If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Something I'm wondering about is if progressive chess (White moves once, Black moves twice, White moves three times, etc.) is in the least computer-resistant. Perhaps someone knows how good computer programs may be at it, if any have been written with a view to computers championing the game over people.
Here's a link, which included more than one recognized version of this variant:
Bringing up an old thread for an update by me......
Kevin, if you are getting so many views on your 10x10 variant, perhaps you should include some means for feedback. Leave an email address where those looking at the rules can comment. Getting lots of views doesn't by itself mean a whole lot.
I'm writing to give you an update on my Full Court Chess variant. That's the one that is modeled after S-Chess. There are 2 extra pieces (per side) that do not come onto the board until after other pieces have vacated their start squares. The update is that I have recorded some games played by fairly strong chess players, and I'm going to include here the moves of one of those games.
But first, a refresher: White and Black each get 2 extra pieces: the Champion (denoted as 'C' and represented on the board by an extra Knight, but with a bright red cross on its flanks which could be either drawn or painted on or drawn on a white sticker which is then affixed to the flanks) and the ArchBishop (denoted as 'A' and represented on the board by a Bishop with its top painted gold or bright yellow). Of course, you are free to represent these pieces any way you like if you actually want to play through this game.
The Champion moves just like a Knight, with the additional moves of a King. It is dropped onto either b1 or g1 (for White), b8 or g8 (for Black) and that constitutes a player's move.
The ArchBishop moves just like a Bishop, with the additional moves of a King. It is dropped onto either c1 or f1 (for White), c8 or f8 (for Black), and that constitutes a player's move.
I made an additional rule that these pieces cannot be placed on the board until Black's 8th move has been completed. This allows normal openings to be played before the new pieces make their appearance. One can wait until the middlegame or even the endgame to bring them onto the board if one likes. An advantage of waiting until the middlegame might be to prevent congestion in the opening and early middlegame phases, at the risk of getting overpowered. Only time will tell how well that tradeoff might work.
There is also a rule that if you wish a Pawn to promote to either a Champion or an ArchBishop, you cannot already have one on the board; that is, there can only be 1 Champion and 1 ArchBishop for each side at any one time.
In terms of chess diagrams, what I did was to modify the standard chess fonts. I drew a shield on the flank of each Knight, and inside the shield is a cross, and this signifies the Champion. For the Bishop, I removed the cross in the middle to signify Bishop, and then the font with the cross in the middle is the ArchBishop.
So here it is, a game of Full Court Chess that goes 74 moves before ending drawn. It's not the most exciting game possible in FC Chess, but there were some complicated positions that could be analyzed:
I'm reluctant to provide my email address on my CFC Discussion Board blog in case, for example, there's a deluge of inquiries. At least people registered on the CFC Discussion board can leave a comment to any blog, if they wish. To try to further put things in perspective, my most popular chesstalk blog (on what I thought was a repertoire suitable for Super-GM play) has received only slightly more than three times as many views as my 10x10 Chess Variants CFC Discussion Board blog. The former has been on chesstalk about eight months longer than the latter has been on the CFC Discussion Board (again, almost a year). It may not mean that my 'Sac Chess' variant is well thought of, but as I alluded to earlier, it seems significant numbers of people are indeed checking out 10x10 variants.
[edit: I've noticed on a Google Search I just did that the search result for my '10x10 Chess Variants' blog entry also shows the overall title for all my CFC Discussion Board blog entries, namely: 'Games, analysis and discussion'. An inadvertently somewhat slightly misleading search result that no doubt contributed to the popularity of my blog entry, but also may have somewhat disappointed my blog's viewers.]
It's interesting a game of your Full Court Chess went 74 moves. I'm wondering if anyone has an idea how long an average game of S-Chess takes. From my table of estimated relative piece values from my last long post above, I'd guess your two dropped pieces are only slightly less powerful than S-Chess's two dropped pieces respectively, though as I seem to recall you thought their moves were easier to visualize than for the two S-Chess pieces. Personally I think I'd prefer Double Chess or Shogi (Japanese Chess) when it comes to drops in any case, if drops are going to be used at all: why not go all the way and let the pieces (and players) have a field day?
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Tuesday, 27th January, 2015, 07:31 PM.
Reason: Grammar
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Discovered quadruple check and checkmate. Or is that double double checkmate?
Of course, neither King is checkmated by himself. But, since both pieces cannot be moved at the same time, it IS checkmate. The twin double checks are just ... over kill.
I thought I'd share a link that Nigel seems to have used, which shows how to produce diagrams for boards of various sizes, along with capability to show letters or numbers on squares... however it seems not to be able to show fairy (i.e. rotated) pieces as it is supposed to be able to do (at least on chesstalk or the CFC discussion board), which is a little disappointing.
For example, I've produced a diagram for the start position of my 10x10 Sac Chess variant, using letters for the six extra types of pieces introduced:
I've been attempting to make a chess variant that includes a kind of neutral piece or pawn (such are used in fairy chess problems, at least). My first effort disappointed me, not least since it is little different than standard chess, but since it does have the 'merits' of avoiding existing opening theory and perhaps reduces White's birthright initiative in the starting position in standard chess, I thought I'd share it. At times the variant may favour the weaker player, too, since draws by repetition are slightly more possible than before. The variant seemed lame enough to me that it inspired me to call it Lame Chess. :D Perhaps someone can improve upon it with a modified or different idea that uses neutral pieces or pawns. Anyway, I thought I'd show on chesstalk what a neutral pawn looks like in a diagram, too.
The four neutral pawns on a4,a5,h4 and h5 have the properties that on one's turn, they can be moved as if they were one's own pawns, or captured as if they were enemy pawns. A repetition of moves thus may occur by the players pushing a given pawn back and forth to the square the opponent just moved it from, i.e. if it was moved forward one square on the same file by the opponent last move. If a neutral pawn reaches a player's second rank, he may push it forward in a double-step, however. If a neutral pawn ever is allowed to promote, it promotes to a piece of one's own colour.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I've been attempting to make a chess variant that includes a kind of neutral piece or pawn (such are used in fairy chess problems, at least). My first effort disappointed me, not least since it is little different than standard chess, but since it does have the 'merits' of avoiding existing opening theory and perhaps reduces White's birthright initiative in the starting position in standard chess, I thought I'd share it. At times the variant may favour the weaker player, too, since draws by repetition are slightly more possible than before. The variant seemed lame enough to me that it inspired me to call it Lame Chess. :D Perhaps someone can improve upon it with a modified or different idea that uses neutral pieces or pawns. Anyway, I thought I'd show on chesstalk what a neutral pawn looks like in a diagram, too.
The four neutral pawns on a4,a5,h4 and h5 have the properties that on one's turn, they can be moved as if they were one's own pawns, or captured as if they were enemy pawns. A repetition of moves thus may occur by the players pushing a given pawn back and forth to the square the opponent just moved it from, i.e. if it was moved forward one square on the same file by the opponent last move. If a neutral pawn reaches a player's second rank, he may push it forward in a double-step, however. If a neutral pawn ever is allowed to promote, it promotes to a piece of one's own colour.
I'm curious if a game is playable if the neutral pawns re on c4-c5, f4-f5. And what if they were solid objects, pegs, that could not be moved or captured, pieces had to go around them? Regular opening lines would no longer work.
I'm curious if a game is playable if the neutral pawns re on c4-c5, f4-f5. And what if they were solid objects, pegs, that could not be moved or captured, pieces had to go around them? Regular opening lines would no longer work.
Hi Erik
The link I gave earlier included allowing symbols for a few types of markers to be shown on squares in diagrams. Such marked squares, if neutral, could be considered to be blocked squares, as you've described. Here's a diagram for one start position you also described, i.e. an 8x8 board with the standard start position, except for the addition of neutral cross symbols indicating blocked squares at the four square co-ordinates you gave:
One possible significant problem with this idea for a variant might be that both side's c- and f-pawns won't go far, unless at some point they capture an enemy piece or pawn on an adjacent file that has crossed over the enemy's fourth rank of the board. Alternatively, a c- or f-pawn might be captured by the opponent, which would also deal with such a mobility-challenged pawn.
[edit: replacing the neutral cross symbols with neutral pawns gives rise to the other start position you suggested. I rejected that as a start position for my final version of Lame Chess since typically even more of either players pawns or pieces, if advanced while any of the neutral pawns are on the board, might be captured by a neutral pawn in reply. Trading one of one's own pawns or pieces for a neutral pawn would normally spell a clear loss of material for little gain, I quickly noticed when thinking up the properties of neutral pawns in the game of Lame Chess.]
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Sunday, 1st February, 2015, 11:27 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
On my CFC Discussion Board blog, I cleaned up an entry about a 4 dimensional chess variant of mine. I changed the start position, the variant name & tried to clarify the rules & notation of the diagram; here's what my blog looks like now:
The following is based on an old chesstalk forum post of mine:
Here's an idea for a 4 dimensional chess game that can be played as if on a two dimensional plane (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 4*Chess, assuming the name is not taken. It's based on a BASIC computer program I made for it in the 1980's, 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 4*Chess King and 4*Chess Queen vs. 4*Chess King can win very quickly. Here's a sort of diagram for a possible start position of the sixteen 4x4 mini-boards the game is played on (sorry, not sure if the position is the same as I had long ago):
In 4*Chess, some 3 and 4 dimensional moving pieces are introduced, and all the pieces may possibly move between the mini-boards when performing a move (note that 'coordinate' in these instructions refers to the rank or file of a square on a mini-board, or refers to the row or column number of a mini-board):
D=4*Chess Balloon (I'd nickname it Dirigible) - moves like a bishop except changes 4 coordinates as it moves (standard 4D fairy chess piece);
U=4*Chess Unicorn - moves like a bishop except changes 3 coordinates as it moves (standard 3D fairy chess piece);
B=4*Chess Bishop - changes 2 coordinates as it moves, like a bishop (does not change square colour even if moving to another mini-board);
R=4*Chess Rook - changes 1 coordinate as it moves, like a rook;
Q=4*Chess Queen - moves like a 4*Chess Bishop or 4*Chess Rook, or a 4*Chess Unicorn, or a 4*Chess Balloon;
K=4*Chess King - moves like a 4*Chess Queen, only one square/mini-board at a time (no castling);
N=4*Chess Knight (nicknamed Horse) - changes 1 coordinate by 1 square and 1 coordinate by 2 squares, like a knight;
P=4*Chess Pawn - moves like a 4*Chess Rook (unless capturing) except only moves forward one square at a time on a rank, or forward by one column or one row to another mini-board (but moves to same square there). If it is making a capture it moves like a 4*Chess Bishop, except only moves by one square, or by one mini-board that's adjacent diagonally or by one row or by one column, and never retreats by rank or mini-board (i.e. by row or column). 4*Chess Pawn promotions occur on the last rank of the corner mini-board where the enemy 4*Chess King starts the game, and a 4*Chess Pawn may promote to any 4*Chess piece type (other than 4*Chess King). There is no double step or en passant, and it is possible for a 4*Chess Pawn to early on avoid being captured by an enemy 4*Chess 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.
An implication of the above is that the following pieces have certain max. number of directions that they can move along in making a move:
4*Chess R: 8 directions max. (including the 4 if it stays on the same mini-board as it starts)
4*Chess D: 16 directions max.
4*Chess B: 24 directions max. (including the 4 if it stays on the same mini-board as it starts)
4*Chess U: 32 directions max.
4*Chess Q (or 4*Chess K): 80 directions max. (the sum of the above pieces' max. directions)
4*Chess N: 8 plus 8 plus 4x4 plus 4x4 = 48 directions max. in theory, but less than that since the mini-boards (and the number of them) are not large enough to ever allow it (actual max. = 24).
An example legal first move in 4*Chess would be to move White's 4*Chess Pawn in front of his 4*Chess King one square forward (staying in the same mini-board). Then, Black could reply the same way. These first moves can be written in 4*Chess notation as 1. Paa12-aa13 Pdd43-dd42 if a game were to be recorded. Thus, all four coordinates (Column, then file, Row and rank) are given for where a 4*Chess piece or 4*Chess Pawn starts and finishes its move. If a 4*Chess Pawn promotes, this is recorded by tacking on the letter of the 4*Chess piece type selected after the promotion square's four coordinates. Similarly, a capture, check or mate can be indicated as in standard chess notation.
Beyond easily checkmating a lone 4*Chess King with just a 4*Chess Queen, I've imagined checkmates of a lone 4*Chess King with other 4*Chess pieces (excluding 4*Chess Pawns), though these might not be even close to being generally forcible 'basic' mates if the starting point is not totally favourable (i.e. beyond mate in one move being available). Notwithstanding that, I conceived of possible mates in one move using any four such other pieces, but with at least two of them not being 4*Chess Balloons.
Exceptional cases requiring less than four such pieces where mate in one is possible that I've found include having a 4*Chess Rook plus two 4*Chess Bishops, or plus two 4*Chess Unicorns or plus two 4*Chess Knights (or plus a 4*Chess Bishop and a 4*Chess Unicorn), (or plus a 4*Chess Knight and a 4*Chess Unicorn), (or plus a 4*Chess Knight and a 4*Chess Bishop). Mate in one with three 4*Chess Rooks is also possible.
Five 4*Chess Balloons plus one of any other type of piece may make a mate in one possible, too. I've also conceived of possible checkmate positions with exactly eight 4*Chess Balloons (the number one starts the game with).
In all these cases of mate in one (i.e. excluding a 4*Chess Queen or a 4*Chess Pawn), the lone 4*Chess King was in an extreme corner square, with the opposing 4*Chess King very close.
I'd guess the relative values of the 4*Chess pieces to be about as follows:
4*Chess P = 1
4*Chess D = 3.25
4*Chess R = 3
4*Chess B = 3.25
4*Chess U = 3.5
4*Chess N = 3.25
Just as a chess Q = R+B+P in value,
4*Chess Q = ((4*Chess R + 4*Chess B + 4*Chess P) + 4*Chess D + 4*Chess P) + 4*Chess U + 4*Chess P = 16.
A chess K has a fighting value of 4 (even though it cannot be exchanged); this value in my view might be rather oddly expressed (for lack of a known formula) as chess K = 32 x (max. # cells chess K moves to [eight])
divided by
(# of cells on a chess board [sixty-four])
= 4, and similarly,
the fighting value of a 4*Chess K = 32 x (max. # cells 4*Chess K moves to [eighty])
divided by
(# of cells in 4*Chess [two hundred and fifty-six])
= 10, which seems in the right ballpark, given a 4*Chess K's great influence in mid-board.
It could be an arduous task to discover all forcible 'basic' 4*Chess mates vs. a lone Black 4*Chess K; I'd be speculating to say that the total value of the pieces involved (excluding 4*Chess Pawns or the White 4*Chess K) should be worth at least 16 points (the value of a 4*Chess Q).
I'm reluctant to provide my email address on my CFC Discussion Board blog in case, for example, there's a deluge of inquiries. At least people registered on the CFC Discussion board can leave a comment to any blog, if they wish. To try to further put things in perspective, my most popular chesstalk blog (on what I thought was a repertoire suitable for Super-GM play) has received only slightly more than three times as many views as my 10x10 Chess Variants CFC Discussion Board blog. The former has been on chesstalk about eight months longer than the latter has been on the CFC Discussion Board (again, almost a year). It may not mean that my 'Sac Chess' variant is well thought of, but as I alluded to earlier, it seems significant numbers of people are indeed checking out 10x10 variants.
[edit: I've noticed on a Google Search I just did that the search result for my '10x10 Chess Variants' blog entry also shows the overall title for all my CFC Discussion Board blog entries, namely: 'Games, analysis and discussion'. An inadvertently somewhat slightly misleading search result that no doubt contributed to the popularity of my blog entry, but also may have somewhat disappointed my blog's viewers.]
It's interesting a game of your Full Court Chess went 74 moves. I'm wondering if anyone has an idea how long an average game of S-Chess takes. From my table of estimated relative piece values from my last long post above, I'd guess your two dropped pieces are only slightly less powerful than S-Chess's two dropped pieces respectively, though as I seem to recall you thought their moves were easier to visualize than for the two S-Chess pieces. Personally I think I'd prefer Double Chess or Shogi (Japanese Chess) when it comes to drops in any case, if drops are going to be used at all: why not go all the way and let the pieces (and players) have a field day?
Kevin (or anyone else), an interesting question here: What effect(s) do you think would be manifested on play if a variant had only the following difference from standard chess, namely that Pawns may move 1 square to either side at any time as well as the move forward? Capturing is still done only diagonally. With also a provision that no matter the number of sideways moves a Pawn makes from its starting square, that Pawn is still able to move either 2 squares or 1 square forward on its first forward move.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Kevin (or anyone else), an interesting question here: What effect(s) do you think would be manifested on play if a variant had only the following difference from standard chess, namely that Pawns may move 1 square to either side at any time as well as the move forward? Capturing is still done only diagonally. With also a provision that no matter the number of sideways moves a Pawn makes from its starting square, that Pawn is still able to move either 2 squares or 1 square forward on its first forward move.
Hi Paul
Just a quick off the cuff assessment, but I suspect there might be some more drawn endings, as a player defending against a passed pawn using a pawn on a file that's not far from the enemy pawn in question might often be able to start moving it sideways to closer files to the would be enemy passed pawn, and manage to stop it from promoting (or being a decisive factor) in time. In the middlegame, a player could repair damage to his pawn structure (again, if he has the time) by moving a pawn sideways enough, say to reduce his number of pawn islands or doubled/tripled/isolated pawns. Thus a lot of strategy based on taking advantage of static weaknesses would go out the window, perhaps increasing the drawing rate that way too.
Long ago I played a few games of Berolina Chess, i.e. a variant where pawns move diagonally and can capture a piece or pawn only on the square in front of them. The game didn't inspire me much, I vaguely recall.
Otherwise, I can relate to you and other viewers some of my current feelings (many still the same as you might remember) about chess variants and instances of other games of skill. To start with, what I might like in a chess variant that I'd think of playing seriously instead of chess (i.e. as far as what I'd hope to ever see replace chess as the new standard, if if ever came to that in my lifetime) still pretty much would have being computer-resistant close to the top of any list of criteria I might prefer.
This is both to try to lessen the possibility of effective cheating using a computer, at least for awhile, and for having a game that shows that at least some people can still gloriously outdo machines in such an intellectual endeavor (again, at least for awhile). The oriental game of Go is especially tough for computers still, I hear, and I might have taken it up seriously if I were younger, or if in doing so I could somehow move to the Canadian Go scene with me the bulk of my current chess friends and the local club/tournament infrastructure and cash prize events that go with chess. Also, if only there were kings involved in Go, since checkmate allows nice unmaterialistic ways to win many times.
In Shogi (Japanese Chess) there are kings (as in Chinese Chess, a simpler looking game that wouldn't likely be as computer-resistant, I suppose). Plus, a lot of my chess skills are transferable and not wasted, and Shogi is still not championed by a computer program yet, too (but Go is rather more computer-resistant than Shogi, or even than the relatively new game Arimaa, IMHO). I like either Go or Shogi for another reason: a large number of people play them (at least outside Canada), and they have a long history - an important leg up for any chess variant, or other game, if one is to study and play it seriously.
At least for Go, there are a number of fairly significant organized clubs/events in Canada (even in Ottawa), unlike for Shogi, afaik. Double chess is popular, and sometimes events are held for it, but the speedy time control and talking aspects of it somewhat discourage it from being taken seriously, perhaps moreso if a player isn't so young. If taken seriously, it's a variant that I think I would describe as complex, like Shogi, and different enough from standard chess that quite a bit of study and differing preparation may be required to be proficient in it (even if one is already so at chess). I don't know how complex I'd rate progressive chess as, but I have my doubts that it's relatively much trouble for a computer to master, at least.
I suppose I'm like many chessplayers in thinking that a tough game to do well at like chess (or Go, Shogi or a single complex chess variant) normally requires a large investment of time over many years to acheive a level of proficiency in it that one might feel satisfied with, if one is serious about doing well at that game. That's even if many might be satisfied with reaching 1600 at competitive chess, i.e. being an average strength player in that respect.
Chess variants or other complex games I've seen, that may be worth taking up as seriously as chess, are different enough from each other that I suppose it would be tough to invest enough time in mastering more than one of these (or include mastering chess as well) at the same time, over a reasonably short number of years, unlike for mastering more than one Poker variant. I would note that one thing Poker has going for it is that while (even if well played) there is less beauty and/or brilliance (but not drama) to the game than chess (if well played), at least in the eyes of a knowledgable person, there is a greater potential ROI than, say, chess, typically, but one can also lose one's shirt.
Bridge is more complex than Poker, but I would not count it quite as difficult to understand fairly well (if I really tried) as, say, chess. Above all, the most important issue is that chess and other similarly complex games like Go have events that, using standard time controls, take up a whole weekend, for example, so that one may only have time to spare in a year to play one such game seriously. Poker or Bridge tournaments using a similar number of 'rounds' (as a chess event would), on the other hand, can be finished much sooner, afaik. For example, 5 rounds of chess (or Go) could take 5 evenings to play, but 5 hands of Poker (or Bridge) could easily be finished in an evening.
Thus, I can see possibly playing chess, Poker and Bridge seriously all during one year, but I can't really see playing chess and Go seriously during one year, for example. However, there could someday (in theory) be many tournament circuits for speed or Active chess, to which all chess skills still apply (and a serious player could play in many events using all three fundamental types of time controls for chess, in a given year). I wouldn't quite call them variants, as Nigel does (just because the time controls are a lot faster than normal), but perhaps some other folks may see it his way too. Note it's tough to play a hand of competitive Poker or Bridge much faster (nor much slower, with any real point) than they normally are, by comparison IMO, which may lend some weight to Nigel's view.
[edit: I added some minor content to the end of my previous post, twice, for anyone who missed it.]
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Monday, 2nd March, 2015, 03:39 PM.
Reason: Adding "twice" to last sentence in post, and making some minor edits
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I put 4Chess (with corrections to the start position on my chesstalk blog) & 'Sac Chess' on my blog on the CFC Board about a year ago. My 'Four dimensional chess' had 1230 views, & my '10x10 Chess Variants' blog entry (including 'Sac Chess') had 15772. My Throne Chess variant (mate or K to K8 wins) had 3983 views on my CFC Board blog (it came up close to 'Game of Thrones' when Googled, so it's noticable [though not to chess players so much], like my 10x10 chess variants title).
I blogged all 3 variant entries in Feb 2014. There may be significant interest in 10x10 variants, beyond mere curiousity.
...
For comparison purposes, my CFC Discussion Board's "Hypothetical Political Platform" blog (entered Feb 2014, and based on an old chesstalk thread I started) has received 56501 views so far, which is relatively not quite as many as for my chesstalk blog "My idea of an impeccable composite repertoire fit for Super GM play" (entered June 2013), namely 68450 views. By contrast my (renamed) CFC Discussion Board blog, "4*Chess (Four Dimensional Chess)", has received only 1572 views at this point, though interest has clearly somewhat picked up since my update in the quote above. Clearly nothing has gone viral yet, but at least I tried (albeit only a little) to get a shot at fame. :D
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Sunday, 1st March, 2015, 08:06 PM.
Reason: Minor additions
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
...what I might like in a chess variant that I'd think of playing seriously instead of chess (i.e. as far as what I'd hope to ever see replace chess as the new standard, if if ever came to that in my lifetime) still pretty much would have being computer-resistant close to the top of any list of criteria I might prefer.
...
I've put together just such a personal list of criteria that I might wish for in a chess variant or other board game of skill, but with no one criteria outranking another. I'll share the list here for anyone interested. I used it to compare nine such games, weighting each criteria score given for each game from 0 to 4 (based on how well I estimated they met each of twelve such criteria), except for a thirteenth final criteria (the score for which was reached by adding up how many non-zero scores there were for all the other criteria that a game had). Then I added up the thirteen criteria scores to reach a final score for each game.
The nine games were standard Chess, Chess960, Doubles Chess, Shogi, Go, Arimaa and three chess variants of my own making that I've mentioned in this thread (Throne Chess, 4*Chess and Sac Chess). Because of the criteria I chose, I ended up ranking my own variants all below the other six games (well below in some cases), but Sac Chess at least had the remote potential to someday be ranked first, as it was the only game to have the potential to ever score better than zero in all of my first twelve criteria someday IMO. With many arguably related criteria, these twelve are:
1. Arguably resistant to computer playing engines (ideally even against human players that aren't close to being the world's best);
2. Any endgame stage not in significant danger of being compromised e.g. due to tablebases (adjournments feasible if desired);
3. Significant popularity in North America and elsewhere (ideally played in clubs and cash prize tournaments);
4. Extensively tested (ideally for centuries);
5. Rules arguably not way too complex or simple;
6. Has significant literature and cultural history (ideally no licensing or copyright requirements on the game itself);
7. Fixed start position, ideally nice & not same as chess if variant (or at least empty board, before 1st player moves);
8. Opening phase not in danger of being arguably played out any time soon;
9. Two player game (normally, at least);
10. Not way too many/few pieces or board squares/cells/points, and played on one board;
11. Pieces look & move nicely & board can be on coffeetable (ideally fixed start position not same as chess if variant);
12. Kings that can be checkmated are included.
For the record, using these twelve criteria, the scores that I arbitrarily reached for each of the nine games at this point in history, after adding in the thirteenth criteria score mentioned earlier, were (with a max. final score of 60 possible):
I broke down the computer resistance of the nine games into four factors, when deciding how to rate the games' computer resistance overall:
A. Game board size (larger generally favours humans, e.g. in Go);
B. Positional evaluation (in Go a human can easily judge the importance of a well placed stone for 100 ply or more at times, while positions in chess-like games with kings can be evaluated by a computer at shallower depths);
C. Search tree pruning ability (successfully matching many heuristics humans use for pruning a search tree heavily favours a computer in chess-like games if a deep enough search can be made, which is often the case, unlike for e.g. Go);
D. Simplicity of piece movement (in e.g. Shogi, Arimaa or Go, pieces often take short, easy to visualize moves, if they move at all after they are placed, which helps humans generally).
Here's how I arbitrarily scored the 9 games in favouring Computers or Humans, using these factors:
Code:
Chess Shogi ==Go= Arima DoubC Ch960 SacCh ThrCh 4*Che Factor
Com Hum Hum Com Hum Com Hum Com Hum A
Com Com Hum Com Com Com Com Com Com B
Com Com Hum Com Hum Com Hum Com Com C
Com Hum Hum Hum Hum Com Com Com Com D
0 2 4 1 3 0 2 0 1 Hum T
Note that I arbitrarily chose the search tree pruning ability factor as being in favour of humans in the case of Doubles Chess rather than in, e.g., Shogi, as I figured the search depth of a computer playing engine would be significantly inhibited. This would be thanks to the two chessboards involved (making for a larger 'board' altogether than in, say, Shogi). It would also be thanks to the not uncommonly available variety of captured (and often quite mobile) pieces available for drops, rather than in, say, Shogi, where a player can have, say, captured pawns, but with limited options for where to legally drop them. Similarly, I judged that the ease of visualizing drops in Doubles Chess improves on the overall visualizing of moves compared to that in standard Chess.
[edit: It's possible average search depth + # of heuristics is vital. In 2015 top men lost matches of Arimaa to a Computer, and in 2016 a top man similarly lost at Go.]
Here are links that describe three of the nine games I've mentioned, in case viewers are unfamiliar:
A chess option that I have never seen in print, but did play a few times, involves only one rule change: you can capture your own material, in the same way you can capture your opponent's. It leads to potentially sharper play as (for example) you no longer need to play h2-h4-h5 in the Yugoslav Dragon but can just play Rxh2. It isn't anti-computer, however.
Besides potentially sharper play, I imagine this rule change could eliminate many normally possible stalemates.
[edit: Note I've edited my previous post somewhat.]
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 26th March, 2015, 03:54 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I'll begin this post with a look at the situation in eastern Ukraine right at this moment (mid-May 2015). You have 2 opposing armies that are separated by some geography, but are close enough that hostilities could break out at any time. The only thing keeping this from going into full-scale warfare is a tenuous ceasefire agreement. Neither side is willing to just go away. They each believe that their presence and their battle readiness must be maintained. And so at all cost, each army must be kept at the ready. Since this isn't the trench warfare of WWI, neither side is 'dug in' and each army has some degree of movement possible. Exactly how much is hard to tell, but it is acceptable to say that for either side, remaining totally stationary would be a huge risk. If the location of your units and their lack of movement were both discovered by the enemy, your points of weakness would be pinpointed and would suffer immediately should the enemy decide to engage. And so, each side's general(s) must decide where units should be at any particular time, and considerable effort would be expended spying on the other side to monitor their movements and react accordingly.
What would it mean for this 'battle readiness' aspect of warfare to be encapsulated in chess?
It would be faily easy to encapsulate: for N moves from the beginning of the game, disallow all captures, all checks, and all pawn promotions (not that that last possibility should occur for any small value of N, but I add that provision because not all start positions will be the standard chess opening position). We could call these limited types of moves 'passive' moves. Moves which would include these moves along with all possible captures, checks and pawn promotions (i.e. ALL the moves of standard chess) we could call 'aggressive' moves.
Or we could borrow the current chess terms of 'positional' moves and 'tactical' moves.
One could even create a variant, which I would call Ready Chess (rhymes with 'readiness') in which each player's first move must be such a 'positional' move and before each subsequent move, the player on the move rolls a pair of dice, with a roll of anything other than doubles (matching die rolls) meaning the player's move cannot be a capture, a check nor a pawn promotion. As soon as a roll of doubles occurs, tactical moves are allowed until the NEXT roll of doubles. And so the game alternates between sequences of posititional and tactical modes, remembering that tactical mode can include all normal chess moves.
What this means is that during the positional mode, the player on the move who does not roll doubles must make a positional move only that keeps his or her position optimized for the possibility that the opponent can reply with a tactical move.
I have not heard of anyone playing such a variant, even without the dice and some hard value for N moves played as positional moves from the beginning, after which all moves are tactical. So I considered what could be a reasonable value for N: 4. And then I considered that White always has the advantage of first move, and to compensate for that we could give Black the first opportunity to play a tactical move.
This became what I am tentatively calling "Ready Chess 4 By 3" or RC43 for short. In RC43, the starting position could be anything. You could have a position where all pieces and pawns are attacking other pieces and pawns. In standard chess, this would result in a protracted series of eliminating moves -- i.e., a 'simplification' of the position. But in RC43, White must play 4 positional moves, Black 3 positional moves, and any simplification only begins with Black's 4th move. Each side, then, must 'ready' their armies for the coming simplification phase.
My point to all this is that this 'battle readiness' kind of play, and the strategies and calculations it implies, is unlike anything that exists in standard chess. It seems to be a whole different thought process. It appears to be much more strategy-centered, far less tactical, at least until the simplification phase is only a ply or two away. Even the opening phase of standard chess is not quite like this, since opening tactics can be introduced very early on and even gambits can be played.
This is best demonstrated. Here is a randomly-generated position of near-equal material -- a position which would never result from standard chess play except maybe if it were Tal playing Morphy! But I don't know if even those two would have gone with a total of 3 pawn under-promotions!
White to move:
FEN: 7K/PBr5/1b3B2/P2B4/k1rn4/nr4R1/5n2/1Q6 w - - 0 1
It is easily seen that White has a huge, winning advantage here in standard chess, despite being down slightly in material. The a7 pawn makes the major difference. Beginning with 1.Qxb3+, following that up with 2.axb6, and then 3.a8=Q.... Black can simply resign, there is no point in looking at any lines.
In switching to RC43, it is almost nothing to gain and everything to lose for White. And that is part of the challenge of this new way of chess. It requires a new or at least far more pronounced skill: the skill of maintaining optimal position when actual tactics can't be played, not even by your opponent. During the positional phase, White cannot promote the pawn, which means Black has time to try and thwart the pawn from promoting. This could involve either occupying or attacking the a8 square. Black has other things to think about too, such as the predicament of the Black King. Thus White can concentrate his positional phase on building up against that weakness.
Now for the interesting news: I have succeeded in modifying a C++ chess engine (which plays roughly 2200 ELO level at 30 seconds per move) to play RC43 rules. I could easily configure it to play any number of positional moves for either White or Black, but just to see how things would go, I chose the 4 by 4 configuration (both White and Black must play 4 positional moves, thus White's first move advantage is at least intact and possibly even amplified). So now I can show you a line that it would play in RC44 mode, as White. I was playing Black:
Code:
1. Bc8 Bc5
2. Bf5 Rb6
3. Bd3 Ra6
4. Be5 Nc6
What's interesting here is that we have arrived at a position where White has a mate in 5, beginning with 5.Bc2+. However, it could be said that this mate in 5 is somewhat difficult to find over the board -- definitely more difficult that the winning ideas in standard chess from the original position. And if White plays the 2nd or 3rd choices from here (according to Stockfish 2.3.1), the game ends up even!
In other words, the 4 by 4 positional moves have given Black at least a remote chance of staying in this game. One could say that White's choice of positional moves were... very passive. But as to what White could do better, well, try analyzing it and see how difficult it gets (and by the way, a whole new universe of chess puzzles: White to play and win in RC43!). Of course, the ultra-tactical nature of the start position makes it a highly difficult one to analyze in this new mode of play. But in trying it, you should find as I did that it opens up a whole new way of thinking about a chess position.
So could Black do even better in RC43? After all, Black's 4th move could then be any standard chess capturing or checking move. I took back Black's 4th move above (which assumes that White's 4 moves would not have changed, but in reality I'm sure they would have) and put the question to Stockfish. Black has a clear winning line, beginning with 4....Rc8+ that leads to massive exchanges leaving White down a whole Rook.
Then I modified the chess engine to play RC43 right from the beginning, and the engine does indeed play a different line right from the first move (both sides are played by the engine). Interestingly too, the engine as Black does not seem to have any strategical sense that it needs to stop the a7 pawn from Queening:
At this point it becomes clear that White must win, as the Black Bishop on a3 must fall. Nevertheless, a much harder-fought win than White would have had from the original position with just standard chess rules.
The two takeaways from all this are that chess can be made much more like real warfare in allowing there to be at least one 'battle preparation' mode, and that adding this mode opens the door to a much different strategy-centered thinking and calculation process.
The composing of RC43 "White to move and win in N moves" problems would be a boon to chess problem composers. It might even be massively difficult to prove the accuracy of such a problem, although my engine might be of help with that.
Last edited by Paul Bonham; Saturday, 23rd May, 2015, 05:51 PM.
Reason: corrected move numbers
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment