| |
Main
Date: 20 Aug 2008 04:27:21
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: CHESS REDESIGN =?windows-1252?Q?=96_V0=2E1?=
|
CHESS REDESIGN � V 0.1 [Second Try]
Consider the following idea.
You arrive at your favorite chess hangout and see someone new sitting in
a corner. He appears to be an out-of-towner. You go over and invite him
to play. He counters your proposal with an offer to play a new type of
chess. Somewhat puzzled, you agree. You ask him to explain what he has
in mind.
He unrolls a standard cloth chess board on the table. Nothing new there.
Next he opens up a leather bag and dumps out a set of standard Staunton
design pieces. Nothing new here either.
You reach forward to begin setting up pieces, but he holds up a hand and
says, �Wait!�
Now he pulls out a small deck of cards, holding them concealed, face
down, and asks you to pick one. You do this three times and each card
turns out to be a number. He explains that you are selecting the digits
of a number between 0 and 960. You end up with the number 465. He
hands you a small book and indicates a diagram that displays a starting
position from Chess960. Set them up like this!
You begin setting up the pieces, thinking to yourself that this must be
close to Chess960 then... He mentions that there are actually a few
more starting positions beyond those of Chess960 to bring the total up
to 1000. These extra positions are decided by international chess
authorities based on a periodic design competition.
After you finish, he reshuffles the same small deck and says, �Now let
us see what kind of pawns we play with. Pick a card.� You select a 5.
He directs you to another section of the book that is titled pawn
prototypes. You examine this closely and see that number five is named
the Lancer. It can only move forward one square at a time. But, it can
capture diagonally, one or two squares at a time.
This process of drawing a card to index a variant design in the small
book is repeated for the Rooks, Knights, Bishops, Queen and even the
King. The standard definition of the pawns and pieces abilities in
classical chess is the fundamental subset of the game and may end up
randomly selected. The extra piece designs are decided by international
chess authorities based on a periodic design competition.
After a clock-timed period of reflection on the powers of the variant
pieces, you both begin playing an unusual game...
NOTES:
You wouldn't have to randomly select. In casual club play if two
players get interested in a particular configuration they can just agree
to start with it. In large tournaments, organizers could decide to
devote the tournament to some thematic subset of the variants, or just
one configuration.
This kind of solution is economical, and could be adopted worldwide. It
avoids the glut of computer analysis and monolithic opening theory. It
even largely avoids endgame table-bases. It adds a new creative element
to chess in piece and starting position design. And, replacing huge
amounts of opening theory with exotic new types of endgame studies suits
my personal preferences fine. :)
One downside: the folks that designed PGN/algebraic notation would have
some serious work to do. The notation would have to capture how new
pieces move and how to name them as well. Since the board retains it
shape and size, and the number of pieces remains constant, perhaps this
is not as big a challenge as it might first appear.
They say that the game of Go is much more complex than classical chess.
I have not heard a similar comparison for Go and Chess960. With this
new variant, Chess960 is a subset of the game. Just as classical chess
is a subset of Chess960. The addition of all the variant piece designs
would make this game have a truly immense number of possibilities. I
would love to hear what a mathematician would have to say about
complexity here.
The actual implementation of the idea may not involve decks of cards and
reference books. I chose that method to better illustrate the ideas.
If this idea actually takes off, it should have a name to make it easy
to refer to. What should it be called? A possibility that sticks in my
mind is �The Equalizer.� But surely there is something better. :)
This is all sketchy thinking out loud. My first attempt was not as
clear as I would have liked. Hopefully, this does a better job.
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 17:12:04
From: ChessVariant Inventor
Subject: Re: CHESS REDESIGN � V0.1
|
J.D. Walker;282177 Wrote:
> CHESS REDESIGN � V 0.1 [Second Try]
>
>
> Consider the following idea.
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker
Consider the following: many people meet up at chessvariants.org. The
pick and choose what games they like including pieces/board size/boar
setup etc. and send out challenges. Another play likes one of the game
chosen and accepts. Soon they have a game going.
My point is - these players don't have to spend time creating their ow
chess variant- they have thousands of chess variants to choose fro
already!
This book you refer to is already out there !
Consider, in your chess variant to have certain pieces be fixed. Let
fix the kings to move as in std chess. Lets now categorize you
variants into various steps. Lets say two people want a game quickly
They want the pawns the same, the rooks the same, the bishops an
knights changed. etc.
Or lets say they just want to switch the positions of the king an
queen for one side !
You see what I am driving at? You have encompassed so many differen
chess variants - it is hard to clearly visualize your game. It can b
played in many ways - It needs to be categorize into the many differen
types of play:
a. same pieces - different setup symmetrical. fischer random or shuffl
chess.
b .same pieces - different setup reverse symmetry. (already invente
type of shuffle chess + already invented displacement chess mino
change)
c. same pieces - choice of setup determined by players. assymetrical.
d. change pawns keep pieces same
e. change rooks keep everything same.
There is already so much alternate chess in just a,b, c, that there i
no need to jump to d, e, or f unless interesting pieces are alread
made. And they are except why stop there - why not increase the size o
the board
--
ChessVariant Inventor
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 19:09:23
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: CHESS REDESIGN = windows-1252 Q = 96_V0 = 2E1 =
|
In article <[email protected] >,
J.D. Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
>They say that the game of Go is much more complex than classical chess.
Urgh. Look, basically there are only two sorts of game:
those that are simple enough for you to understand them completely,
and those that are too complicated for that. Go and chess are both
clearly [in general] in the second category, meaning that numerical
measures of complexity are irrelevant. In typical positions, you
cannot tell for sure what will happen, you analyse to the limits of
your capability, applying your knowledge of tactical and positional
play, your remembered patterns, your experience, and so on; and
when you reach your limit [subject to time constraints], you move.
If a game is numerically simpler, or has simpler ideas, that just
means that you get to analyse deeper.
Games are not "good" because they are [by any measure] simple
or complex. They are good because people find them interesting. You
may very well find some games interesting that I find boring, and vv.
There's no accounting for taste. But, generally, it's good if a game
has simple underlying rules and structures, but allows deep strategies
and tactics, poses sub-problems, follows a meaningful [in some sense]
course, etc.; and bad if these features are lacking. Go and chess
score well by these measures; and that's about all you can say.
> I have not heard a similar comparison for Go and Chess960. With this
>new variant, Chess960 is a subset of the game. Just as classical chess
>is a subset of Chess960. The addition of all the variant piece designs
>would make this game have a truly immense number of possibilities.
You say this as though it's a Good Thing. I don't think it is.
It means that every new game is, though related to chess, a different
game, previously unknown to the players, unknown to the literature, and
with its own [unknown] collection of opening traps, of combinations, of
endgame ploys, and so on. This would make little difference to the
computers [which already spend most of the classical games in uncharted
territory], but much to the humans, who would be on a steep learning
curve each game on how *this* sort of queen interacts with *that* sort
of pawn. The world championship would go to the players who [luckily
or otherwise] spotted the new patterns quickly; their games would be
meaningless [and uninteresting] to ordinary players.
> I
>would love to hear what a mathematician would have to say about
>complexity here.
I would say it just isn't an interesting concept. But, as above,
"de gustibus ...".
Note that if you merely want to avoid arid opening preparation,
then a simple idea is to run "theme" tournaments [of which the Rice
Gambit tournament was a famous example]. You could, for example,
mandate in your tournament that the first moves had to be 1 c3 Nh6,
to give an unknown but not too one-sided a position, after which the
game proceeds as usual but from a position not in any book. *I* don't
think you'd get many takers; BICBW.
There are, of course, plenty of interesting chess variants --
losing chess, progressive chess, pocket-knight chess, kriegspiel, and
so on --; but AFAIK all the *successful* ones are single games, that
is games that could, in principle, have a world championship, have
books written about the strategies and tactics, have game collections
or endgame studies, and so on, not ones that are simply generic names
for a huge variety of sub-games.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 06:27:05
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: CHESS REDESIGN =?windows-1252?Q?=96_V0=2E1?=
|
A couple of points. The new Chess 960 clock by DGT is a small
inexpensive clock that has the ability to select and setup a 960 board
on the fly. It isn't as lo-tech as cards, but it may very well be
liked by the majority.
But ultimately, I don't think the coffee shop is the problem is it? I
know you are a very highly skilled player who may be running into
problems with other highly ranked players that are more "prepared" than
you, and maybe that seems unfair.
But for a lot of us, many of our only skills are booklearned. Maybe we
have learned a few traps along the way and bought that smith-morra book.
But we are by no means complete players. We enjoy pulling out our
pre-preps when we can, and responding to theirs when we can. When we
play at a coffee-shop we don't think that computer-analysis is going to
make the difference between us winning of losing.
I too relish the days of the Last Exit, having gone to Garfield just on
the tail end of the Sierwan days. There was nothing like having a giant
PB&J and going over correspondence lines with your friends. But I am
just don't believe that computers are what killed that. I don't think
so. I like the computers, I like exploring the game with computers and
playing my son, and getting better.
I don't understand the crisis. I look to Magnus and am amazed at his
ability to beat the top players. And then he gets his hat handed to him
by Anand just to bring home the point he is not the best, yet. All
this going on, while computers are arguably better players. This
doesn't mean that they yet represent the truth, and it does nothing to
take away my appreciation of the game.
I don't know the latest and newest line in the schvenigan, but it
doesn't matter, I probably can't even give a good game to the guy who
did. Maybe there is a crisis for 2400 players, who knows, but I am
certainly not missing anything.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 07:08:14
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: CHESS REDESIGN =?windows-1252?Q?=96_V0=2E1?=
|
johnny_t wrote:
> A couple of points. The new Chess 960 clock by DGT is a small
> inexpensive clock that has the ability to select and setup a 960 board
> on the fly. It isn't as lo-tech as cards, but it may very well be
> liked by the majority.
Good suggestion. I am not aware of all the new chess hardware.
However, I was looking low-tech so that folks of slender means could
play as well. Maybe ten-sided dice would work better than cards.
> But ultimately, I don't think the coffee shop is the problem is it? I
> know you are a very highly skilled player who may be running into
> problems with other highly ranked players that are more "prepared" than
> you, and maybe that seems unfair.
Phil asked earlier what my motivation might be for suggesting these
changes. It is not lack of challenge, nor boredom. I did not like
opening theory back in the eighties. It has only become much more
offensive to me now. I see it as a very large impediment to enjoying
the game. Almost like the game is lethally constipated with it.
> But for a lot of us, many of our only skills are booklearned. Maybe we
> have learned a few traps along the way and bought that smith-morra book.
> But we are by no means complete players. We enjoy pulling out our
> pre-preps when we can, and responding to theirs when we can. When we
> play at a coffee-shop we don't think that computer-analysis is going to
> make the difference between us winning of losing.
>
> I too relish the days of the Last Exit, having gone to Garfield just on
> the tail end of the Sierwan days. There was nothing like having a giant
> PB&J and going over correspondence lines with your friends. But I am
> just don't believe that computers are what killed that. I don't think
> so. I like the computers, I like exploring the game with computers and
> playing my son, and getting better.
>
> I don't understand the crisis. I look to Magnus and am amazed at his
> ability to beat the top players. And then he gets his hat handed to him
> by Anand just to bring home the point he is not the best, yet. All
> this going on, while computers are arguably better players. This
> doesn't mean that they yet represent the truth, and it does nothing to
> take away my appreciation of the game.
>
> I don't know the latest and newest line in the schvenigan, but it
> doesn't matter, I probably can't even give a good game to the guy who
> did. Maybe there is a crisis for 2400 players, who knows, but I am
> certainly not missing anything.
You may be right that there is not a crisis when considered from more
casual players points of view. I really do not know. Perhaps at best
my feelings about this are only shared by a small minority. Perhaps my
position is somewhat like a canary in a mineshaft.
One thing positive for casual players in this proposal is that they
would not have to spend as much money buying opening books that quickly
become out of date.
If, the idea is no good, then it should be dumped. <shrugs > But, I
will be curious to see if it finds supporters.
Thanks for the ideas.
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 11:39:29
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: CHESS REDESIGN =?windows-1252?Q?=96_V0=2E1?=
|
Wow. First thank you, you have refreshed my memories of the day. And
now I remember/know where you are coming from.
I was on of Garfield's class of '80 and had about a 2 year run in the
tail of the Yaz days. The Last Exit was still going good, there were
still meetings at the Pizza Haven, and I remember that first game where
I beat Victor at speed chess. I was not of the lucky few that were
directly in Yaz's circle and shared in the magic of the moment. But I
now remember the touch.
The local school of thought at the time was you should just be a better
chess player. It was OK to know the names and principles of opening on
shape and concept, but that was enough. Mostly it was how to recognize
and press home points that got the win. It was an extremely principled
view of chess, and those that played the best principles first, those
that were not at a loss for an idea were the winners, and the good
players were these even if they lost.
Opening theory was laughed at. Why buy books? Books were wrong almost
by definition. If chess wasn't solved, then the book MUST be wrong, and
good principled play would win. This was known by test. At least
locally, the best players were book eschewer's.
There was one major local exception. He is still involved with chess
and is well respected, but at the time he was mocked within this group,
because it was believed that his strength came merely from line
memorization, which had NOTHING to do with chess, and all you had to do
was take him out of line and it was obvious that he didn't (or so it was
claimed).
I remember that Yaz was a major proponent of the English 1.C4 systems,
not because it was better per se, but that there was so few literature,
and traps documented here. You just played better chess than your
opponent and you won.
I was there, I was ensconced in this viewpoint at the time (thanks I had
forgotten this key principle), but I was a young chess ne'er-do-well and
had to drop out of the scene for what was in retrospect stupid reasons,
I came back and played a little bit in the late 80's, and essentially
dropped out until my son picked up chess.
I moved to bridge and poker as my main games of late, but with the
prosperity of middle age I have my DGT board, and my Rybka, and am
exploring the game again. But you know, even though I have now
purchased books of openings, I mostly learn and just try to play better.
Most of the opening theory I have learned, is not for myself, but to
help my son deal with those that beat HIM with opening theory.
So I remember those days of hating Opening Theory, and I actually sort
of feel for the concept that conceptually this has flourished rather
than diminished over time. And that games should be just played better
rather than trick lines with no understanding. When I came back I sort
of forgot that.
That said, I am not sure that the game is in crisis. While it may no
longer be possible to be world champion just on being a better chess
player, I think there is a lot to be said for most people up to most
levels to find more joy by just playing better chess, and knowing at
least one crazy line in the Fried Liver Attack.
|
|
