Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Championship

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

Are you aware of the number of possible legal positions in chess ? If it is not enough for you, it will never be enough.

I repeat what I said more precisely elsewhere, there not enough legal moves at any given move of a game, at least for computers not to rule. :(

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

I repeat what I said more precisely elsewhere, there not enough legal moves at any given move of a game, at least for computers not to rule. :(

In chess there is an average of 37 moves to consider at each turn. For a game of 40 moves that makes a total of 1480 moves to consider, twice that much if you decide to consider your opponent's moves. It may not be enough for the computer (the computer has no such thought anyway) but it is plenty for my capabilities or yours. But if I understand you correctly you do belong to the Paul Bonham I-need-a-chance-to-win school, you need a game where luck plays a role and gives you a chance to win even against a computer. In that case chess is not for you.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

In chess there is an average of 37 moves to consider at each turn. For a game of 40 moves that makes a total of 1480 moves to consider, twice that much if you decide to consider your opponent's moves. It may not be enough for the computer (the computer has no such thought anyway) but it is plenty for my capabilities or yours. But if I understand you correctly you do belong to the Paul Bonham I-need-a-chance-to-win school, you need a game where luck plays a role and gives you a chance to win even against a computer. In that case chess is not for you.

1480 moves? a small underestimate. The number estimated in other sources for the number of possible games is of the order 10^123. e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number which is already large enough that we will not see a computer "solving" chess (not withstanding an earlier thread populated by believers in the possibilities of quantum computing).

What Kevin actually wants is a game that will be guaranteed that humans will be better than computers. I'm not sure that he realizes that a) that guarantee is probably not possible and b) if it were, that making the game more complicated might not be the solution. (complexity favours the computer). Perhaps he should try tic tac toe where I guarantee he can be at least as good as the computer.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

What Kevin actually wants is a game that will be guaranteed that humans will be better than computers. I'm not sure that he realizes that a) that guarantee is probably not possible and b) if it were, that making the game more complicated might not be the solution. (complexity favours the computer). Perhaps he should try tic tac toe where I guarantee he can be at least as good as the computer.

I realize a) (which is why in one post I speculated such a more complex variant might defy computer superiority for, say, decades, i.e. indefinitly), and I'm not so sure b) making a chess-like game more complicated than chess favours a computer - witness Shogi.

Perhaps Jean fails to recall that the rules of chess have changed every now and then over the centuries, for various reasons. Maybe he hopes that chess in its present form will remain the standard forever.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

...you need a game where luck plays a role and gives you a chance to win even against a computer. In that case chess is not for you.

Indeed, not for him, not for some other small minority of serious chess players, but most importantly, not for anyone who is outside the miniscule % of the general public who are serious (i.e. organized event) chess players.

And thus you blithely give organized standard chess a death sentence in regards to anything approaching mass popularity, mass media attention, large sponsorships, professional careers for more than the absolute elite.

But that's ok. There's more to chess than standard chess or chess960, and that's going to become very apparent very soon.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

Indeed, not for him, not for some other small minority of serious chess players, but most importantly, not for anyone who is outside the miniscule % of the general public who are serious (i.e. organized event) chess players.

And thus you blithely give organized standard chess a death sentence in regards to anything approaching mass popularity, mass media attention, large sponsorships, professional careers for more than the absolute elite.

But that's ok. There's more to chess than standard chess or chess960, and that's going to become very apparent very soon.

Neither Jean Hebert, nor Roger Patterson, nor the CFC, nor indeed FIDE itself ultimately shall decree that "chess is not for you" if you want to see an element of luck.

So who or what does decide whether luck, and the people who appreciate it, can be included in chess?

The marketplace: "The arena of competitive or commercial dealings; the world of trade".

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

I have argued before there is luck in chess already, simply because no one can forsee everything. It is not without reason that players wish each other good luck before a game.

Bridge is a game with a great deal of skill, but some undeniable degree of luck, that I don't mind saying I've played somewhat seriously. What contributes to its popularity is that ladies can team up with partners, and so don't feel so alone socially as in a typical chess tournament at present, at least in North America.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

Neither Jean Hebert, nor Roger Patterson, nor the CFC, nor indeed FIDE itself ultimately shall decree that "chess is not for you" if you want to see an element of luck.

So who or what does decide whether luck, and the people who appreciate it, can be included in chess?

The marketplace: "The arena of competitive or commercial dealings; the world of trade".

nor shall Paul Bonham tell me that I have to play whatever weird thing you think up or that I "have" to accept the introduction of luck nor shall you tell me I can't hang out with other people who feel the same way.

And indeed, if you want that element , chess and the group of people I associate with is in fact, not for you.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

nor shall Paul Bonham tell me that I have to play whatever weird thing you think up or that I "have" to accept the introduction of luck nor shall you tell me I can't hang out with other people who feel the same way.

Agree 100%. I've never tried to tell anyone any such thing.

And indeed, if you want that element , chess and the group of people I associate with is in fact, not for you.

Except that I might be imaginative enough to create a game in which predominantly chess skills are at play, and there is an element of luck added, and this game might prove so popular in the marketplace that those people who are the foundation of standard chess, the base of the pyramid -- and a huge number of other people outside the pyramid who would be associating with you if you weren't so exclusive as to ignore their preferences -- might flock to this new game because it allows for mass media coverage, allows for sponsorship and huge prize funds, allows for professional careers for the non-elite, allows them the possibility of 5 minutes of fame even if they didn't learn the game before the age of 3.

And the people you associate with? Well, I'm sure they are good people like yourself, and only if they tried to somehow undermine this movement would I have any ill feelings towards them.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Cham

Except that I might be imaginative enough to create a game in which predominantly chess skills are at play, and there is an element of luck added, and this game might prove so popular in the marketplace that those people who are the foundation of standard chess, the base of the pyramid might flock to this new game because it allows for mass media coverage, allows for sponsorship and huge prize funds, allows for professional careers for the non-elite, allows them the possibility of 5 minutes of fame even if they didn't learn the game before the age of 3.

The more you talk about this new game and the less I believe that you are actually working on it... but should you ever come up with a popular new game, I will give it a try...

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

1480 moves? a small underestimate. The number estimated in other sources for the number of possible games is of the order 10^123.

You are confusing two things. I am talking about the choices one has in one given position which is on average 37 (for example you have 20 choices on white's first move), not the amount of possible games. In one 40 move game, one has on average 37 choices per move.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

Perhaps Jean fails to recall that the rules of chess have changed every now and then over the centuries, for various reasons. Maybe he hopes that chess in its present form will remain the standard forever.

Chess has not changed in its basic rules for about 500 years. And I am convinced that it will remain so for at least another 500. Which will certainly not prevent some people to keep trying to reinvent it or mix it up with dices, cards or lego blocks, ultimately in vain. The brand is just too strong. It goes well beyond whims and fashion. It adapts remarquably well to social and technological changes. Computers far from killing chess are actually giving it a new life, even though it did not need one.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

Computers far from killing chess are actually giving it a new life, even though it did not need one.

Computers as a tool to communicate using Internet gave a new wave to chess popularity. Engines gave power to average people to spot 28xx mistakes :D There is no need to wait for a magazine to get scoresheets of just finished tournaments.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

I have any number of reasons for wanting a future replacement game/variant for chess to not be dominated by computer playing programs...

Kevin, if you really want a good, relatively simple replacement variant for standard chess, how about the one I proposed some months ago, Expedition Chess (link at bottom of this post).

Before I give the link, it basically says that anytime you want to move a Queen, Rook, or Bishop more than 1 square in any direction, this is the equivalent of sending that piece on an expedition (thus the name). In real life, expeditions during warfare often fail due to crossing enemy territory, or running out of supplies, or weather conditions, etc. So to emulate that, there is a chart provided showing the number of squares you are trying to move the piece (up to 7) and how many squares it actually gets to move. A roll of 2 dice indexes into the chart, giving you the result of your expedition.

So if you try and move a Queen 7 squares, you first roll 2 dice and the sum of the 2 dice indexes into the chart and tells you how many squares the Queen actually gets to move. If the index shows 4 squares then your Queen must make a move of 4 squares in the direction you specified. (I think in the original post, I said the Queen could make a move of any number of square up to 4, but I've changed it since then to be only the number of squares that the dice roll indicates).

Now, can you see the implications of all this? It would be generations before any computer program would have an inkling how to play this.

Every time you want to move Q/R/B more than 1 square, there's a risk. So in evaluating those moves, you look at what the position would look like if you could only move the Q 2 squares, or 3 squares, or 4 squares, etc.

There is an element of gambling here. For example: you see a chance to move a piece say 7 squares that if it succeeds leads to mate. If it can only move 2 to 5 squares nothing much changes, and if it should have to move only 1 square, that's a disaster. There are probabilities involved: the charts make it more likely that a 2-square move will succeed than a 3-square move, and the 3-square move is more likely to succeed than a 4-square move, etc.

You decide when to gamble, i.e. when to move a Q/B/R more than 1 square. So another thing this leads to is different styles of player: some will gamble a llot to try and secure a win, others will play more conservative and not launch too many expeditions.

Maybe I should have patented this game instead of the one I'm patenting but that itself would have been a gamble, perhaps too similar to regular chess. The one I am patenting is not anything similar to this.

So instead I've put Expedition Chess out there as something that could be a variant for those who don't want computers dominating play.


http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...ght=Expedition

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

Why do I feel this thread is being Highjacked?

Bob A