, I am interested in getting it on the
IAGO World Tour schedule.

If we are talking about organizations promoting what they consider the
successor of Chess, again Superchess comes to mind. (
http://www.superchess.nl ) Although this is pretty much a one-person
organization, they do organize tournaments, sell piece sets, and advertize
their activities in Chess clubs all around the country. Due to my
involvement they now also can offer on their website a PC program that can
play Superchess (so far only on the Dutch pages; they are still updating
the English part of their website).

They only operate in a limited geographical region, though: The
Netherlands and Belgium. A FIDE IM is participating in the upcoming Dutch
Open Championship, (Oct 12), and indeed won the event 2 years ago.

I have registered for the Championship to see how it fares.

The word 'Architecture' is actually a good one to use here, particularly
if the intention of what is being made intends to be used.  My comment
regarding the 'arteest' is a case where the person isn't thinking in
terms of what they are making actually being played by people in a
meaningful way, but rather was just an idea someone has, that they pen
down, as a form of expression on their part.  They aren't thinking in
terms of the player, but their own needs.  If it is done from an architect
standpoint, then it is good.  If it is done as a painter, for just
self-expression, that is another thing.

As for what I want, I am taking this from a perspective of a person
running an organization that seeks to promote abstract strategy games, rather than a person who is a game designer (and yes, I have done that, and have done the 'arteest' thing myself).  What I want is there to be a way for Chess variants to work together and lend to a greater community experience that will increase the numbers of people playing them, and lend to a dialog between the FIDE crowd and the variant crowd.  I want something that will be lived in, rather than looked at as some oddities in a museum somewhere. That is my goal.  If I were writing from a designer standpoint, I would be wanting people to play my games, and create more as a basis for personal expression.

I am of the belief that whatever the NextChess is, it isn't going to be
one of these self-satisifying interests projects.  Instead, it will be something that is a mix of personal insighs, and discovers, a part accident, and a whole LOT of playing and testing by a community of players.  

And as for standards, my belief is that, if you want a community of people
to take to whatever comes out from the NextChess project, the game is going
to need a bunch of people to input, and the community to be able to
communicate and expect things.  The standards provide a framework for
adoption.  Standards agreed to by a community enable things to evolve and
adapt.

Let me give you an example of a game that totally disregards the idea of
standards (and creating for one's own interest): Seirawan Chess.  Yes, the game has cool features.  Gating, which is how the pieces get in (and a name I had come up with to describe it), is cool.  But it didn't have a name, thus the concept couldn't be used by anyone else.  The take the name of the pieces: Hawk and Elephant.  Is there ANYONE on this planet who had used such pieces before with that name and those type of movement?  No, Seirawan and Harper didn't like the conventions that had been used for CENTURIES and decided to do it their own way.  They also don't want anyone else to touch it.  It is their game and theirs alone.  They own it, and decide what to do with it.  They don't want it to be anything but their game, and that is that.  And you aren't supposed to use their pieces for any other purpose but what they intended to.  The Elephant from their game is a Knight+Rook combination, and that is it.  In this, if there were conventions and standards, then whatever the pieces were used in Seirawan Chess could be used by the Chess variant community for is own games, and there is a market for equipment created that is sustainable.

And, in this, is what I describe as the need for standards.  Without them,
you produce a million different Seirawan Chess games, each of which are
their own deadends and don't represent anything to be adopted by he
players, and allowing them, through their play, to make the needed changes
to keep the game alive.  Without standards, every few years yet another
person comes along and creates the same piece, or same twist on things,
and then adds YET ANOTHER name for the same piece to the mix.  Look at
what has happened with 4 player chess.  The game gets reinvented by large
numbers of people, each with their own twists and variants, and each by
the creator thinking they are the one.

In all this, because you haven't established and standards and
conventions, results in fragmentation and a selection process of picking a
game that might become the next one, to be like lottery, with each person
dipping into a bag to pull something out and hoping all the selections
line up.  And in this, every item is something with the word 'Chess'
after it.

Well, what I am suggestion here is different.  Work on a way for players
to 'roll their own' for some extent, to experiment, and then see what
works, and by the use of standards and conventions, communicate their
findings.  Have a way for he variance to fit into the ecosystem whatever
the Next Chess will be.  Have it so that people know what the heck is
being talked about.  This is standards and conventions.  Lack these, and
you are doing a personalized lottery system where games played are ends
unto themselves, with everyone having their own preference and nothing
contributing to the collective whole.

On this front, I am looking at a spreadsheet of over 500 chess variants
that are playable NOW on, all cataloged, described and indexed which I
will look to get into a database.  Not exactly sure how this pick one of
500 everyone and play, will lead to the Next Chess.

Ok, I have rambled enough.  I hope my 'arteest' comment makes sense now,
and is not seen as offensive as it first appeared.

Creating Chess variants is a form of artistic expression, but it is more
analogous to architecture than to the more purely expressive arts, such as
painting. Architecture is constrained by the need for buildings to be
stable, livable shelters, and game design is constrained by the need for
games to be fun, balanced, and playable, among other considerations. But
beyond the utilitarian purposes behind architecture and game design there
remains room for artistic expression. As one of the individuals with games
on this site, I find Hutnick's 'Arteests' comment offensive. Personally,
I don't see how coming up with standards would contribute in any way to
bringing about the Next Chess. Perhaps it has something to do with
Hutnick's own vision of the Next Chess as a framework rather than a
strict set of rules, but as I already explained, I don't share that
vision. If he wants us to do something, he should explain why it is
important rather than insult us for not doing it.

Rich Hutnik wrote:
'... then this site will just be a bunch of individuals who want to be creative 'Arteests' (Pinky up) who see creating games as a form of artistic expression...'

Firstly, I find the tone of this remark somewhat offensive.
Secondly, what is wrong with artistic expression? It could be argued that chess is an art and that this art in common with other arts such as dance or music or literature can be expressed in many ways:

• playing a game of chess
• composing a chess problem
• composing a fairy chess problem
• designing a chess variant

Example of organizations that were supposed to peddle the 'Next Chess'. 
Here are some.  Study from these and explain how a new organization would
be different:
1. FEMDAM.  This organization pushed Modern Chess:
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/modern.html

They had a run during the 1970s and disappeared.

2. The Name that shall not be named.  This is the patented version of the
Capablanca chess games.  How is that doing now?  How does a game that
ticks off the CV website stand a chance of having any success?

Other ones out there, and various commercial games.  How are they doing
and how have they done?  Contrast that to Bughouse and Chess960, which
don't have organizations promoting them.  They still grow and have a
following.  These have done better than the other two.

On the commercial front, Navia Dratp comes to mind as another game that
maybe could replace normal chess.  Why is it no longer in production?

Some more comments for today:
1. George, I did get your email, but did you get any reply back?  I am not
sure what is up.  Please let me know.
2. In regards to having some organization, with large funds, that will
somehow back a brand new campaign to covert large numbers over, anyone
know where this organization is supposed to get money from?  I understand
the interest there in this, but where is it realistically?  I would say
the organizations on the planet now that MIGHT be able to approach what
you have are: International Mind Sports Association (IMSA), the British
Chess Variants Society, the CV Website, and IAGO.  If you look at these,
you see:
A. IMSA is backed by FIDE.  NO WAY you will get revolt organization
supporting it.
B. The British Chess Variants Society apparently has NO interest in the
Next Chess project at all.  Such discussions was seen as disruptive and
horrible.  
C. The CV Website.  Hello everyone here!  Can anyone here see any form of
consensus being formed over ANYTHING on here?  If the CV website happens
to act here, then it needs to actually get behind some project and come up
with some standards that can be agreed to and used.  If that doesn't
manifest, then this site will just be a bunch of individuals who want to
be creative 'Arteests' (Pinky up) who see creating games as a form of
artistic expression.
D. IAGO. And in his, you are talking as a driving force behind it and
others.  You have read my opinions on this, and seen my proposals.  I also
am aware of what it will take financially, and that will need to involve
FIDE chess folks to even have a chance of making it.  And the Next Chess
is going to have to play nice with the FIDE version, the way Chess960 and
others do.  IAGO will look to be working with FIDE, the USCF and the
entire FIDE Chess audience, so I don't see where disruption will come out
of this.
3. Also note that FIDE Chess does represent where the community as a whole
has settled.  They do have things now that address different issues with
the game, so FIDE chess will live on.  How long?  Well, not sure.  But,
the mechanics are in place for it to remain so for a LONG time.  Support
has built around this game.  And slight tweaks have given new life, to
address issues.  These issues being (and their solution):
A. Chess takes too long to play, and has to many draws.  Speed chess
addresses this.
B. The opening book is stale.  Chess960 addresses this.
C. What about team play?  There is bughouse. And you can throw in a mix of
large numbers of variants here if you want more.

I will say you could get a Next Chess project working and have it make
progress and be sustainable.  However, it isn't going to happen via
disruptive evolution.  Only way that MIGHT happen is that we get enslaved
and some dictator on top forces people to play something else.  Anyone
want to go for this?  I will need to pass here.

A simple project would be to come up with a classification and taxonomy
system for chess variants, that would work.  This may be a place to start.

For year 2009 I named Modern(9x9), Mastodon(8x10), and Eurasian(10x10). For
trio of Next Chesses to be played as frequently as possible for year 2010,
I nominate Centennial chess(10x10), Templar chess (72 squares), and
Unicorn Great chess(10x10). What recommends all these is they are immediately
learned by all levels, with only couple of them more difficult for someone not
already somewhat familiar with Xiangqi or CVs.

Next Chess is almost key topic in brief Anand interview. Vishy Anand
interviewed 1.October.2008 at ChessBase is asked about Draw Death and answers:
''Actually I was always pessimistic. Ten years ago I said that 2010
would be the end, Chess would be exhausted. But it is not true, chess will
not die so quickly. Will it happen in 2015? I don't think so. For every
door the computers have closed they have opened a new one.''

FIDE has chosen to promote the Mad Queen variant. One of the goals of the
organization was to advocate a standard form of play. They could chose to
promote something else.

Of course the organization is made up of a lot of people who have
dedicated their lives to the Mad Queen variant, and they will be highly
reluctant to place all that effort in jeopardy if they had to compete with
a new form of play.

If FIDE does not adapt, little by little they will discover that their
tournaments are slowly becoming irrelevant. And simply 'fixing' the Mad
Queen variant will not be sufficient.

And since the rise of the video game, board games have seen a decrease
among the general public. (It would be interesting to see the actual sales
figures for the last twenty years, though CCGs might have countered any
loss.) So, the expectation of the popular rise of a New Chess will not be
easily realized.

It will take a large organization, with a large advertising budget, to
create the necessary trend in the short run. The superiority of the game
will need to be demonstrated by highly ranked and popular Mad Queen
players(and what's in it for them?).

Is anyone here ready to publicly challenge a Grandmaster to a game of
their favorite variant? (I have the image of a masked woodpusher screaming
challenges at the camera.) It would be best if they were able to actually
win the chosen game.

I will add this to the conversation now:
We are seeing the future of chess happening.  It is happening in the form
of Speed Chess, and also Chess960.  There is Bughouse also as team play. 
These are playing and growing and happening.  As the community gets tired
of some things, and wants more, then more will be rolled out.  It is going
to happen, irregardless of what anyone thinks about it.  It is happening. 
What matters here is whether or not the Variant community is going to have
any input into this.  My take regarding this is, unless they managed to get
things coordinated and actually address issues and get standards, there
will be a remaining on the margins.  So, on this, the NextChess project is a chance for the variant community to have input, or get left to the wayside.

As for some 'end of Civilization event', there as much of a chance of Go
becoming the game, then some royal elimination, checkmate the King piece
game.  There is also chance it may not be in boardgame form at all. 
People may go straight digital here.

As far as extinction goes, what will happen is eventual wear and tear on the game, and the words 'Chess is now SOLVED' coming about.  Then people look for things to address these issues, and they are going on now.  People have different things they look to revitalize the game.  Even Seirawan and Harper have gotten into it.

On the board size, I believe 12x12 should become standard, if you are
going to declare anything as default.

Hello Rich,

I was not stating my own preferences for what should go into a Next Chess.
I was making predictions on what it would take for something to become a
Next Chess. Moreover, I have strong doubts that a Next Chess will ever
rise to prominence in the near future. You speak of Next Chess being an
evolutionary change to Chess. Many evolutionists are uniformitarians, who
believe that evolutionary change happens gradually. I'm an evolutionist
but not a uniformitarian. I think catastrophic evolution, as argued for by
Velikovsky, is more likely. On this view, evolution happens primarily after
extinction events, which leaves niches for new species to evolve into. For
example, other animals are not evolving to become as intelligent as
humans, because we dominate that niche, but if the human race died out,
another species would become more likely to evolve intelligence like ours.
With regard to Chess, Chess has carved out a niche for itself that, by its
occupation of its niche, makes it extremely hard for any other game to
fill the same niche. I applaud any work you're doing toward testing and
promoting quality Chess variants, but I think it would take an extinction
event to knock Chess out of its niche and prepare the way for a Next
Chess. Basically, if civilization collapsed to the point where most people
forgot Chess, perhaps from nuclear war or the 'coming global superstorm'
or something, then there would be room for a successor to make way. Of
course, as much as I would be thrilled to see my own game of Eurasian
Chess, which George Duke has mentioned as one of his top three picks for a
successor, approach the popularity of Chess, I think the collapse of
civilization would be too high a price to pay for that. The best way short
of this is for an organization to promote some variant in much the same way
that FIDE promotes Chess. I have serious doubts this would succeed, but I
do think its the best shot at a Next Chess short of waiting for the
collapse of civilization to kill off Chess.

If I waited a little longer, I wouldn't have to do this at all - most of
what I'd say has already been said. My discussion of Fergus Duniho's
Eurasian Chess will be a bit more subjective than those of Maura's or
Winther's games. 

First, I like 10x10 boards. There's some more room to maneuver. Also, the
advantage a 10x10 has over the 8x10 is that it's square. It maintains the
same overall shape and balance as traditional chess. The board isn't
'funny-looking'. But it may be too big. The 10x10's disadvantage is
that it's now 'too far' across the board. The 8x10 maintained the same
separation between the sides as the standard 8x8, giving a comfort edge.
But more on this below.

Second, I like what Fergus has done with the setup. I believe he has
properly used time and space on this board. 
 * By moving the pawn rows up 1, the 4-square separation between the sides
is returned. This is more important to chess than it appears at first
glance. Count the pawn moves, most and least, to cross between the sides.
Even with the 3-step, pawns back requires 4 steps to cross at least, and 6
at most. It may be 5 steps, too. Standard and Eurasian offer 2 identical
options, either 3 [least] or 4 [most]. Generalized pawn play and number of
pawn moves required remains the same. Conclusion: on 10x10, the better
position for the pawns for a next chess is up on the 3rd rank of a 10x10. 
* The starting piece density and placement is good. Giving 2 rows to the
pieces allows 2 pairs of 'Asian' pieces to be added to the standard
chesspiece mix, when only 1 pair would fit with the pawns back. It allows
the knights to be moved up one square at start, which to a good extent
balances out the knight's being slower on 10x10. It allows far more
tactical flexibility, both to the designer building setups and to the
player maneuvering pieces. [grin! Also lets you hang your pawns out to dry
easier.] 

Finally, I might quibble a little about the exact initial setup, but I've
never played this game. And because it uses 4 pieces/side I don't design
with and am not all that comfortable using in a game, I don't have a
really great feel for how this game will play. Eight leapers running
around in a game with 4 rooks, 4 bishops, and 2 queens is a lot of
firepower. More than I'd personally want to use. I suspect that once the
'new players' get a bit of practice with the leapers, they should love
the game. I think Fergus has achieved his purpose here. I don't think
this is quite 'next chess', but it is a good step past the limitations
now appearing in FIDE. Of the 3 games George has proposed, I find this one
to be the best 'game after chess' as is.

Suit yourself.
Actually, this very thread already lists my particular choice of ''track twos'' 25.September.2008: Rococo,
Eight-Stone, Switching(I), Sissa(I), Altair, Giant King, Tetrahedral,
Weave & Dungeon, Jetan, Quintessential(I), AltOrthHex, Philosophers, and
Hanga Roa. However, the three with the symbol ''I'' could also be
track one -- appealing at once to chess-smart outsiders. The argument would
diverge from Hutnik's not in the class-one or -two distinction, but in
saying it is time for specifics. It ought to be chess variantists prerogative for
all the acquired knowhow to begin putting forth specifics more vis-a-vis general principles. 
The above are my 13 track 2; the 3 are my specific track 1, more the subject matter here: Modern,
Mastodon, Eurasian.

Outside of wanting NextChess to be an evolutionary next step off FIDE
Chess, why should what is involved with NextChess just be 'one track'? 
Why not have a version that will handle western and eastern derivatives of
Shatranj/Chaturanga, and enable players to pit their army of pieces of
choice against another army, using a particular set of rules for
balancing?  

In other words, why not let what people personally play be able to impact
what the community does.  Have something more like Magic: The Gathering
than Bridge in regards to how things are handled.

Something that helps integrate East and West would be of immense value here, as you could draw from players of both games.

''Shatranj is a horrible game which drags on forever and ends in Draw 2
out of 3 times,'' says H. G. Muller at ''Camel'' piece definition only today. I agree, though obviously there would even be defenders of
that very old style 8x8. (Do not forget GM Kramnik dramatically playing similar Makruk, that most of us would characterize like Muller does Shatranj, for all Makruk's historical content.) Likers of Shogi would tolerate Shatranj more than
others, both being slow games. Usually, stronger pieces lead to
designer's enhancing Pawns, from Morrison's Big Battle to Macdonald's Omega.
OrthoChess was no exception. Besides speeding up the game, stronger Bishop
and Queen meant instinctively they had immediately to strengthen Pawn too.
For NextChess topic here, Hutnik is saying to think of what would appeal to
OrthoChess regulars, who rule the world of Chess, and might even convince
some of them. Unanalyzed-lately Eurasian, the third entry, is almost unique in balancing
logical Cannon hopper with Canon hopper, called Arrow there. Important
leapers beyond Knight number only Camel, Zebra, Trebouchet, and Tripper.
What others are there to consider?  So, either hoppers or bifurcation
pieces may be more promising for Next Chesses track one. Anyway, Duniho once singled out
Eurasian as it were Track One after ''NextChess,'' rather than Track Two (such as Rococo, Philosophers, Altair).

The 'two-step' rule for the Mad Queen Pawn was to speed up the opening
game and the development of the Pawn structure on the field. Thus 'en
passant' to return the right of capture to the opponent.

It should not be necessary to give it a 'three-step' privilege if the
Pawns are located to the third rank of the 10 rank field. In addition,
with an increase of power pieces, especially leapers, any multiple-step
privilege of the Pawn could be re-evaluated.

And with a large number of power pieces, a developer might utilize the
Shogi Pawn. Forcing the players to devote a number of pieces to protect
them.

Hopefully Joyce will analyze Eurasian also as he did Modern and Mastodon.
The three are held up to nominate as troika to co-bill for theoretical
next chess. Joyce asks at end of Mastodon critique,  ''Are there any
general design principles coming out of all this that are or can be
generally agreed upon?'' How about Pawns? OrthoPawn that developed with
the New Chess of the 1500's needs no tampering. Two-step one time only
and diagonal capture have no possible improvement. If there are ten ranks,
the Pawn just logically gets three-step option too. Everyone can agree on
that, neither Berolina nor Rococo Pawns necessary for any new and fixed
alteration of F.I.D.E. standard 8x8.

Joyce constructs an interesting sentence, ''The concept of a next chess
is fascinating, precisely because it cannot/will not occur.'' Resistance
to change can be cliched or instructive. When Mad Queen emerged from
Chaturanga-Shatranj, Europe still used Roman numerals exclusively. ''Those
responsible for accounts wished to preserve the Roman system because, say
'v' added to 'iii' gave the sign 'viii', checkable for honesty or
accuracy, whereas 5 plus 3 gave '8', which as a sign bore no similarity
to '3' or '5'.'' Right after adoption of Hindu-Arabic numeral system, 
during the 1540's came the sign '=', chosen '''bicause noe 2.
thynges, can be moare equalle' than such parallel lines.'' Switch from Roman to Hindu-Arabic occurred in Europe after Chaturanga-Shatranj had been transformed with Regina Rabiosa at Italy in
1490's.  Chess may have led the way in some sense breaking cultural
deadlock beyond her accepted purview.  --both quotations from Ivor Grattan-Guinness 'Norton History
of the Mathematical Sciences' 1997