Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

Interestingly enough, I believe that the use of randomness is a critical part of what makes the human mind work. It is a random number of electrons at a synapse in our brain that triggers a desire to have strawberry ice cream instead of chocolate today. Some parts of our brain are hardwired much more than others, but when events bring a junction in our neural nets to a threshold level, it is all random probabilities that determine if we are going to seek help or kill everyone in a class room. I also think that this randomness does not require quantum computing. Chaos behavior follows from deterministic rules. The influence of our environment gives enough random input to allow our brains - as well as a well crafted AI - to be intelligent and creative.

There's some real interesting stuff there. Would you say that randomness being a critical part of what makes the human mind work is due to an evolutionary process, i.e. that because our environment has always been so random in nature, our brains evolved to incorporate randomness into making decisions?

The part about seeking help or killing everyone in a classroom being a choice based on random probabilities would indicate that all attempts to understand such choices and 'guide' them to the one that is more morally acceptable are futile or at least limited in effect. Would you agree with that?

The one area of AI that attempts to emulate evolution is genetic algorithms, in which the program does use random or pseudo-random means to choose from many different paths. But I do believe that the range of such choices is limited, that the programmer must provide the available choices. Are you seeing some way that such algorithms could arbitrarily, in a non-deterministic manner, create a new choice that wasn't somehow hard-coded into the program? This would allow the true mimicking of an evolutionary process, because as far as we know, evolutionary mutations are random in nature. (But then again, we can't ever prove that 'random' means what we think it does...)

In another thread, I used the example of spiders to point out that evolutionary theory may be flawed. How can a creature that knows nothing about spinning a web made of very special material, which entraps flying insects but which the creature itself has special knowledge and ability to traverse, suddenly develop that ability? It would have to be done in steps, and only once the final step is taken would the creature suddenly have this new way to capture prey. But after the first step, which would be the ability of the creature to create the web material inside itself (a very sophisticated ability in itself, not to be easily generated by random probabilities), the creature still lacks the ability to use that in any way and so this ability would not be favored by evolution. Thus one would expect the likelihood -- of (1) developing this ability, then (2) the ability surviving many generations even though it offers no survival advantages yet -- to be so miniscule that if we also consider the likelihood of life appearing on Earth in the first place to be equally miniscule, then the possibility of BOTH events occurring should be prohibitive. And then, even if we accept that both events have in fact occurred randomly against all probabilities, THEN we still have the pre-spider creature taking the next step: actually figuring out how to use the web material to spin a web. First of all, how is it going to learn that, secondly why would it learn that when it is already catching prey by conventional means, and thirdly, assuming it does learn it against all probabilities, how is the learned knowledge passed on? Is there 'knowledge' within genes?

So I would suggest that if you did somehow have a genetic algorithm that could emulate evolution, could make new and non-deterministic choices, you could run that algorithm trillions, quadrillions, gazillions of times and it would never create a spider life form. Unfortunately, this is not testable.

To come back full circle to the topic of this thread, let's mention introduction of randomness into chess itself. The chess establishment, of which you are a part Garland, is totally against this. But given what you wrote about randomness, maybe you're more open to the idea. Wouldn't you think that bringing randomness into chess in various fashions, and having several distinct variants that do this, to be a step towards making chess (now defined as standard chess plus the variants) a better tool in teaching children and even adults how to further develop their brains' creative abilities?

And I guess this too could be asked: shouldn't chess be more about developing creativity? Shouldn't it be less about having endless competitions using the one set of rules that precludes any form of randomness, making the maintaining of a current chess pyramid the single and overriding concern of all chess federations everywhere?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

Interestingly enough, I believe that the use of randomness is a critical part of what makes the human mind work. It is a random number of electrons at a synapse in our brain that triggers a desire to have strawberry ice cream instead of chocolate today. Some parts of our brain are hardwired much more than others, but when events bring a junction in our neural nets to a threshold level, it is all random probabilities that determine if we are going to seek help or kill everyone in a class room. I also think that this randomness does not require quantum computing. Chaos behavior follows from deterministic rules. The influence of our environment gives enough random input to allow our brains - as well as a well crafted AI - to be intelligent and creative.

Fwiw, IMHO there's nothing that's truly random. It's our not knowing all the factors that causes an end result that may make it seem random. In my own case, I'd nearly always prefer strawberry over chocolate ice cream if given the choice, because of my experience with my taste buds, and perhaps due to a slight childhood allergy to chocolate (though I love chocolate bars, if they have something substantial in them besides pure chocolate). Another peculiarity of taste I have is that I don't mind the taste or thought of Clamato juice, but I'm grossed out by the thought of eating clams (don't even talk to me about snails or insects).

In relation to Paul's last post, I still prefer one form of chess to be dominant (and feel one would always rise to become so eventually), if one is to devote most study & play time (many hours!) to one form of chess, while still enjoying playing variants from time to time if one can find an opponent. Japanese Chess & Chinese Chess are rather different from western chess, but I can make time for them very occasionally, at least. However, I do feel that Double Chess (if standard chess remains the standard) should rise a lot in status, like doubles tennis is to regular tennis, for those willing to find partners to play. Currently my best hope for something to replace standard chess as the standard variant is Knightmare Chess, if it's tested sometime for computer-resistance and succeeds (if not, perhaps nothing ever will, though I admit I haven't looked at many variants thoroughly). Below is a post I made, in reply to someone bashing standard chess, from a chessvariants.com link I gave earlier, before I revised my estimate of Knightmare Chess:

"George wrote earlier: "...If little Los Alamos 6x6 had been the old standard, it would be replaced by something bigger. And the mere fact OrthoChess is on little 8x8, and the other world CV types are 9x10 and 9x9, China and Japan, should be embarrassing to their GMs. That's why Stanley Random started 15 years ago calling f.i.d.e. "Simpleminded Chess" and now I do..." Historically chess variants strongly resembling today's standard version of chess have been tried on larger boards, but there may have been legitimate reasons why the lesser 8x8 size was settled upon for so long. Perhaps the expected length of an average game on any bigger board size was thought undesirable (the same could go for a smaller sized board). What chess lacks in comparison to Shogi or Chinese Chess it may, at the least, make up for in other ways. The unique combination of chess' features, none of which may make it particularly unique when taken seperately, have made chess enduringly popular thus far, and no one knows exactly why. The game has held up well, though nowadays extensive databases, engines, the difficulty for top players to win with many Black openings, tablebases, and the increased possibilities for cheating (especially on the internet) are putting chess under pressure. The question may be whether any chess variant can hope to replace it anytime soon, in terms of dominance, and so far I haven't noticed any obvious candidates for such, perhaps even in terms of merit IMHO. [edit: For some years Arimaa seemed a golden candidate to be the Next Chess. I used to Google it and see comments like "they've fixed chess". Before a computer finally beat top players in 2015, though, one of Arimaa's supposed strengths over chess, that there was no set opening setup, had already been weakened since there were certain setups thought better than others. There is a similar problem with Fischer Random, I've heard, in that any number of starting setups are apparently not very interesting. In any case, I actually prefer a chess variant that has a fixed start position, for merchandising and study purposes, assuming the opening phase is at least as rich in possibilities as standard chess. Also, I think a variant that looks nice on someone's coffeetable could further help to popularize it, and a fixed start position assists with this. Unfortunately this doesn't bode well for variants with many more cells than a game of Scrabble (15x15), which might be otherwise desirable for possible computer-resistance. Arimaa also had a problem hurting its speed of spread, in that its inventor imposed various licensing requirements, such as on websites, clubs or literature, although many apps for the game may have been sold, at least. Meanwhile, below is a link about Arimaa, which notes the history of its man vs. machine challenges.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa "

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

Fwiw, IMHO there's nothing that's truly random. ...

The value of pi has been calculated out to more than 10 trillion digits, and so far, no one has found any kind of repeating or otherwise deterministic pattern to the digits. The digits aren't 'random' because the value pi is a very special value used in all sorts of calculations, and it works every time. But one does wonder how many digits they could go on before some pattern becomes evident..... could they go on forever with never any pattern of any kind? Perhaps that would make them quasi-random???

I downloaded a set of the first 10 million of the digits (one/millionth of the number of digits that have been calculated!). Then I ran a search through it, because I postulated that if they do go on forever with no pattern, that means any sequence you can imagine must appear somewhere within them, including (for example) seven consecutive digits of the same value.

So I searched first for seven consecutive 9's, then seven consecutive 8's, etc...... can't remember which digit it was, but I did find seven consecutive digits of the same value, deep into the 10 million digits.

The search for eight consecutive same digits yielded no results. But if the number of digits goes on forever with no repeating pattern ever, then there must somewhere be an infinite number of consecutive digits all the same..... which is a paradox!!!

[Garland Best]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

Would you say that randomness being a critical part of what makes the human mind work is due to an evolutionary process, i.e. that because our environment has always been so random in nature, our brains evolved to incorporate randomness into making decisions?

Randomness has been there from the beginning. Read Physics Today, February 2014. When exposed to 2 different forms of sugar, glucose and lactose, bacteria will normally eat the glucose. As the glucose gets eaten, some bacteria switch to eating the lactose by activating an enzyme required to digest lactose. The gene is either on or off, but in the presence of identical concentrations, some bacteria switch right away, some delay activating the gene and some never activate it. The bacteria are all identical. From a physics standpoint the changes are entirely statistically predictable. But one cannot predict which bacteria will activate the gene. Is this simply random chance, or do bacteria have "free will"?

The part about seeking help or killing everyone in a classroom being a choice based on random probabilities would indicate that all attempts to understand such choices and 'guide' them to the one that is more morally acceptable are futile or at least limited in effect. Would you agree with that?

Nope. Random is not the same as "all outcomes are equally likely". The end result depends on many external factors and attempts to understand such choices and 'guide' them to the one that is more morally acceptable can prevent a tragedy. It is by no means guaranteed to succeed, but the attempt must be made.

The one area of AI that attempts to emulate evolution is genetic algorithms, in which the program does use random or pseudo-random means to choose from many different paths. But I do believe that the range of such choices is limited, that the programmer must provide the available choices. Are you seeing some way that such algorithms could arbitrarily, in a non-deterministic manner, create a new choice that wasn't somehow hard-coded into the program? This would allow the true mimicking of an evolutionary process, because as far as we know, evolutionary mutations are random in nature. (But then again, we can't ever prove that 'random' means what we think it does...)

The error in thinking here is that you are equating limited with a small number of options. In fact the number of possibilities within a program are probably larger than atoms in the universe. You also imply that because the range of choices are limited, the programmer knows what the outcome will be. In fact in most of the research in this topic, researchers are delighted to see outcomes that they did not predict. For example, a program learns a "cheat" in a game that the programmer was unaware of, or comes up with an electronic circuit to react to stimuli than no normal engineer would come up with, and yet does exactly the task required with much fewer parts. Our own genetic code plays in a much larger environment. Nature has had over 3 billion years and billions of "programs" in any given generation to experiment. We have had less than 100 years. Give it time.

In another thread, I used the example of spiders to point out that evolutionary theory may be flawed. ...

I think that discussion should be taken up with Richard Dawkins. I'll pass.

To come back full circle to the topic of this thread, let's mention introduction of randomness into chess itself. ... Wouldn't you think that bringing randomness into chess in various fashions, and having several distinct variants that do this, to be a step towards making chess (now defined as standard chess plus the variants) a better tool in teaching children and even adults how to further develop their brains' creative abilities?

And I guess this too could be asked: shouldn't chess be more about developing creativity? Shouldn't it be less about having endless competitions using the one set of rules that precludes any form of randomness, making the maintaining of a current chess pyramid the single and overriding concern of all chess federations everywhere?

Call me closed minded, but I like the game just as it is. The closest I delved into randomising chess is Chess 960. I enjoy the game immensely and I feel it to be a great way to express my creativity within a closed set of rules. Chess is a game, and while the game has many positives its importance in life tends to be greatly exaggerated.

I think I've exhausted myself on the topic.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

Fwiw, Plato was into ideal geometric forms, in antiquity. The mysterious/miraculous value of pi might also be taken as a subtle indication that divinity exists.

Also fwiw, here's a link that lists all the chess variants played on The Chess Variant Pages' Game Courier, which includes the number of times each was played:

http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/listgames.php

[Garland Best]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 Therefore god exists.

Inside math joke.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

The error in thinking here is that you are equating limited with a small number of options. In fact the number of possibilities within a program are probably larger than atoms in the universe. You also imply that because the range of choices are limited, the programmer knows what the outcome will be. In fact in most of the research in this topic, researchers are delighted to see outcomes that they did not predict.

No, I didn't equate nor imply either thing you mention. Obviously, a chess engine can, if programmed to make random moves, produce any possible game of chess, and as you said, that could be more than the number of atoms in the universe. And of course, a chess engine that makes only ELO 3000+ - rated moves could produce an outcome that no one predicted, such as an endgame win that goes for hundreds of plies. No one can predict all the possible games that could be produced, but every such game that IS produced and correctly follows the rules of chess can be said to be part of the set of all possible chess games.

But as you yourself pointed out, the chess engine that can produce full and complete games all falling within this colossal result set would not be able to punch it's way out of a paper bag. So how 'intelligent' is it really?

Call me closed minded, but I like the game just as it is. The closest I delved into randomising chess is Chess 960. I enjoy the game immensely and I feel it to be a great way to express my creativity within a closed set of rules. Chess is a game, and while the game has many positives its importance in life tends to be greatly exaggerated.

To be clear, I wasn't thinking just of the 'importance' of chess in life. I was firstly thinking of the creativity aspect of chess, which you admitted that inputs of a random nature increase creativity. Then I was thinking of the status of chess in terms of its organizational success with adults, which if I'm right, you are a CFC governor and so should be thinking of the same.

I will indeed call you closed-minded, all the more puzzling given your views on randomness. You are satisfied with your own place in chess, with your own enjoyment of it, and you equate that with organized chess being 'ok'. That, to my mind, means you have zero interest in making organized chess more successful and more appealing to a larger number of adults. If organized chess were a business, which it is, you should NOT be a company officer. It's fine for you to be a player and a member of the CFC, but to be involved in making long-term business decisions is detrimental to the business. When out of more than 10 million, maybe more than 20 million, adults in Canada, the CFC has 872 adult members.... don't you think the business of chess has to evolve and change, just as you talked about humans doing using randomness as an input?

The bigger problem is that everyone else involved in chess administration and organization feels the same as you do, and so chess as a business just continues to suffer. Everyone is seeing the glass 1% full rather than the glass 99% empty.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

Fwiw, I'd suppose there's lots of chess servers (or even fairy chess servers) that include chess variants, besides standard chess. If the CFC gets a deal with such a server at some point, I'd think that might help chess-based business, and it'd perhaps even be somewhat in line with your own point of view, Paul.

[edit: It might be a little disconcerting, but in an exchange I once had with an older editor on chessvariants.com, he wrote the following about one of his (4D) variants:

"...While it is fast-moving, it is not chaotic. Almost nobody plays it, or ever has. Grin, that's the common fate of most variants."

What I'd like to know is, how popular worldwide/nationally are all chess variants combined, or at least a number of the most popular ones, even on the internet alone. If the popularity is nowhere as significant as for standard chess, I don't see putting much hope into having an organization promoting chess plus any number of chess variants, if fresh chess [variant] organizers and fresh funds must somehow arise. There's also the concern that any increased playing of chess variants might in rough proportion reduce the playing of standard chess, or the funds available for that.]

[edit: below is a somewhat dated, but still insightful, webpage re: recognized chess variants.]

http://www.chessvariants.com/rindex.html

[edit: below is a Google search result for 'internet chess variant servers'.]

https://www.google.ca/search?q=inter...4nWPMW0eZblGQ#

[Garland Best]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

Hey, Kevin, with respect to robots programmed to kill, and the use of AI, you might find this like interesting.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/raspber...-sim-dogfight/

I bought my son a Raspberry Pi for Christmas last year. Cost $50.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

Here's a Google search result for 'can ai be programmed to make complex moral decisions', fwiw:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=can+a...mLDsqreMOGgrgP

P.S.: I also edited my previous post somewhat, for those who may miss it.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

What I'd like to know is, how popular worldwide/nationally are all chess variants combined, or at least a number of the most popular ones, even on the internet alone. If the popularity is nowhere as significant as for standard chess, I don't see putting much hope into having an organization promoting chess plus any number of chess variants, if fresh chess [variant] organizers and fresh funds must somehow arise. There's also the concern that any increased playing of chess variants might in rough proportion reduce the playing of standard chess, or the funds available for that.]

You are correct that there isn't much hope, but this is only because of the total lack of organizer AND FEDERATION support for variants. At one time, chess960 seemed like it might break through, because there was some meager support that appeared to be slowly building. In July 2009, there was even an event for the chess960 World Championship which was won by Nakamura:

/en.chessbase.com/post/che-claic-nakamura-wins-960-world-championship

But since then, chess960 has died from almost total lack of support. It may have certain weaknesses, such as castling rules and some openings being very unequal. These weaknesses could have been addressed if enough will was there, but no one has the will. And yet, on many chess sites, there are still many people asking, "Where can I play chess960?" because the base of the chess pyramid still likes the game.

I believe that if chess variants -- limited in number and limited to those that have redeeming qualities as established by some sort of committee or group dedicated to that cause -- were as of tomorrow supported by both organizers and federations in the same manner as poker variants are supported by WSOP and other poker organizations, then you'd have two things happen within 5 years:

(1) very significant membership growth in all chess federations, assuming playing any of the variants in an organized tournament required federation membership, and

(2) one or more supported variants would grow beyond the size of standard chess in global tournament participation.

The net result would be financial gain for chess overall, redefined to include these variants as poker includes variants.

For example, I could see Option Chess taking over the mantle of standard chess as the de facto "new chess", because of the reset it causes in opening theory AND the total elimination of computer engines (which might be temporary, but any created engines would have much more challenges surpassing the strength of the best human players and this would keep computer cheating out of chess for decades to come).

There is no will to make any of this happen. Wayne Komer just posted something that indicates FIDE is in serious financial straits and the FIDE President may be 'impeached', whatever that means in the context of the totally corrupt and poorly structured organization that FIDE is.

So organized chess overall is in trouble, and turning chess into a kids' game as so many federations are doing to keep cash flow happening is only going to accelerate the decline. Sponsors are wise to what is happening and will turn away from chess, except perhaps for some companies that sell products to kids. Ultimately this may be a good thing: as the saying goes, "when the going gets tough, the tough get going". I think it is only a matter of time until someone in a position to do something opens his or her eyes and sees where chess variants could lead.

The key, Kevin, is 'support'. Just putting a chess variant on some web site isn't going to do anything.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

The popularity of chess960 may have a lot to do with Fischer's invention of it. From what I've seen on the net, Double Chess (aka Bughouse) and Crazyhouse are currently the most popular variants, and I think they may both be better than Chess960 as a variant (having never played Crazyhouse or Chess960, though), perhaps if only because Chess960 is rather much like chess. As an aside I've stated before that I personally prefer a fixed start position for a variant, to aid its study and merchandizing, but that goes against the very reason for Chess960. Chinese Chess and Japanese Chess (Shogi) already have their own organizations well established, and are perhaps too (at the least regionally) popular and different from standard chess to be simply called chess variants (though The Chess Variant Pages includes them, as such).

I'd be inclined to run with just Double Chess and perhaps Crazyhouse, at least for now, if I was in a position to do things your way, Paul (though I think Crazyhouse is best for internet play alone since otherwise extra pieces are required in a game for just 2 players) - my even more conservative choice would be to start with just promoting Double Chess alone, besides chess. However, the CFC (not to mention organized chess elsewhere, perhaps) is low on resources, and its governance (as well as chesstalkers, in an old poll) seem unwilling to even consider any sort of move in the direction of promoting variant(s) in addition to chess. At the least, as far as Canada is concerned, I'd be happy if the CFC simply arranged for various Canadian Double Chess tournament notices to be posted in tournament announcements on the CFC website's discussion board (for now, some make it here to chesstalk, at least). I suspect Double Chess and Crazyhouse will set up their own serious organizations possibly before even that, however.


[edit: Below is a link to the so-called World Bughouse Federation - which I think I mentioned on chesstalk ages ago - perhaps not yet a truly serious world organization, in terms of membership, at least??]

https://www.bebuzee.com/world-bughouse-chess-federation

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

A link to the recent story about the first driverless car fatality. Besides the tragedy of it, it's not good news for me since for possible convenience and greater safety I hoped such cars would be considered fully reliable and accepted as such one day, soon, in spite of other doubts I have about the limitlessness of AI:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/in...29ffb8809f0739


[edit: On a seperate AI matter, below is a wikipedia link re: Siri, which Garland mentioned earlier.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri

[edit: I've added a link to my previous post.]

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

....In any case, I actually prefer a chess variant that has a fixed start position, for merchandising and study purposes, assuming the opening phase is at least as rich in possibilities as standard chess. Also, I think a variant that looks nice on someone's coffeetable could further help to popularize it, and a fixed start position assists with this.

Kevin, I've noticed that your own variants that are larger than 8x8 playing area are ones that would optimally be played over weeks or months, giving each player several days to come up with each move. I don't think you meant these variants to be considered as candidates for 'the next chess'. These more complex 10x10 or larger variants could be considered as too difficult to play well over a weekend Swiss tournament -- although, one could consider such a tournament for such a variant to be the equivalent of a blitz tournament in regular chess, meaning that the format simply stresses speed, tactics and survival over playing optimal strategic moves.

So I'm guessing that in addition to wanting to see a good candidate for replacing the dominant position of standard chess, you are also wanting to see another variant that could be most excellent for the equivalent of correspondence play. That is, you leave the set sitting in your living room or den and every so often, you sit in front of it and analyze some lines, writing them down, and after a few days you finally decide on a move, and send it off to your opponent, and so on.

In that case, i may have a very good one for you to consider that I haven't mentioned yet. Well, I did mention one aspect of it in a long-ago post: in addition to the regular pieces, each side has 6 extra pieces, of 3 different types, and here's what I call them:
(1) the Wizard, which is a Rook that can also move like a King
(2) the Champion, which is a Knight that can also move like a King and can also do 2x3 and 3x2 L-shaped moves (so that it can traverse the board quicker than a Knight), and
(3) the ArchBishop, which is a Bishop that can also move like a King (and thus isn't confined to being always dark- or light-square).

So I did mention those pieces to you in a long-ago posting, but I think I was referring to them in talking about a substitute variant for S-Chess, which is played on an 8x8 board. What I'm referring to now is a 10x10 board variant, meant for very long time controls. The setup of the pieces is that each side still has 8 Pawns, set up on each side's 3rd rank, and all Pawns promote on reaching the opponent's 2nd rank, meaning the dimensions of Pawn promotion are the same as in regular chess. Behind each side's row of Pawns are their regular pieces, same arrangement as in standard chess. And then, the six new pieces are all on the player's first rank, where each Wizard is on the same file as each Rook, each Champion is on same file as each Knight, and each ArchBishop is on same file as each Bishop.

This means that the first file (the a-file) and the last file (the j-file) are empty of pieces in startup position.

I wrote a test program to play this variant, and I added a few further enhancements:

- while Pawn may capture Pawn, no other piece may capture a like piece of the opponent. So Knight may not capture Knight, Bishop may not capture Bishop, Rook may not capture Rook, Wizard may not capture Wizard, Champion may not capture Champion, ArchBishop may not capture ArchBishop, Queen may not capture Queen. The purpose of this is to prevent play that simply exchanges pieces off ad finitum ad nauseum, something I really dislike about standard chess. Yes, equal exchanges can be part of strategic initiatives, but that element isn't taken away without a new element being added that has both tactical and strategic overtones: pieces are immune to defences put up by like pieces of the opponent. Overall, I think this restriction leads to more materially unbalanced middlegames and endgames, which is more interesting imo.

- 3 time repetition is a loss for the player who repeats the position the 3rd time

- stalemate is a loss for the player in stalemate

- as already mentioned, Pawns start out on their own 3rd rank and promote on their own 9th rank, still requiring an advance of 6 squares as in standard chess

I actually created a complete set of pieces for this game. For the Wizards, I stuck white stickers around the body of extra Rooks and drew a Merlin-like crescent moon and star in blue marker. For the Champions, I similarly placed white stickers vertically on each flank of extra Knights and drew a shield with a cross inside in red marker. For the ArchBishops, I placed yellow stickers around the body of extra Bishops (yellow being a predominant color worn by Bishops of the Catholic church). The colors stand out and it is no problem to visually discern all the different types of pieces.

I have decided on the name Chivalry for this variant, with the restriction on like pieces capturing each other inspiring the idea that there is some chivalry in the game. I can send you some sample games played by my engine if you like.

But I even went a little further.... because something still seemed to be missing, for my taste. I still like adding some element of 'randomness' to my variants, and I had an inspiration: the 10x10 board is quite large, what if there was a way to 'randomly' make it like a landscape where certain squares could become off limits (such as a swamp or a mountain might be in real life)?

Well, instead of landscape elements, I came up with this: whenever a piece is captured, that square gets marked with something to make it a 'memorial' to the captured piece. Of course, the capturing piece still occupies it, and as long as that piece remains there, the square is still in play. But as soon as the last capturing piece leaves the square, making it empty, it is marked with a memorial and the square is no longer in play for the rest of the game. It blocks any piece other than Knight and Champion from moving past it.

Here's what I did with my actual set: I use red poker chips for the capturing piece to sit on when the capture is made. The poker chip is a reminder that this square, when it becomes empty, will become a memorial square. Then when the piece actually is moved away, I replace the poker chip with a pine tree replica, such as is used in hobby railroad kits, that I bought at a hobby store. The pine trees are about the height of the King in my plastic tournament set.

These trees really add a "natural" element to the board in middlegame and endgame positions. It might be what you are looking for in a set that looks good on a coffeetable, as you put it.

And of course, there are implications that have to be handled.

Pawns can be blockaded by memorial squares, and so I added a rule that only when they are so blockaded, a player on his or her turn may move the Pawn one square to either side and that becomes the player's move (as long as those squares aren't also memorial squares, in which case the Pawn can only move by capturing, assuming THOSE squares aren't memorial squares). This can be done repeatedly as many times as it takes to allow the Pawn to move forward, but only 1 square at a time, and not as an additional move to anything else.

Areas of the board may be completely encircled by memorial squares, and if either King is in such an area, the only piece that may check it from outside the area and even get into the area is the Knight. One must be careful when allowing this to happen to the opposing King, because you may lose all chances to mate the King and be reduced to playing for a draw by 50 move rule (the only rule remaining that allows for a draw).

I made a copy of my Chivalry engine and modified it to play these rules as well, and I call that Chivalry Graveyard Chess. I have the engine play against itself, and so far have not run into either King getting encircled yet, although some close calls.

I believe this may be the coolest form of chess to play by correspondence.... far, far more interesting that standard chess by correspondence imo. I doubt most players could handle the complexity in a standard chess time control such as 30 moves in 90 minutes with 30 second increment, or even 1 minute increment..... what I mean is, there would be lots of blunders and lots of losses on time.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Heterodox chess (chess variants) thread 2.0

Hi Paul

Testing your variant may have revealed much about it to you, so that's a good start. My first thought was to have chosen to call no-go 'memorial' squares 'plague' squares instead, also to avoid the term 'graveyard' later on, but it's a matter of taste I realize. A coffee table set would need some way to store the markers for enough no-go squares, say in the belly of the board (with drawers), which seems feasible. I don't think of this variant as having true randomness, but the consequences of captures seem difficult to predict, for the long term at least. By contrast I thought Knightmare Chess has true randomness, with its card decks, but maybe I don't grasp its rules fully yet (plus I think it has more than one variant nowadays). It also has the problem (in my eyes) that it's copyrighted, which may slow its spread a lot (e.g. clubs, books, computer programs), the same problem Arimaa apparently has. Maybe one day the copyright will expire; there was never one on standard chess, clearly.

Have you considered submitting some more of your own invented (not-meant-for-profit) chess variants to The Chess Variants Page (after becoming a member)? The modern day webmaster there looks quite dedicated to improving the site even more, and can perhaps assist on technical issues. If you decide to get the hang of the Game Courier programming, you might make it possible to play your games online by email, as the website keeps the score and positions of games.

The dozen chess variants I've invented to date (not counting certain sub-variants of these) were all submitted quite a while ago. Of these only 'Sac Chess' (10x10, 60 pieces) seemed anything like a hit for me, especially since it was programmed by other people for play (though I enjoyed airing on the web the other experimental variants more too, even the likely impractical 4D ones, which made for pretty diagrams within their submissions). Ten Sac Chess games minimum were ever played, including fast human vs. computer ones; after a lull, now I see the webmaster has 3 days ago issued an invitation for someone to play him at it, if accepted.

I'm moving with my family elsewhere in Ottawa in a few months probably, so I'm laying off chess variant play at least for now (plus I feel lukewarm at best about playing anything online). I'm tempted to play Sac Chess again; the games last only about 70 moves until mate, with piece trades about every 4 moves (compared to 5 in standard chess). I've yet to perceive truly massive complications in a game, because in the opening the pieces do not soon all get developed effectively (or at all). Other than the computer games of it, I can't test it in fast play to know for sure that it should only be played slowly by people as you postulate.

I added a link to my post that you partly quoted, to show a so-called World Bughouse Federation currently exists, but it may well be nothing that can lay claim to being a serious organization for the variant. There's no such organization for Crazyhouse that I came across. On the bright side, I noticed in one search result that some national chess federations do somewhat(?) promote Bughouse, not to mention the odd big event held in Europe. I once argued, a while ago, that the CFC should promote Bughouse, before a seperate organization arises for it that's serious. It's still the wild west for variants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bughouse_chess

My concerns about computers affecting standard chess (or variants, e.g. my own Sac Chess) in an adverse way (e.g. powerful engines beating the best humans, also enabling easier cheating) I state while ignoring what I suspect may be in store for humanity as a whole, very soon. We're on the verge of some serious problems, including the risk of nuking ourselves, and if divine intervention happens to prevent that, at least some of our technologies may also mysteriously disappear & be forgotten, or be somehow banned, including arguably harmful computers/AI. Hopefully if such a reset button is pushed, it will be done gently. A smaller benefit may result for human chess players as a result, too.