Somewhere between chess and curling....

[Paul Bonham]

After the recent thread describing curling as "chess on ice", I thought it might be fun to introduce....

Expedition Chess
================

This is an attempt to model chess at least slightly on the real world, where no one has perfect information and not every initiative succeeds due to unforeseen factors. An example of this would be curling, in which strategy has to take into account less than perfect shots and how they would affect results.


Synopsis:
=======

This is a version of chess that would be best played over long time controls, such as 24 hours per move or even longer. Each move decision requires deep analysis, because any attempt of either player to move a Bishop, Rook or Queen more than 1 square in any direction is not guaranteed. These pieces, when they make such a move attempt, are looked at as going on an "expedition" which may or may not succeed. The more squares they attempt to move, the more risky the chances of total success. But failure is not total failure: the piece is always guaranteed to be able to move at least 1 square in the direction you originally chose, and the player may end up having to decide on a square somewhere in between the current square of the piece and the intended destination square. The player needs to plan for any of these possibilities when deciding on such a move attempt.

Knights, Pawns and Kings are always capable of moving their normal moves. By contrast, a Bishop, a Rook, and a Queen still have the same move possibilities as they do in standard chess, but whenever they attempt a move of more than 1 square in any direction, they are on an "expedition" which may or may not reach it's goal. Think of it as the piece being sent on a long journey, and due to fatigue or rugged landscape or lack of supplies, the piece may get only partway to it's goal before it needs "replenishment" (where one can look on the change of move turn as being a chance for the piece to be "replenished").

NOTE: if the piece does get awarded it's full move attempt (see below), and by virtue of that move it is to capture an opposing piece, the capture always succeeds (presumably due to the element of surprise), although there could be a variant of this variant in which the capture is also subject to risk, and where failure to capture would either cause the moving piece to be removed or would leave both pieces on the capture square).

The Knight is deemed to have extraordinary jumping power and it's standard move is always considered possible and guaranteed success.



Details:
======

Each player in turn decides what move s/he wishes to ATTEMPT. When the decision is made:

- If the piece being moved is a Pawn, Knight, or King, the move can be made without announcing it. Also, if a Bishop, Rook, or Queen is being moved 1 square only in any direction, this move may also be made without announcing it. Also, a castling move can be made without announcement because this move is always guaranteed. Castling rules are exactly as in standard chess.

- Otherwise (if a Bishop, Rook or Queen is attempting to move 2 or more squares in any direction excepting a Rook move that is part of a castling move), the player on turn announces to the opposing player what the move attempt will be. A pair of dice are then rolled to determine whether the piece can make the full move. The result of the dice roll gives an index into the following 2-dimensional chart to see how many of the attempted squares can actually be moved AS A MAXIMUM (with a move of 1 square as a MINIMUM):


......................Sum of Dice Roll (Two Die)
Attempted Move | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
=====================================
2 squares..........| 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
3 squares..........| 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1
4 squares..........| 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 1
5 squares..........| 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 4 3 2 1
6 squares..........| 1 3 4 5 5 6 6 5 4 3 2
7 squares..........| 1 3 4 5 6 7 6 6 5 4 2

If the attempted move is say 7 squares and the dice roll gives a value of 4 squares, the player attempting the move must now move the piece ANY NUMBER OF SQUARES UP TO 4 IN THE ORIGINALLY SPECIFIED DIRECTION ONLY. No other move is allowed. The player shall be allowed a nominal time period to decide how many squares to actually move. Of course, if the dice roll gave 1 square, then no decision is to be made, the piece must be moved 1 square in the specified direction.

The King In Check
==============

Bishops, Rooks, and Queens still do check the opposing King from any number of squares away as per standard chess. A player whose King is in check may gamble that the King won't get captured, and may make a move that leaves the King in check. The opposing player may then attempt to capture the King, and if the dice roll allows such capture, the game is over. A player may also deliberately move his or her King into check, as long as such check is from only Bishop, Rook, or Queen more than 1 square away, making the King's capture uncertain. The King may not be moved into check from an opposing Knight, Pawn, or King.

This means the game almost never ends in checkmate: in most cases, checkmate is replaced with the actual capture of a King. However, a player may not continue play indefinitely with a lone King in the hope that the lone King can continuously "escape" capture. The presence or absence of mating material will still determine some outcomes exactly as it does in standard chess.

There will almost never be a stalemate. When a player can only move his or her King into check, and any of the checked squares is in check from a Bishop, Rook, or Queen which are more than 1 square away, the player must move the King into one of those checked squares and risk losing the game.

Only when the player to move must move his/her King and the King has no other move other than moving into check from
(1) a Pawn, Knight, or King, or
(2) a Bishop, Rook, or Queen that is 1 square away from the checked square
would the game end in a stalemate.


Game Notation
=============

Whenever a move is made that involves a dice roll, the move is notated as shown in this example:

24. Qe4(e5,e8)

This means the Queen was attempting to move to e8, but the dice roll limited the move to e5 at the most and the player making the move chose to have the Queen move to e4.

If the Queen was successfully allowed by dice roll to move to e8 in this example, normal move notation should be used, and it is implied that the dice roll allowed the full move intended:

24. Qe8

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: Somewhere between chess and curling....

With your title "between chess and curling" I thought that you were going to introduce the rule that for moves longer than 1 square by a Queen, Rook or Bishop the player must push the piece along and let go, letting it slide several squares. Must hit the piece trying to capture (no double hits). This would require a very smooth surface of the board (ice?) and bottom of the pieces. I think it would be too difficult to get a broom in without touching other pieces. If any pieces get knocked to the side, the opponent can chose to accept the new square placement. Perhaps this would work better with those large 2-foot tall pieces.

[Ernest Klubis]

Re: Somewhere between chess and curling....

Paul,

Have you obtained a patent for "Expedition Chess" ?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Somewhere between chess and curling....

Paul, Canada has a tendency to follow the lead of the U.S. in chess. Fischer, Palin, Clinton and Obama are all icons in this nation.

If your variation of chess takes off in the land of the Stars and Bars, the multitudes of chess players in Canada, both CFC members and casual players, will no doubt flock to the game.

Since Dwarf Tossing was outlawed in Ontario, there has been a void to fill between chess and curling.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Somewhere between chess and curling....

Paul, Canada has a tendency to follow the lead of the U.S. in chess. Fischer, Palin, Clinton and Obama are all icons in this nation.

If your variation of chess takes off in the land of the Stars and Bars, the multitudes of chess players in Canada, both CFC members and casual players, will no doubt flock to the game.

Since Dwarf Tossing was outlawed in Ontario, there has been a void to fill between chess and curling.

I'm assuming the IOC must have voted down Dwarf Tossing as an Olympic sport, possibly because some countries have greater numbers of dwarfs than others? Dwarfs everywhere must have been furious, since that was their only path to Olympic medals.

Maybe Expedition Chess will get voted in. Then one must ask, should it be in the Winter or the Summer Olympics? Or should it become the first sport to be in BOTH?!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Somewhere between chess and curling....

Paul,

Have you obtained a patent for "Expedition Chess" ?

Not sure if you're being serious, but no, I'm sure it's too close to standard chess to be patentable. Nothing more than a standard chess set and a set of dice needed to play it.

Speaking of which, it would be very interesting to play Expedition Chess against strong standard chess computer program. The program would not know it's playing Expedition Chess, so it would make it's moves assuming that each move is guraranteed. So it it moves a Queen say 5 squares, and you roll the dice and the Queen can only move 4 squares, you'd have to try each of the 4 possible Queen moves and have the program rate each of those positions. Whichever one it rates highest, that becomes the move the computer makes, so you would take back it's 5-square move and make it's real move.

You would have to not cheat with the dice rolls, of course, and the whole game could take days to finish. But it would be interesting to see if a human, playing and thinking like a curler (!), could beat the strongest computer which is NOT thinking like a curler.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Somewhere between chess and curling....

I'm assuming the IOC must have voted down Dwarf Tossing as an Olympic sport, possibly because some countries have greater numbers of dwarfs than others? Dwarfs everywhere must have been furious, since that was their only path to Olympic medals.

It's hard to know. My understanding was it was the tosser and not the tossee who was the winner. I never heard of a cannon ball being bronzed like they do for a cannon. Regarding the IOC, my understanding was they are more interested in things like urine samples.

Speaking of the IOC and samples, it's surprising the one and only climate change thread never extolled the virtures of the waterless urinal.

It's been a stressful day today. Whenever I buy shares in an oil or gas company they end up playing taps for the company. Today was such a day. However, being the good poker player that I was (bet you're surprised I'm lifetime up), I'll hang in to see if I can change my luck.

I was reading a gallup poll today on climate change. It's around the point where those who believe are the skeptics. We're going to be playing less outdoor chess each year due to the cold.

The real reason curling is more popular than chess is because they don't allow children to play in adult events. You don't get some 40 year old guys going home and telling the wife they spent the afternoon losing to some 9 year old wunderkid. Then spend the next week explaining to the wife why they will spend an afternoon getting their clocks cleaned by someone elses youngster when they could be home chilling with their own children.

Of course, when you're over 65 you go home and tell the wife some youngster spent the afternoon entertaining you. When she ask if you won or lost you can say you don't remember.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Somewhere between chess and curling....

Just in case anyone were to wonder, and notice that I forgot to mention whether Pawns can always do their first move option of 2 squares instead of 1, the answer is yes.

In my response to Ernest Klubis, I wrote: "it would be very interesting to play Expedition Chess against strong standard chess computer program. The program would not know it's playing Expedition Chess, so it would make it's moves assuming that each move is guararanteed. So it it moves a Queen say 5 squares, and you roll the dice and the Queen can only move 4 squares, you'd have to try each of the 4 possible Queen moves and have the program rate each of those positions. Whichever one it rates highest, that becomes the move the computer makes, so you would take back it's 5-square move and make it's real move.

You would have to not cheat with the dice rolls, of course, and the whole game could take days to finish. But it would be interesting to see if a human, playing and thinking like a curler (!), could beat the strongest computer which is NOT thinking like a curler."

Another thing that would have to be dealt with in doing this is handling check. The computer engine would think whenever it's King is in check from a Bishop, Rook, or Queen more than 1 square away that it has to get out of the check. There is no way to change this, so in effect you would be playing the most conservative, safety-conscious human player when you are playing a chess engine.

When the engine puts YOU in check this way, it expects you must get out of the check, but you may be a gambling player that takes chances with the life of your King. What you would have to do is choose an alternative move that leaves you in check, then assume the engine would try and capture your King. You roll the dice and see if your King does in fact get captured (no cheating!). If the capture fails, you'd have to choose the alternate move that the ENGINE would choose (unless there was no choice, i.e. the dice roll allowed only a 1-square move). To do this fairly, you'd have to set up each alternate position, and for each one, have the engine rate the position (depending on the engine, the only way to do this might be to set up each position with the engine playing your color and have it calculate a move at a specific ply level, say 12 plies, and see what score it gave the position).

All in all, it's a lot of work to try and play this less-deterministic variation of chess, but if you've read this far, you must be somewhat interested in seeing how a computer chess engine would fare against a human mind that is fully capable (far more than any computer, I believe) of assessing risk vs. reward where multiple paths of non-deterministic execution are available.

In other words, if computers can kick our proverbial asses in standard chess, can we overcome them by introducing the element of "luck", or perhaps I should use another word, "chaos"?

I hope to try this sometime this week, at least to get it started, and I'll post the moves in case anyone's interested. Might take a while, though. In every case where the computer has to choose between 2 or more unplanned-for moves (because of the dice rolls), I'll include notes showing how the engine rated each of the possibilities.

Meanwhile, maybe I should try creating an Expedition Chess engine.

[Duncan Smith]

Chess on Ice tonight

Brier final tonight prime time TV should be boffo TV ratings. Check out Glenn Howard one of the best aggressive skips in the game. Could be an excellent learning experience for Ernest if he can tear himself away from Checkers for an evening :).

Personally I played Glenn once at a cash event and I played announcer Ray Turnbull at a "celebrity event" held in Las Vegas. Game was held in the ballroom where Elvis Presley got married, right next to the sports book at the old Aladdin hotel. They were short a few celebrities so I filled in at skip and my team had players from Edmonton, Denver, and the last player I forget.
Ray made a miracle shot on his last one to beat us. We won our RR so we got some prize money regardless. Only time I've ever curled where there were chandaliers above us. Amazing ice considering the climate made by the famous Shorty Jenkins. The frost line on the outside was not to be fooled with it was like sandpaper.