Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Thank you, Nigel! You are correct that move 9 should be 9. Nbc3, one of several good catches on your part.

Move 10 is technically not a typo, but a good recommendation. It's not technically a typo because the Rook that just castled cannot be moved again, but Rhe8 is still helpful.

I didn't catch 14... Kb8, that was a pretty bad oversight. To have typed 14... Kf1 doesn't make any sense.

With 20... Reel and 21... Rff2+, looks like I was trying to be too careful. All of these typos were actually written down wrong on our scoresheet, which I was keeping (I was playing someone who wishes to remain anonymous).

And the best one, I just typed it wrong, but it was written correctly. Move 24 should be 24. Kg5, Qgg7 . Don't fret, two pieces on the same square are not allowed!

The game ended at that point, Black resigned.

I wonder if you are the only one who played out the moves?

That was a good guess as to the restriction, but no, it has nothing to do with whatever a piece did on a previous move. I'll give a final hint before I give the answer in a few days: it has to do with NUMBERS and nothing else. But there is one twist involving any Knight move. For that, think about how any Knight move can be looked at in two different ways.

So it looks like the final scoresheet should read:

 1. d4			Nf6, e6 
 2. e4, Bd3 		Be7, d6 
 3. e5, f3 		Nd5, Nc6 
 4. c4, Ne2 		Nb6, Bd7 
 5. Bf4, a3 		f5 
 6. exf6ep, Qc2 	Bxf6 
 7. Bxh7 		Ne7, c6 
 8. Be4, Be3 		Qc7, d5 
 9. cxd5, Nbc3 		exd5, Be6 
10. Bd3, Rd1 		0-0-0, Rhe8 
11. h3, Kf2 ?!		g6, Bf5
12. g4, Bxf5 !?		Bh4+, Nxf5
13. Kf1, gxf5		Rxe3, Nc4
14. fxg6, Qf5+		Kb8, Rde8
15. Rg1, f4		Nxb2, Rf3+
16. Kg2, Rd2		Rf2+, Nc4
17. Kh1, Rdd1		Ne3, b6
18. g7, Qf8 ?!		Qd7, Kb7 ?!  (Rxf8, Be7 is better)
19. Rg6, Ng1		Bg3, Ng4 (threatening mate on h2)
20. Rxg4, Nf3		Re1, Rf1+ ?!
21. Kg2, Rxg3 ?!	Rf2+, Ref1
22. Rg4, Kg3		Rxf3+, Rf2
23. Kh4, g8=Q		Rxh3+, Rh2
24. Kg5, Qgg7  		Resigns, 1-0

Ok, here's the solution:

The variant is called Binary Chess. On any turn except White's first turn, the player to move may choose to move either one piece or two separate pieces. Your turn is not complete until you hit your clock, so after you've made one move, you may continue to think about a second piece move.

For each move of a piece, the number of squares the piece moves are counted. A pawn moving 2 squares on its initial move counts as 2 squares moved. A Bishop or Queen moving from one corner of the board to the other is a move of 7 squares. A Rook or Queen moving from one end or side of the board to the other is likewise a move of 7 squares.

Castling Queenside counts as 5 squares moved (2 by the King, 3 by the Rook). Kingside castling counts as 4 squares moved. Either one counts as a single-move, and you may complete your move by also moving one other piece, provided you meet the following limitations:

The two distinct piece moves you may make must together add up to 2, 4, or 8 squares moved. You may also elect not to even make a double-move, and if you do that, then your single single-move must be 1, 2, or 4 squares moved (there is no single-move that can be 8 squares moved).

In other words, the "total squares moved" count of your complete move must be either 1 square, 2 squares, 4 squares, or 8 squares. 1, 2, 4, and 8 are numbers that translate to a binary code with only 1 bit set, thus the name "Binary Chess".

Any Knight move may be counted as either 3 squares moved (L-shape move) or as 2 squares moved (a vertical or horizontal move of 1 square followed by a diagonal move of 1 square). This allows a single piece move of just a Knight, and it also allows a Knight move in combination with any pawn move.

Many possible double-moves are eliminated by this provision that the total squares moved in a double-move must total 2, 4 or 8. This makes planning for double-moves very challenging.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Wow. That`s obscure. They don`t even describe such a variant in the 64 issues of Chess Variant magazine nor on the introduction to Variant Chess on George Jelliss`s webpages. Where else have you seen it?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Wow. That`s obscure. They don`t even describe such a variant in the 64 issues of Chess Variant magazine nor on the introduction to Variant Chess on George Jelliss`s webpages. Where else have you seen it?

It is my own creation, although I never checked whether anyone else might have previously thought of it. The goal was to allow a choice of double- or single-move on any ply except White's first move, and yet not to allow every possible double-move, but to restrict the choices to something that could be easily calculated. What I think results is a game of fantastic creativity, and which would generally be limited to 40 moves or less to decide, and would rarely result in a draw. But obviously, more play would have to take place to prove this. If you're interested, I'd be happy to play some games by email.

But wait, I just realized, you're saying all these experienced variant creators haven't thought of it. Maybe I'm cheating! Ahhh, I must be using the Houdini Chess Variant toolkit, which transmits ideas into my ear canal. My Chess Variant Creation ELO Rating is an astronomical 3400!!! :D

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

It is my own creation, although I never checked ...

As long as you don't make up the rules as you go along, (Calvinball) that's fine. If you want to find out for sure whether your invention is actually unique, and not been done before, why not send George Jelliss an e mail and see? You DO want to know whether it's been done before, don't you?

Here is his variant chess webpage ....Variant Chess

and he can be reached at the Hastings Chess Club. His e mail is george DOT jelliss AT virgin DOT net. He is the web editor at that famous club.

Tell us how it goes.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

As long as you don't make up the rules as you go along, (Calvinball) that's fine. If you want to find out for sure whether your invention is actually unique, and not been done before, why not send George Jelliss an e mail and see? You DO want to know whether it's been done before, don't you?

Here is his variant chess webpage ....Variant Chess

and he can be reached at the Hastings Chess Club. His e mail is george DOT jelliss AT virgin DOT net. He is the web editor at that famous club.

Tell us how it goes.

Thank you, Nigel, I will reach out to him. But firstly, the answer to your question is no, I don't particularly care whether it's been done before. I mean, in the respect that I'm not looking for recognition. That isn't my motivation. I just enjoy thinking of chess variants, pure and simple.

And I do have a further motivation: to discover a simple yet effective variant that can be computer-engine resistant for decades into the future. You may not be aware, but I am working on a means by which chess players can play online without the fear of falling victim to a cheater who uses an engine.

All of this brouhaha over Borislav Ivanov and cheating in general is great for me as I further prepare to introduce my new way of playing chess. The actual chess portion will have to be Option Chess, Binary Chess, Kevin Pacey's Throne Chess, or most likely, a hybrid of all 3 of those.

For the combination of Option Chess with Binary Chess: each player will have N opportunities during a game to play double-moves instead of single moves. N for a full game might be 10 or 12, but full games are not what my new playing process will include. So N might be much smaller in that case.

The double-moves must conform to Binary Chess rules: the number of squares moved must total 2, 4, or 8, with Knight moves counting as either 2 or 3 squares moved. Whenever the option for a double-move is not exercised, the single-move must be a total of 1, 2 or 4 squares moved. This means Queenside castling, with 5 squares moved, must be part of a double-move option, where the castling itself counts as a single-move just as in standard chess.

But there's more to my project than just playing a new variant. I'm also focusing on adding some randomness so that skilled players don't always win and less-skilled players don't perpetually lose.

One reason I'm thinking of the combination of Binary and Option chess rules is a cute name possibility that combines Binary with Option: BiO Chess. Obviously, no engine or computer can play BiO Chess, and should such an engine be created, it will lag human abilities for decades at least. This gives the name BiO Chess a double meaning.

Not only will my version be way more fun AND financially rewarding for chess players, but it will shake the ultra-conservative organized chess world to its foundations. It simply has to happen. There will be no cheating to worry about for at least the rest of this century.

There's that old adage about the more things change the more they stay the same, but I still think this change is necessary and healthy, especially for the base of the chess pyramid.

And as I've written before, it isn't a case of war on standard chess. I love standard chess and want it to continue for those who love it for what it is.

[Kevin Pacey]

10x10 chess variants

I thought I'd show an idea/prototype for a 10x10 chess variant I've been playing around with, using/testing chesstalk's table coding capability to make a kind of diagram for the start position of the variant. My goal was to have a variant perhaps not too wildly different from standard chess, yet possibly capable of being computer-resistant as far as the number of legal moves available in a position typically might go. Note that in comparison to the popular 'Grand Chess' 10x10 variant the start position of my variant is perhaps a bit more orderly, given that there are no empty squares on either side's first or second rank. Also, note Fool's mate and a kind of Scholar's mate are still possible like in standard chess (and in the same number of moves):

Col a Col b Col c Col d Col e Col f Col g Col h Col i Col j     Col xx

 [C]  :[A]:  [S]  :[Z]:  [M]  :[M]:  [Z]  :[S]:  [A]  :[C]:       10

:[J]:  [R]  :[N]:  [B]  :[Q]:  [K]  :[B]:  [N]  :[R]:  [J]         9

 [P]  :[P]:  [P]  :[P]:  [P]  :[P]:  [P]  :[P]:  [P]  :[P]:        8

:::::       :::::       :::::       :::::       :::::              7

      :::::       :::::       :::::       :::::       :::::        6

:::::       :::::       :::::       :::::       :::::              5

      :::::       :::::       :::::       :::::       :::::        4

:(P):  (P)  :(P):  (P)  :(P):  (P)  :(P):  (P)  :(P):  (P)         3

 (J)  :(R):  (N)  :(B):  (Q)  :(K):  (B)  :(N):  (R)  :(J):        2

:(C):  (A)  :(S):  (Z)  :(M):  (M)  :(Z):  (S)  :(A):  (C)         1

In this variant 6 new types of pieces than in standard chess are introduced besides the standard 6 types:
Z = Amazon (moves like Q or N), a standard fairy chess piece idea;
C = Chancellor (moves like R or N), a standard fairy chess piece made famous by Capablanca Chess;
A = Archbishop (moves like B or N), a standard fairy chess piece made famous by Capablanca Chess;
S = Sailor (moves like R or K [without castling]), a piece from Shogi (promoted Rook, or 'Dragon', in that game);
M = Missionary (moves like B or K [without castling]), a piece from Shogi (promoted Bishop, or 'Horse', in that game);
J = Judge (moves like N or K [without castling]), my idea possibly, extrapolating from the other new piece types.

Castling may occur on the second rank between the king and either rook, otherwise as in standard chess. Pawns act standardly too, the only difference being that while they still promote on the last rank, any of the new types of pieces may be selected, besides piece types allowed in standard chess. Stalemate is a draw, like in standard chess.

An example game that might delight a beginner is one version of a Fool's mate: 1.Pg3-g5 Pf8-f7 2.Ph3-h5 Qe9-i5 mate.

A possible drawback to this variant of mine (maybe let's call it 'Sac Chess'!? - note the initials of the last three pieces on White's 1st rank :D) is that if one avoids blundering early, such as above, a typical game might be lengthy given that there's so many extra pieces and squares compared to standard chess, and a king is typically going to be well defended for a while, I'd guess. Testing may be required, if there is any interest.

[edit: In Sac Chess there can be a point to underpromoting to any other piece than an Amazon, except in some cases the only point could be to deliver mate sooner (or making the most valuable underpromoted piece), based on positions I've imagined so far - including for promoting to just a B or N. Also, smothered, or even back rank, mates are conceivable, though they would be rarer than in standard chess (Grand Chess would have a similar arguable drawback).]

For comparison, here's a link describing 'Grand Chess':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_chess

Note that 10x10 boards are already well in use for 'International Checkers' purposes, I gather. Comments?

[Kevin Pacey]

Four dimensional chess

In case my previous post didn't thrill, below is a cut & paste of another variant idea of mine that I just posted on my chesstalk blog, in case anyone wants to comment in this forum [edit: of late I can't edit my chesstalk blog entries (e.g. to put in the latest version of this post's diagram) for some reason]:


Here's an idea for a 4 dimensional chess game that can be played in two dimensions (using a computer program for it, a player could check if he is making a legal move, and whether it is mate or stalemate, for example). I call it 4Chess. It's based on a BASIC computer program I made for it in the 1980s, which took up less than 16K. I played a game of it with a friend, and it didn't take too long after a blunder, as we knew a 4Chess king and 4Chess queen vs. 4Chess king can win very quickly. Here's a sort of diagram for a possible start position of the 16 4x4 mini-boards the game is played on (sorry, not sure if the position is the same as I had long ago):

Col Col Col Col    Col Col Col Col    Col Col Col Col    Col Col Col Col     Col
 11  12  13  14     21  22  23  24     31  32  33  34     41  42  43  44     xxx

[B] [U] [U] [B]    [D] [U] [U] [D]    [D] [U] [U] [D]    [R] [U] [U] [K]     44
[P] [P] [P] [P]    [P] [P] [P] [P]    [P] [P] [P] [P]    [P] [P] [P] [P]     43
    :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::     42
:::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::         41


    :::     :::        :::     :::    [N] [D] [D] [N]    [R] [D] [D] [Q]     34
:::     :::        :::     :::        [P] [P] [P] [P]    [P] [P] [P] [P]     33
    :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::     32
:::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::         31


    :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::     24
:::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::         23
(P) (P) (P) (P)    (P) (P) (P) (P)        :::     :::        :::     :::     22
(Q) (D) (D) (R)    (N) (D) (D) (N)    :::     :::        :::     :::         21


    :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::     14
:::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::        :::     :::         13
(P) (P) (P) (P)    (P) (P) (P) (P)    (P) (P) (P) (P)    (P) (P) (P) (P)     12
(K) (U) (U) (R)    (D) (U) (U) (D)    (D) (U) (U) (D)    (B) (U) (U) (B)     11

In 4Chess, some extra special 3 and 4 dimensional moving pieces are introduced (these can move between the mini-boards as part of a move, i.e. 'co-ordinate' refers to a rank, file or mini-board number):
U=Unicorn - moves like a bishop except changes 3 co-ordinates as it moves (standard 3D fairy chess piece);
D=Balloon - moves like a bishop except changes 4 co-ordinates as it moves (standard 4D fairy chess piece);
B=4Chess Bishop - changes 2 coordinates as it moves;
R=4Chess Rook - changes 1 coordinate as it moves;
Q=4Chess Queen - moves like a 4Chess Bishop or 4 Chess Rook, or a Unicorn, or a Balloon;
K=4Chess King - moves like a 4Chess Queen, only one square/mini-board at a time (no castling);
N=4Chess Knight - changes 1 coordinate by 1 square and 1 coordinate by 2 squares;
P=4Chess Pawn - moves like a 4Chess rook (unless capturing) except only moves one square (or mini-board, same square) forward (rank or mini-board) at a time. If it is making a capture it moves like a 4Chess bishop, never retreating by rank or mini-board - promotion occurs on the last rank of the corner mini-board where the enemy king starts the game. There is no double step or en passant, and it is possible for a pawn to early on avoid being captured by an enemy pawn simply by moving to the last rank of a mini-board (except for the appropriate promotion mini-board).
Stalemate is a draw, as in Standard chess.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Thank you, Nigel, I will reach out to him. But firstly, the answer to your question is no, I don't particularly care whether it's been done before. I mean, in the respect that I'm not looking for recognition. That isn't my motivation. I just enjoy thinking of chess variants, pure and simple.

And I do have a further motivation: to discover a simple yet effective variant that can be computer-engine resistant for decades into the future. You may not be aware, but I am working on a means by which chess players can play online without the fear of falling victim to a cheater who uses an engine.

All of this brouhaha over Borislav Ivanov and cheating in general is great for me as I further prepare to introduce my new way of playing chess. The actual chess portion will have to be Option Chess, Binary Chess, Kevin Pacey's Throne Chess, or most likely, a hybrid of all 3 of those.

For the combination of Option Chess with Binary Chess: each player will have N opportunities during a game to play double-moves instead of single moves. N for a full game might be 10 or 12, but full games are not what my new playing process will include. So N might be much smaller in that case.

The double-moves must conform to Binary Chess rules: the number of squares moved must total 2, 4, or 8, with Knight moves counting as either 2 or 3 squares moved. Whenever the option for a double-move is not exercised, the single-move must be a total of 1, 2 or 4 squares moved. This means Queenside castling, with 5 squares moved, must be part of a double-move option, where the castling itself counts as a single-move just as in standard chess.

But there's more to my project than just playing a new variant. I'm also focusing on adding some randomness so that skilled players don't always win and less-skilled players don't perpetually lose.

One reason I'm thinking of the combination of Binary and Option chess rules is a cute name possibility that combines Binary with Option: BiO Chess. Obviously, no engine or computer can play BiO Chess, and should such an engine be created, it will lag human abilities for decades at least. This gives the name BiO Chess a double meaning.

Not only will my version be way more fun AND financially rewarding for chess players, but it will shake the ultra-conservative organized chess world to its foundations. It simply has to happen. There will be no cheating to worry about for at least the rest of this century.

There's that old adage about the more things change the more they stay the same, but I still think this change is necessary and healthy, especially for the base of the chess pyramid.

And as I've written before, it isn't a case of war on standard chess. I love standard chess and want it to continue for those who love it for what it is.

My last two posts of this thread were also put in my chesstalk blogs (with important corrections to my very last post, given as edits in this forum as well). I'm sort of putting these variants of mine 'out there' in case anyone wishes to run with them (even in a modified form). I'm not looking to make any profit from them (a perhaps unlikely event to invest resources in, for me), but if somehow they contribute to a viable replacement for standard chess someday (sadly, it's probably going to be required some day), that would be nice. My two variants of my previous last two posts attempt to resemble standard chess at least vaguely, yet introduce a level of complexity that hopefully may be computer-resistant for a long time. Both have a fixed starting position, so that opening study/books based on either may still be viable (largely unlike Chess960), and both of these variants have no obvious element of luck involved (other than their sheer complexity - a bit like standard chess), which could also still appeal to many (former?) standard chess players.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

My last two posts of this thread were also put in my chesstalk blogs (with important corrections to my very last post, given as edits in this forum as well). I'm sort of putting these variants of mine 'out there' in case anyone wishes to run with them (even in a modified form). I'm not looking to make any profit from them (a perhaps unlikely event to invest resources in, for me), but if somehow they contribute to a viable replacement for standard chess someday (sadly, its probably going to be required some day), that would be nice. My two variants of my previous last two posts attempt to resemble standard chess at least vaguely, yet introduce a level of complexity that hopefully may be computer-resistant for a long time. Both have a fixed starting position, so that opening study/books based on either may still be viable (largely unlike Chess960), and both of these variants have no obvious element of luck involved (other than their sheer complexity - a bit like standard chess), which could also still appeal to many (former?) standard chess players.

Hi Kevin,

I think any 10 x 10 variant is just too overwhelming for mass acceptance, although I commend you for your own perseverance in trying them out.

A great example of how a variant can be just too overwhelming is Seirawan Chess, otherwise known as S-Chess. As you probably know, S-Chess brought 2 new piece types into a regular 8 x 8 chess board: one type combines Rook and Knight, and the other combines Bishop and Knight. These new pieces come onto the board only AFTER other pieces have vacated their start squares.

Although many people did take to this variant, it has never really caught on in a big way. The reason IMO is that these two new pieces simply have too many possible moves, making it almost impossible to envision strategy or even tactics. And on your 10 x 10 board with 6 extra pieces, wow, it would take centuries for any kind of strategy to develop.

Plus, it should be noted you're adding 2 new pieces for each player that are EACH more powerful than the Queen. Tactics are going to rule the day, and if super-GMs are missing simple winning moves now, who on Earth is going to master tactics in this game?

But I see that you have envisioned three combination pieces that I am a big fan of: Bishop and King, Knight and King, and Rook and King. These combinations are very much easier to visualize when calculating moves over the board.

So if you take these 3 pieces, and introduce them just as S-Chess does by placing them on an 8 x 8 board after moving an original piece from its start square, then I think there is real potential for mass acceptance there.

My own Seirawan Chess-like variant actually does away with the Rook-and-King combination piece. So each player has 2 pieces to bring onto the 8 x 8 board: the Archbishop (moves like Bishop and King) and the Champion (moves like Knight and King). Note how this naming is in harmony with the names of the existing pieces. The Archbishop is simply a more powerful Bishop. The Champion is the most powerful Knight. There is one of each, and pawns cannot promote to either of them. Neither is more powerful than the Queen. And as you noted for your pieces, the King-move capability does NOT include castling.

Also, to make these pieces, you don't need whole new physical pieces. The Archbishop can be a Bishop with it's top painted gold. The Champion can be a Knight with a red cross or shield painted on its flanks.

(My name for this variant is Full Court Chess, because these new pieces fill out the Royal Court... well, not quite, a Jester is still needed!)

I wish THIS is what Yasser Seirawan and Bruce Harper had done with S-Chess, because if they had, I believe this would have developed mass acceptance by now. It wouldn't have been so overwhelmingly complex. It's very easy to visualize the moves of the Archbishop and the Champion, and to strategize once they are on the board.

If it's computer engine resistance you're after, there's better ways than to dramatically increase possible moves on each ply. Instead, introduce limited resource elements that can be used at any time during a game from the 9th ply onward, and leave it to the judgment of the player whether to use them up quickly or save them for the endgame. A computer engine programmer would have to introduce AI techniques to handle this. Engine programmers are only familiar with brute force and speed techniques, not AI techniques. It would take decades for this to be done effectively, and even then, the engines would only be among the best players in the world, not head and shoulders above them as is the case now.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Variants and some ideas of where to start looking at them for those interested

Hi Kevin, ... I think any 10 x 10 variant is just too overwhelming for mass acceptance, although I commend you for your own perseverance in trying them out.

The other thing is that with variants a person has invented or modified on their own, promotion of a variant might seem just like self-promotion to others (unless your name is Bobby Fischer). There have been a lot of variants invented and a few experts have tried to systematize them over the years, developing standard rules, and so on.

See Variant Chess Magazine, which was published over 20 years from 1990-2010;

British Chess Variants Society ... they published the Chess Variants magazine and their page includes a very helpful index of the ToC for all the issues, includind Circe, Shogi, and Chinese chess-like games;

George Jelliss' introduction to Simple Chess Variants, a great place to start for those interested in understanding the rich variety of variants that exist (this is a .pdf file).

In his article, Jelliss helpfully introduces the field in which he covers: varieties of orthodox chess; new opening positions; movement variants; capture variants; pawn variants; alternative pieces; King and check variants; and combined variants. It's probably helpful to organize one's thinking about variants, especially for those interested in problem composition, to ensure that one finds all the already existing variants of personal interest. Which leads me to note that the world of heterodox problems is also another way into the world of chess variants.

For really, really serious students of Chess Variants, I recommend the following author:

D. B. Pritchard (1919-2005)

The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants (1994)
The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants (2007)
interview with D. Pritchard (includes his views on what makes a good variant, and why, and so on)

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Hi Kevin,

I think any 10 x 10 variant is just too overwhelming for mass acceptance, although I commend you for your own perseverance in trying them out.

A great example of how a variant can be just too overwhelming is Seirawan Chess, otherwise known as S-Chess. As you probably know, S-Chess brought 2 new piece types into a regular 8 x 8 chess board: one type combines Rook and Knight, and the other combines Bishop and Knight. These new pieces come onto the board only AFTER other pieces have vacated their start squares.

Although many people did take to this variant, it has never really caught on in a big way. The reason IMO is that these two new pieces simply have too many possible moves, making it almost impossible to envision strategy or even tactics. And on your 10 x 10 board with 6 extra pieces, wow, it would take centuries for any kind of strategy to develop.

Plus, it should be noted you're adding 2 new pieces for each player that are EACH more powerful than the Queen. Tactics are going to rule the day, and if super-GMs are missing simple winning moves now, who on Earth is going to master tactics in this game?.

Hi Paul

Middle Shogi (you possibly have heard of it, as a game designer) is about the only variant of regular Shogi that has any considerable following, at least in Japan, I gather. Although it doesn't have any drops like in regular Shogi, it is played on a larger board, with even more pieces than in my 10x10 chess variant (although my variant has quite a number of more powerful pieces on the whole, I would guess, based on recollection). The two most powerful pieces in the start position of my 10x10 Sac Chess variant (the Amazons) I added simply to help completely fill in each sides' first two ranks (the gaps left in Grand Chess, for example, would look less picturesque on a 10x10 coffee table set in the average person's home, if my 10x10 variant ever becomes popular). I put in two Amazons plus a Queen rather than two Queens plus an Amazon in the start position so that some semblance of tradition is kept, with a King matched with only one Queen, at least to start with. If it takes centuries to develop stategy and tactics, well, that's what it took for standard chess (after the current basic rules were adopted centuries ago). Now that much of that is old hat for standard chess, well, that's responsible for at least some of the existing discontentment with (standard) chess.

Great complexity could be an attraction, even fun, for at least some people, with the bonus that it'll more than ever likely take more than one mistake to lose the game. However I see your concern with complexity. For one thing I had to revise the diagram again for my four dimensional variant, as I had overlooked possible piece exchanges or early strong double attacks on move one in previous attempts at it. I no longer have a computer program to test or play 4Chess with, and just seeing possible one move threats is a challenge/fun. Like chess itself, it could (and maybe should) be played via the internet. Other 5x5x5x5 versions of 4D chess are out there, even, but a game might take even longer, and 4Chess would also be less of a challenge to do diagrams for in a book, if it was ever to be studied.

But I see that you have envisioned three combination pieces that I am a big fan of: Bishop and King, Knight and King, and Rook and King. These combinations are very much easier to visualize when calculating moves over the board.

So if you take these 3 pieces, and introduce them just as S-Chess does by placing them on an 8 x 8 board after moving an original piece from its start square, then I think there is real potential for mass acceptance there.

My own Seirawan Chess-like variant actually does away with the Rook-and-King combination piece. So each player has 2 pieces to bring onto the 8 x 8 board: the Archbishop (moves like Bishop and King) and the Champion (moves like Knight and King). Note how this naming is in harmony with the names of the existing pieces. The Archbishop is simply a more powerful Bishop. The Champion is the most powerful Knight. There is one of each, and pawns cannot promote to either of them. Neither is more powerful than the Queen. And as you noted for your pieces, the King-move capability does NOT include castling.

Also, to make these pieces, you don't need whole new physical pieces. The Archbishop can be a Bishop with it's top painted gold. The Champion can be a Knight with a red cross or shield painted on its flanks.

(My name for this variant is Full Court Chess, because these new pieces fill out the Royal Court... well, not quite, a Jester is still needed!)

I wish THIS is what Yasser Seirawan and Bruce Harper had done with S-Chess, because if they had, I believe this would have developed mass acceptance by now. It wouldn't have been so overwhelmingly complex. It's very easy to visualize the moves of the Archbishop and the Champion, and to strategize once they are on the board.

Not completely sure why you excluded a Rook+King powers piece (what I called a 'Sailor', actually a Shogi 'Dragon'), to complete the addition to your Full Court Chess variant of all three extra types of king-moving pieces that you mentioned, other than perhaps so that a player wouldn't want to take the time to drop three pieces onto his back rank at some point, rather than just two pieces over the course of the game.

If it's computer engine resistance you're after, there's better ways than to dramatically increase possible moves on each ply. Instead, introduce limited resource elements that can be used at any time during a game from the 9th ply onward, and leave it to the judgment of the player whether to use them up quickly or save them for the endgame. A computer engine programmer would have to introduce AI techniques to handle this. Engine programmers are only familiar with brute force and speed techniques, not AI techniques. It would take decades for this to be done effectively, and even then, the engines would only be among the best players in the world, not head and shoulders above them as is the case now.

I don't exactly get what you mean by 'limited resource elements' (a game designer term?), but maybe in some form they are an important part of your to-be-released mystery blockbuster chess variant, so I won't request a good example if it would give away a secret.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Middle Shogi (you possibly have heard of it, as a game designer) is about the only variant of regular Shogi that has any considerable following, at least in Japan, I gather. Although it doesn't have any drops like in regular Shogi, it is played on a larger board, with even more pieces than in my 10x10 chess variant (although my variant has quite a number of more powerful pieces on the whole, I would guess, based on recollection). The two most powerful pieces in the start position of my 10x10 Sac Chess variant (the Amazons) I added simply to help completely fill in each sides' first two ranks (the gaps left in Grand Chess, for example, would look less picturesque on a 10x10 coffee table set in the average person's home, if my 10x10 variant ever becomes popular). I put in two Amazons plus a Queen rather than two Queens plus an Amazon in the start position so that some semblance of tradition is kept, with a King matched with only one Queen, at least to start with. If it takes centuries to develop stategy and tactics, well, that's what it took for standard chess (after the current basic rules were adopted centuries ago). Now that much of that is old hat for standard chess, well, that's responsible for at least some of the existing discontentment with (standard) chess.

Great complexity could be an attraction, even fun, for at least some people, with the bonus that it'll more than ever likely take more than one mistake to lose the game. However I see your concern with complexity. For one thing I had to revise the diagram again for my four dimensional variant, as I had overlooked possible piece exchanges or early strong double attacks on move one in previous attempts at it. I no longer have a computer program to test or play 4Chess with, and just seeing possible one move threats is a challenge/fun. Like chess itself, it could (and maybe should) be played via the internet. Other 5x5x5x5 versions of 4D chess are out there, even, but a game might take even longer, and 4Chess would also be less of a challenge to do diagrams for in a book, if it was ever to be studied.

Yes, great complexity can be an attraction for some. I was not being critical of that. What I meant was, when the time and need comes for standard chess players worldwide to "vote" on a replacement for the current version, they will not move en masse to these 10 x 10 variants with 30 or so pieces per side. A lot of people thought chess960 would rapidly rise to challenge standard chess, but there has been revolt against the complex castling rules and the fact that some start positions seem to not have the inherent equality of the standard starting position. And so even today, serious chess960 tournaments are nowhere to be found.

Yes, chess strategy was hard to fathom centuries ago, but that was then and this is now. In today's world, I tend to think the players want to get some immediate sense of strategic concepts for a new game. Nobody AFAIK is seriously playing the 3D Chess of Star Trek fame, probably because there's no immediate sense of strategic concepts. If you want another good example that could have broken the 3-way tie in the Gibraltar Chess Festival that saw Ivanchuk lose out on first place money (see the thread http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...-Festival-2014 ), there's this game that could have done the trick, but do you think the players would have agreed to play it?
http://www.3manchess.com/

Not completely sure why you excluded a Rook+King powers piece (what I called a 'Sailor', actually a Shogi 'Dragon'), to complete the addition to your Full Court Chess variant of all three extra types of king-moving pieces that you mentioned, other than perhaps so that a player wouldn't want to take the time to drop three pieces onto his back rank at some point, rather than just two pieces over the course of the game.

My thinking was again not to overload the board with powerful pieces that would make it harder to develop strategy. Once each player has placed 3 new pieces each on the board, that's crowding the board with 38 total pieces, leaving only 26 empty squares.

Also, introducing lots of powerful pieces can have a contradictory effect. When all one needs is a draw, one could use all that power to simply create a "fortress" around their king, leaving the opponent to try and find some magical combo to break through.

So I decided to only introduce 2 new pieces per side, and the Archbishop and Champion seemed the most natural. However, I did think of a name for the Rook-and-King combo piece: the Wizard... fitting since the Wizard is usually thought of as up in the highest tower of the castle (or at least that's the image I always have of a Wizard in those times).

I don't exactly get what you mean by 'limited resource elements' (a game designer term?), but maybe in some form they are an important part of your to-be-released mystery blockbuster chess variant, so I won't request a good example if it would give away a secret.

No, that isn't a special term. I posted about it a while ago, it might even have been in this thread... not sure. But basically it's an idea I got from watching NFL football. There's two limited resources that NFL coaches have in the course of a game: time outs and challenge flags. There are 3 time outs per team per half, not sure how many challenge flags (which are used to dispute an official ruling on the field). But both resources need to be used judiciously. It's good to have the time outs near the end of each half in case you need to plan special plays to score points, but it might also be good to use one or two during important drives down the field in the 1st or 3rd quarters. The coach usually makes these decisions.

In chess, an example of a limited resource that could be granted each player is a double move. Say 10 or 12 double moves allowed per game for each player starting from the 9th move on, where the first move of such a double move may not give check nor capture material (I outlined the complete restrictions in my earlier post, if you're interested, I can look it up).

A chess engine author would have real trouble with this. As soon as you tell the program 2 moves are available, it will "want" to use them immediately. What heuristics does the author use to instruct the program whether to use a double move or to instead pass and hold onto them, especially since like NFL time outs, double moves will have a more pronounced effect (generally speaking) in the endgame? This is an AI programming problem, not a brute force or memory / CPU optimization problem. And no matter what heuristics they use, it won't have the same all-encompassing benefit that a boost in speed or memory optimization would have in standard chess. The heuristics will help in some cases, and hurt in others.

But humans seem to have an intuition as to this kind of problem. Humans recognize patterns much better than computers ever will IMO -- not that computers CAN'T do it, but they can't match humans in this respect. Will they ever? I believe that is decades away at least, probably a century or more assuming current technological trends and assuming humans are even still around in a century.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Regarding possible strategic ideas in any chess variant, in Shogi (a game more tactical than strategic IMHO, perhaps almost the opposite of Go, again IMHO [edit: IMHO chess has more of a balance of tactics and strategy than either game]) there is the strategic concept of good or bad 'shape'. This is based on whether pieces protect each other or not. This is a not altogether completely well known strategic principle in chess (similar to any number of such principles in Go) too, for example [edit: long ago, now retired Toronto FM Robert Morrison told me of his 'stickiness' principle when assessing positions with pieces+pawns vs. queen - it's important that the side with the extra pieces and pawns largely 'stick together', i.e. protect each other]. Yet, Shogi (like Go) is a very complex game, normally with more legal moves available on a given turn than in chess. Btw, as far as computer 'mastery' of board games goes (in order of not being very computer resistant) there is 8x8 checkers (solved, though no sophisticated playing program outplays a world champ consistently afaik, as this is simply a neglected task), then there is standard (8x8) chess (even commercially available programs stronger than best human). Then there is (regular) Shogi (programs not quite yet able to beat world's best human, but near top tier, I seem to recall), and then there is (regular 19x19) Go (programs are strong, but not yet near top tier, I recall).

All this is thanks to the relative complexity of each game that I just mentioned. Your idea of 'limited resource elements' as a way to introduce (limited!?) complexity is intriguing, if such element(s) could seem natural to any chess variant they were introduced as part of. The example of double move(s), with restrictions, may or may not seem natural to some (most people, I would guess, may prefer strictly alternating moves in any sort of game - I once played a card game where a player could take more than one turn in a row, depending on a certain condition, and the other players, who were a bit older than me, never wished to play it again). The idea of some sort of limited 'drop(s)' like in Shogi, S-Chess or your Full Court Chess might appeal to more folks, depending on the variant/game as a whole, although, depending on the rules, limited drops might not qualify for what you mean by 'limited resource elements'. Btw, there is already a piece called a 'Wizard' in a quasi-10x10 chess variant (with 4 extra corners added diagonally to each corner of a 10x10 chess board), invented by a Canadian. Maybe there is a 'Wizard' piece in other variants as well, although I don't know if there may be any patent restrictions on the name of 1 or more such fairy chess pieces.

[edit: As an aside, I personally don't care that much if a variant develops great popularity only in a relatively short period of time (i.e. in less than decades, if not centuries [though I'd prefer to be alive to know about it]), so long as I have at least some opponents available locally (or at least in cities in my part of the world). In my altruistic spirit, I'm not too interested in making a profit from the creation of a chess variant that's eventually successfully spead far and wide, though in my competitive spirit, I would feel less indifferent competing in a cash prize event based on it - hope that doesn't seem too inconsistent. However, I can see that with the internet, if something isn't popular quickly these days, it possibly/likely may not ever become popular.]

P.S. : as an aside to Nigel H., I haven't yet closely checked the links of your last post, but I'm wondering if you know offhand whether any/most of these authorities on chess variants (e.g. Pritchard, who died back in 2005) rate the relative computer-resistance of a chess variant as being very significant. I know I certainly do (to try to minimize the effectiveness of any computer-assisted cheating, and to try to keep humans ranked above computers as long as possible, in a given variant of chess). Also, I'm still hoping that any successful variant (that's not mainly restricted to the internet or being played on a computer, like 4Chess might ever be, if it doesn't remain obscure, to put it mildly), whatever it is, can still fit on someone's coffee table and look nice, at least if as a decorative version of a set.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

[edit: As an aside, I personally don't care that much if a variant develops great popularity only in a relatively short period of time (i.e. in less than decades, if not centuries [though I'd prefer to be alive to know about it]), so long as I have at least some opponents available locally (or at least in cities in my part of the world). In my altruistic spirit, I'm not too interested in making a profit from the creation of a chess variant that's eventually successfully spead far and wide, though in my competitive spirit, I would feel less indifferent competing in a cash prize event based on it - hope that doesn't seem too inconsistent. However, I can see that with the internet, if something isn't popular quickly these days, it possibly/likely may not ever become popular.]

P.S. : as an aside to Nigel H., I haven't yet closely checked the links of your last post, but I'm wondering if you know offhand whether any/most of these authorities on chess variants (e.g. Pritchett, who died back in 2005) rate the relative computer-resistance of a chess variant as being very significant. I know I certainly do (to try to minimize the effectiveness of any computer-assisted cheating, and to try to keep humans ranked above computers as long as possible, in a given variant of chess). Also, I'm still hoping that any successful variant (that's not mainly restricted to the internet or being played on a computer, like 4Chess might ever be, if it doesn't remain obscure, to put it mildly), whatever it is, can still fit on someone's coffee table and look nice, at least if as a decorative version of a set.

Popularity and the ability to find opponents seems important to Pritchard. He seemed to be of the opinion that not computer play per se but rather just the internet could be the means to popularize chess variants generally.

I think that the Internet will inevitably introduce chess to more players but I foresee chess variants, because of their novelty, benefiting in particular from publicity on the net. I expect variants to gain more and more adherents in the future.

He had a dislike for "over-complicated variants on large or distorted boards" and characterized good variants as having the following attributes:

Originality, simple rules, strategical/tactical variety, incisive play (no tedious sequences), signposts (so players are able to plan several moves ahead)

Finally, he looked forward to a future devoid of the indifference, or even hostility, of orthodox chess players towards variants (it's worth reminding ourselves that different time controls are already chess variants) and said the following:

Yes: I think that eventually some form of international authority for chess variants will be formed if only to regulate international events, but not until variants have gained much wider appeal. In this respect, I believe the Internet may be the means of achieving this.

We already see chess players more comfortable with the digital image of a chess board rather than the real thing. This is one of the results of computer/internet chess. I hope Pritchard was right; chess will then become the centerpiece of a collection or family of games and, in time, Hermann Hesse's Magister Ludi might just become reality.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Popularity and the ability to find opponents seems important to Pritchard. He seemed to be of the opinion that not computer play per se but rather just the internet could be the means to popularize chess variants generally.

I think I agree with this view, and, perhaps except for very large board variants, above all I'd like to see over-the-board popularity happen for any variant(s) that appeal to me, of course (though like I said, I can be somewhat patient about a variant that's unpopular most everywhere but locally).

He had a dislike for "over-complicated variants on large or distorted boards" and characterized good variants as having the following attributes:

Originality, simple rules, strategical/tactical variety, incisive play (no tedious sequences), signposts (so players are able to plan several moves ahead))

I'm not fond of the idea of playing variants that might typically take a huge number of moves to finish a game. Such as might happen on a very large board (nevermind if such a variant is too complex), although I don't expect this to be the case with my otherwise fairly complex game of 4Chess (that otherwise has relatively simple rules), which uses sixteen 4x4 boards. Otherwise, a 10x10 board seems a reasonable idea for a desirable size limit for variants that can even be played or displayed in a home without using a computer, besides in a tournament hall. On the other hand, regular (19x19) Go (that fortunately uses much smaller playing pieces, or 'stones', plus intersecting lines rather than squares), which I kind of like, takes a lot of moves to play in a typical game. One Go player remarked to me that chess is a battle, Go is a war - on the other hand, I have trouble imagining a 5 minute speed game of 19x19 Go, especially if not played on a computer :).

I think I normally don't entirely like distorted boards (nevermind if for a complicated variant), although I played Hexagonal chess for a short period, until I lacked opponents (otherwise that variant's board is not too badly distorted IMHO, since it has a lot of symmetry). I agree with having relatively simple rules and having at least some varied strategy possible. I don't know yet how my 4Chess or Sac Chess variants given in this thread fulfill the latter criteria. I also agree with having varied tactics and often having incisive play (i.e. sharp sequences where indifferent play won't suffice) possible (plus no tedious sequences being obliged often, at least in terms of having plenty of possible playable openings). Still, virtually above all else, I yearn for 2 player computer resistant variant(s) that are/is very popular.

I agree in at least one respect with having 'signposts' available (in a sense, in that I am not currently a fan of chess960, although that's only due to its opening theory being unlikely to be even remotely built up) but on the other hand Double Chess is a popular variant, at least in Canada. Its main defects IMHO are that the two chess clocks can often take on decisive importance (e.g. if at least one side has a player that is 'forced' not to move due to an impending checkmate against him), and having 4 players rather than just 2 is desirable. My point is, although there appears to be 'signposts' in Double Chess, looking more than a quite small number of moves ahead (as far as I can tell as a relative patzer at the game) doesn't seem to happen that much. That's unless the flow of pieces to 'drop' is interrupted, say by one's partner being 'forced' not to move. This seeming lack of needing to often look even remotely deeply ahead I don't really mind. Also, Double Chess is not entirely that 'original' (another of Pritchard's criteria) when compared to standard chess, perhaps, especially since the idea of 'drops' already existed (i.e. in Shogi), although it perhaps combines such existing game ideas in an original way.

Finally, he looked forward to a future devoid of the indifference, or even hostility, of orthodox chess players towards variants (it's worth reminding ourselves that different time controls are already chess variants) and said the following:

Yes: I think that eventually some form of international authority for chess variants will be formed if only to regulate international events, but not until variants have gained much wider appeal. In this respect, I believe the Internet may be the means of achieving this.

As far as differing time controls are concerned, these are more or less uniform for typical tournaments (or else slower TCs for more serious events), whereas speed or active chess time controls seem less popular for use in remotely serious (i.e. cash prize) events. Speed chess still remains largely for recreational purposes, I suppose. Active time controls seem to me to be an unhappy medium, in terms of not gaining too much in popularity for recreational or serious use. So, as is analagous for chess variants, there is currently quite a bit of indifference for taking fast TCs for over-the-board events that seriously, IMHO. That's even with the internet being with us for quite a few years now, as far as variants or fast TCs are concerned.

FIDE, I assume, may be ready to step in to offer its governance or grant affilliation the day any given chess variant(s) become(s) quite popular. I may be recalling incorrectly, but organized international correspondence chess has ties with FIDE, for example. Chess960 rules are already included in FIDEs files. The real problem is finding enough committed organizers and players for any given variant(s). I play a number of Oriental board games with friends now and then locally, for example, but these games are popular mainly in the Orient, and there is a shortage of people willing to try out or organize such currently relatively unpopular games (for North America), even though they are well established and organized in the Orient. The internet has not increased over-the-board participation in such Oriental games here, afaik, but at least my friends and I can play online whenever we wish, and yet we crave for face-to-face contests, and perhaps cash prize events when we are not enjoying the sensations of a cafe or bar...

We already see chess players more comfortable with the digital image of a chess board rather than the real thing. This is one of the results of computer/internet chess...

Alas, I don't think the internet has made over-the-board organized chess more popular, at least in Canada.