Main
Date: 30 May 2008 22:09:24
From: ChessVariant Inventor
Subject: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess

While chess is quite a popular game, many detractors point to th
increased number of draws and public disinterest in major chess event
as a sign of chess’s decline.

However both sides of the camp have missed the obvious:

Chess has lost some of the its original luster due to the excess o
opening theory available that makes finding original and effective
“over the board” opening moves very difficult especially at the ver
high levels.

Detractors do acknowledge this but believe this has to do with th
“drawing nature” of the game. As expected most chess players find thi
argument faulty and simply ignore all attempts to develop new ideas .

My theory is simple: Keep chess as is and it will be a fun game to pla
for beginners to mid-level players.

A chess-like game played on a larger board with more pieces tha
preserves the original rules and ideas could be a breath of fresh ai
and a scintillating alternative to chess.

Enter Herculean chess:

http://chess.computerwebservices.net/herculean.php


Played on a 12 x 12 board with 4 rooks, 4 bishops, 4 leaping pieces an
22 pawns!
The 2 extra rooks and 2 extra bishops are flying (leaping) versions o
the rooks and bishops.
The 2 knights have different side stepping properties as do the othe
two leapers, which leap a longer distance (a Zebra leap) instead of th
standard knight jump.
The 10 ninja pawns are more powerful than the pawns since they ca
move sideways and capture sideways on the other side of the board.
The regular pawn can accelerate to the middle of the board at any poin
(making a double or triple move forward as required) but otherwis
remains the same.
The King , queen rook and bishop stay the same.


The additional pawns balance the extra powers of the new pieces quit
nicely. In fact, unlike most large board chess games, pawn play i
actually enhanced in Herculean chess.


I have tried this game out many times and it always creates excitin
play.

One interesting point – it is quite hard to crack your opponent’s kin
right away because of the double pawn protection.


Anyway I hope viewers will find this game interesting. In light o
recent discussion of chess being stale and not having much to offer
this game can surely keep chess well ahead of opening theor
saturation.

http://chess.computerwebservices.net/herculean.ph


--
ChessVariant Inventor




 
Date: 04 Jun 2008 12:38:57
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On Jun 4, 12:52=A0pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:

> > But chess was more popular before Steinitz came along
>
> [Citation needed]

Oh, you're going to make this tough for me.

After Steinitz, the whining certainly started.

And when have you recently heard of the spectators showering the board
with gold coins after a player wins a game with a dashing combination?

Of course, you would have to adjust for the larger populations and
higher discretionary incomes of the industrialized countries as well.

It is indeed possible that the apparent decline of the popularity of
Chess is simply an artifact of a population that is composed of
working people as opposed to a visible population that consists of
assorted nobility.

> > I had already suggested that some draws could be avoided by handing
> > out a 3/5 - 2/5 split of points as a reward for forcing stalemate,
> > so I had an idea to work from.
>
> But how often is stalemate forced? =A0It seems to me to crop up most
> often in king and pawn endgames where one player has an extra pawn
> that he can't promote because the defender can sit behind it and get
> stalemate if the pawn advances to the seventh rank. =A0But the stalemate
> isn't forced -- the attacker could just give up the pawn and let the
> game be drawn by repetition instead.

If an attacker could obtain 1/5 of a point up on the defender by
forcing stalemate, then presumably he would do so more often in
otherwise drawn positions. I do agree that this, too, doesn't happen
often, however, since there are only a few cases where material is
sufficient for stalemate but insufficient for checkmate.

> > Dynamic Scoring does offer more for stalemate

Actually, I double-checked, and its stalemate score is in the 3/5-2/5
range (offering 1/100 point more to Black) also.

> What's `dynamic' about it? =A0It looks entirely static, to me, in that
> the score for any possible result is fixed by the scoring system and
> never changes (unless the system is changed).

Now, that's an interesting point, that a name like "Dynamic Scoring"
should be reserved for a flexible system, that, say, gives a player a
handicap after losing three games in a row. I was using the term
"dynamic" in another sense - it was a system of scoring intended to
motivate attacking play, hence the dynamism would be that manifested
by the players and encouraged by the point system.

John Savard


  
Date: 09 Jun 2008 15:42:20
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> But chess was more popular before Steinitz came along
>>
>> [Citation needed]
>
> Oh, you're going to make this tough for me.
>
> After Steinitz, the whining certainly started.

There was plenty of whining before Steinitz. For example, that
certain players moved far too slowly (resolved by the introduction of
clocks) or that the game as a whole was too slow (resolved by
increasing the power of the pieces).

But you seem to be contradicting yourself. Surely, more whining would
be indicative of more people feeling strongly enough about the game
that they might want to whine about it. That, to me, sounds like the
game becoming *more* popular.

> And when have you recently heard of the spectators showering the
> board with gold coins after a player wins a game with a dashing
> combination?

I would put that down to the fact that the top players are now
professional. They've already been paid to play the game. How often
have you seen spectators directly give money to the players of any
game or sport after a particularly good game?

> It is indeed possible that the apparent decline of the popularity of
> Chess is simply an artifact of a population that is composed of
> working people as opposed to a visible population that consists of
> assorted nobility.

If you believe that, prior to Steinitz, chess was only played by the
nobility, then it is absurd to believe that chess was more popular
then than it is now. The population of the nobility has always been
tiny; chess is currently played by tens or hundreds of millions of
people.

>>> I had already suggested that some draws could be avoided by
>>> handing out a 3/5 - 2/5 split of points as a reward for forcing
>>> stalemate, so I had an idea to work from.
>>
>> But how often is stalemate forced?
>
> If an attacker could obtain 1/5 of a point up on the defender by
> forcing stalemate, then presumably he would do so more often in
> otherwise drawn positions.

Oh, I see your point, I think. First, when you say that player A
forces stalemate, you mean that player B has no legal moves but is not
in check. I think that's a confusing use of terminology because, in
chess as it is currently scored and played, `forcing stalemate' is a
defensive resource: it is the player who gets stalemated who forced
that result.

Terminological quibbles aside, the major effect of this is that
endgames where the only defensive resource is forcing stalemate (e.g.,
KP vs K, where the lone king is in front of the pawn) would be to the
benefit of the attacker, rather than the defender. As soon as the
defender has at least one piece (as distinct from pawns) with his
king, stalemate becomes near-vanishingly rare because the defender can
usually do something pointless with his piece, unless it happens to be
hemmed in or pinned against his king.

So the main effect is that being one pawn up in a pawn ending is
very advantageous, since the positions that get a half point in the
current scoring set-up get slightly more than half a point in the new
system. Doesn't that mean that sacrificing a pawn for the attack is
now much more dangerous so should be avoided?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Adult Laser (TM): it's like an intense
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ beam of light that you won't want the
children to see!


 
Date: 03 Jun 2008 10:13:16
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On Jun 2, 11:54=A0am, ChessVariant Inventor <ChessVariant.Inventor.
[email protected] > wrote:
> The commercial games Omega and gothic are exceptions

Gothic Chess seemed to me to be like Capablanca Chess - the same basic
array of pieces - but it shoves the Queen off to one side, which seems
odd.

I took a look at Omega Chess. The idea of putting two of the extra
pieces out on squares in the corners, so that more pieces can be
added, yet the board expanded only to 10 by 10 instead of, say, 12 by
12, is a nice touch. To me, the important thing is that the added
pieces are pieces with limited power; instead of rook+knight and bishop
+knight, they are pieces with limited range.

One might add new pieces to the board because it might be fun, but,
yes, by itself I wouldn't expect that to solve any problems.

John Savard


 
Date: 03 Jun 2008 06:47:57
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On Jun 2, 6:19 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 3:07 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > less those 2-move ballots that are impossible due to a piece
> > having been removed,
>
> Minor nitpick: actually, in that case, they move the piece behind it,
> so the number of moves is not affected for that reason.

Indeed. Thank you for this correction. 11-man ballot rules are a bit
complex!


 
Date: 03 Jun 2008 04:01:46
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On Jun 2, 11:54 am, ChessVariant Inventor <ChessVariant.Inventor.
[email protected] > wrote:

> This is why all the chess variants have been ignored because people see
> no need to "improve" it - its is perfect as is. . not because of some
> alleged problem

The fault is not in Chess, but in ourselves.

Most directly, in that many of those to whom Chess is important are
also concerned with what may be held to be mundane, unworthy matters:

- the amount of attention the newspapers pay to the World
Championship;

- the size of prizes at tournaments;

- the size and power of national chess federations.

That sort of thing.

And, if one expands the meaning of 'ourselves' to include humanity in
general, there is the fault of failing to give Chess the appreciation
that is its due.

So I tend to agree that a variant whose aim is adding an extra piece
or two, the more powerful the better, to the board to make a dull game
more exciting is not the right approach.

Rather, the goal is indeed to change Chess as little as possible - so
that the resulting game keeps the perfect balance of Chess itself -
but by gentle changes, achieve a situation where few games end in a
draw, or where the role of memorized book openings is reduced, and so
on.

John Savard


  
Date: 03 Jun 2008 19:14:32
From: ChessVariant Inventor
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess

Quadibloc;272374 Wrote:
> - the amount of attention the newspapers pay to the World
> Championship;
>
> - the size of prizes at tournaments;
>
> - the size and power of national chess federations.
>
> That sort of thing.
>
>
> So I tend to agree that a variant whose aim is adding an extra piece
> or two, the more powerful the better, to the board to make a dull game
> more exciting is not the right approach.
>
> Rather, the goal is indeed to change Chess as little as possible - so
> that the resulting game keeps the perfect balance of Chess itself -
> but by gentle changes, achieve a situation where few games end in a
> draw, or where the role of memorized book openings is reduced, and so
> on.
>
> John Savard

The problems you outlined have nothing to do with the game of chess o
its rules. Gms can play fighting chess when they are well motivated
Better Prize pools will change this short draw problem in hight leve
chess.

Excessive opening theory leading to games proceeding along simila
lines is solved by chess variants with a few more pieces (Herculea
chess would be excellent alternative) and also by changing the openin
array such as in Fischer Random.

Rules restrictions that you suggest will certainly stifle chess an
snuff it out - that is assuming there is a problem with chess'
popularity - which i doubt.

My vision is to see chess be played more along a with more "respectful
variants that merely increase size of board/add new balanced pieces.
Similar to how Texas Holdem co-exists with many other Poker games
Chess will always be the main game co-existing with well tried ou
larger board version like Herculean Chess.

Herculean chess - starts off opening theory from scratch . And being
larger board game it will be difficult for HUMANS to memorize as muc
opening theory as in a smaller version. thus even GM level players wil
have more flexibility in the openings. Note by no means are all th
moves mapped out in standard chess - GM level chess has quite a fe
fighting games even in modern times.

Imagine a multi game tournament featuring standard chess, fische
random chess, Herculean chess , and perhaps Gothic chess (which migh
be actually be the best starting configuration of Capablanca chess a
Trice claims.), Birds and Ninjas, and omega chess. The interest in suc
an even esp if high visibility GMS participate will be huge.


What is needed for new chess variants are assessments by GM leve
players who would try it out and decide which games are true to th
original game.
Once a good amount of GM players give their seal of approval to thi
type of variant - chess would certainly increase in popularity.

BTW - The resistance to Fischer random has a lot to do with symmetry
The pieces look too haphazard and not aesthetically pleasing. Wit
Herculean chess, the 12x12 board has a different type of symmetry - th
two bishops in the second row might bother a few but the setup i
designed to make it easier to develop them very quickly.


Attempts to change the rules of chess such as stalemate=win,
completely destroy the game and are useless, and basically insultin
to any decent chess player. The recent deluge of variants a
chessvariants.org all attempt to do this at the expense of destroyin
the game of chess


--
ChessVariant Inventor


   
Date: 03 Jun 2008 23:18:09
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
ChessVariant Inventor <[email protected] > wrote:
> [...] Excessive opening theory [...]

o/~ And they practise beforehand, which ruins the fun! o/~


Dave.

--
David Richerby Cyber-Chicken (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ farm animal that exists only in your
computer!


 
Date: 03 Jun 2008 03:51:26
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On Jun 3, 4:18 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:

> Isn't the resulting move a duplicate of another where the piece
> behind it was selected?

No, because in Checkers a two-move opening restriction doesn't include
opening moves with checkers in the second row - since it's only in
Chinese Checkers that you can jump your _own_ pieces.

Perhaps it would be clearer if you visited the description of the
eleven-man ballot on my web page:

http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo010201.htm

John Savard


 
Date: 03 Jun 2008 10:18:50
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess



Quadibloc wrote:
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> less those 2-move ballots that are impossible due to a piece
>> having been removed,
>
>Minor nitpick: actually, in that case, they move the piece behind it,
>so the number of moves is not affected for that reason.

Isn't the resulting move a duplicate of another where the piece
behind it was selected?

And if so, doesn't that make some opening positions twice as likely
as others?

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



 
Date: 02 Jun 2008 17:23:31
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On Jun 2, 12:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

quoting me:
> > In tournaments, awarding 1/3 - 1/3 for a draw has been tried as a way
> > to encourage players to take risks in order to play for the win. This
> > avoids changing a thing about the rules of Chess itself. That's an
> > example of something that might help.
>
> That could very well work for chess (less likely for checkers), and as
> you say, preserves the game itself while creating an incentive to
> win. I assume, though, that when it was tried it was less than a
> complete success?

It's still being tried. It has the limitation, though, that it applies
well to tournaments, but not matches. Since the World Championship
match is the most visible manifestation of Chess to the general
public, if it is too full of draws, then the public perception of
Chess as of interest - on which the strength of Chess on the
organizational level depends - still suffers.

This is why, after hearing about how successful _komidashi_ was for
the game of Go, I tried to see if that principle could be adapted to
Chess, and so I came up with a suggestion along those lines:

http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0103.htm

John Savard


 
Date: 02 Jun 2008 17:19:01
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On Jun 2, 3:07 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> less those 2-move ballots that are impossible due to a piece
> having been removed,

Minor nitpick: actually, in that case, they move the piece behind it,
so the number of moves is not affected for that reason.

John Savard


 
Date: 02 Jun 2008 14:07:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On Jun 2, 1:30 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:

> I'm confused. Eleven-man-ballot means that each player independently
> has a randomly-chosen man deleted from the board before the game
> begins. Since I can lose any one of my twelve men and so can you,
> that gives 144 opening positions.

To be a little more precise, 11-man ballot has one man removed at
random on each side, but not from the back (king) row, making 8x8 or
64 possibilities. Two-move restriction is then applied, for 7x7 or 49
possibilities. The product, 64*49 or 3146 is the number of possible
openings, less those 2-move ballots that are impossible due to a piece
having been removed, and less duplicates. The actual number of unique
openings comes out at around 2,500.


  
Date: 03 Jun 2008 11:51:39
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm confused.
>
> To be a little more precise, 11-man ballot has one man removed at
> random on each side, but not from the back (king) row, making 8x8 or
> 64 possibilities. Two-move restriction is then applied, for 7x7 or 49
> possibilities.

Aha. Thanks for the clarification.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Moistened Pants (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a well-tailored pair of trousers
but it's moist and huge!


 
Date: 02 Jun 2008 11:48:52
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess

> In the case of checkers, some corrective action
> became absolutely necessary - and it was taken.

Yes, as you previously pointed out, 2-move and later, 3-move
restriction. Even 3-move restriction has now been analyzed to the
extreme, but of course the average checker player still plays go-as-
you-please and enjoys it. At a higher level, a third system, 11-man
ballot, was suggested decades ago and is now having a small revival.
With something like 2000 possible opening positions, it is likely to
stay fresh for a long time even at the grandmaster level. But --- in
a way this is serious "monkeying" with the basic game, perhaps as
serious as something like Fischer random chess.

> In tournaments, awarding 1/3 - 1/3 for a draw has been tried as a way
> to encourage players to take risks in order to play for the win. This
> avoids changing a thing about the rules of Chess itself. That's an
> example of something that might help.

That could very well work for chess (less likely for checkers), and as
you say, preserves the game itself while creating an incentive to
win. I assume, though, that when it was tried it was less than a
complete success?



  
Date: 02 Jun 2008 20:30:38
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> [In checkers,] a third system, 11-man ballot, was suggested decades
> ago and is now having a small revival. With something like 2000
> possible opening positions...

I'm confused. Eleven-man-ballot means that each player independently
has a randomly-chosen man deleted from the board before the game
begins. Since I can lose any one of my twelve men and so can you,
that gives 144 opening positions.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Clock (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ clock but it eats flesh!


 
Date: 01 Jun 2008 12:03:13
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On Jun 1, 8:38 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> People will continue to enjoy, learn, and have fun with chess (and
> checkers) without the need for new variants and special rules.....
> these things can of course be fun and interesting, but they are not
> necessary to the continuation of the game.

I don't deny that either. It isn't the continuation of the game itself
that is at stake.

What can vary, though, is the amount of interest in the high-level
play of the game. In the case of checkers, some corrective action
became absolutely necessary - and it was taken. In the case of chess,
the issue is not as serious, but there is a problem.

The ordinary run of variants - like Capablanca Chess - are unlikely to
help much with the problem as well. Something else is needed.

In tournaments, awarding 1/3 - 1/3 for a draw has been tried as a way
to encourage players to take risks in order to play for the win. This
avoids changing a thing about the rules of Chess itself. That's an
example of something that might help.

John Savard



 
Date: 01 Jun 2008 07:38:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
> Checkers _is_ played out. That became _obvious_ in 1863. So they _had_
> to do something, and the two-move restriction was the result.
>
> Chess is nowhere near being in that extreme a state. But that doesn't
> mean that it doesn't have problems.

And yet, people still play checkers, from beginner to grandmaster, and
I suspect they always will. The same is likely to be true of chess.

In either game, the vast majority of players enjoy the play even if
they don't play very well. It is interesting that, while checkers is
quite drawish when played at a high skill level, at a more or less
"average" level it is not drawish at all. (I base this on
observations of on-line play sites.)

People will continue to enjoy, learn, and have fun with chess (and
checkers) without the need for new variants and special rules.....
these things can of course be fun and interesting, but they are not
necessary to the continuation of the game.


 
Date: 31 May 2008 13:27:25
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On May 31, 8:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> For almost all players the game is so far from played out, I could say, not
> even the opening is played out.

You're quite correct.

Checkers _is_ played out. That became _obvious_ in 1863. So they _had_
to do something, and the two-move restriction was the result.

Chess is nowhere near being in that extreme a state. But that doesn't
mean that it doesn't have problems.

Ten years later than the Wyllie-Martins match, in the Vienna
tournament of 1873, Wilhem Steinitz started that problem. He enriched
the world's understanding of how best Chess can be played.
Unfortunately, this new understanding made Chess less exciting as a
spectator sport.

Yes, you could say that this involves a definition of "exciting" that
comes from a meretricious point of view, focussing on surface matters
like dashing Queen sacrifices instead of subtle and deep play. But
tournament prize funds require a paying audience.

And not even Nimzovitsch on the one hand - or Capablanca, Tal,
Petrosian and Fischer on the other - have been able to put Humpty
Dumpty together again, and make Chess exciting enough to catch the
interest of enough... _ordinary_ people, shall we say... to make it
big and important again.

Chess might have faded into insignificance decades ago, dropping off
the proverbial "radar screen", as it were... if not for the accident
of the Soviet Union investing resources in the sponsorship of the
game. But it's gone now, which is not, all in all a bad thing.

Chess - the game - isn't in trouble, really. People will continue to
play and enjoy it for a long time to come. But if one cares about such
things as the amount of members the Chess federations have, or the
amount of television and newspaper coverage the World Championship
gets, or the size of prize funds... yes, there's a problem.

Even though Chess is far from being 'played out', the size of the
opening books _is_ rather large, and there _are_ an awful lot of
draws. If you decide that Caissa deserves more respect than to be...
tarted up... _that's_ a decision I can respect. If you make that
decision with your *eyes open*, and you know what you're choosing.

But if you make that decision by default - by closing your eyes to
where Chess is heading in terms of its... visible manifestations -
then you, or later generations of chessplayers, might have _regrets_.

Switching to Capablanca Chess - as an *example* only - isn't
necessarily going to solve the problem. It would take too long to
catch on, and, in that specific case, the games tend to be shorter.

Maybe it's even too late for Chess, and Go is the last redoubt among
mind games against the onslaught of the computer. But then, the
automobile hasn't obsoleted foot races, has it? Even postal chess has
survived, just as the Olympic Games have survived anabolic steroids.

I don't claim to _have_ the answer, but in just a little while of
thinking about the problem, I've come up with _possible_ solutions
that in some ways are at least a little bit better than what's been
thought of before.

Checkers players don't _like_ the three-move restriction, but they're
stuck with it. Randomized Chess is *better*, but it's still messy. So
I came up with Random Variant Chess - instead of one new game, like
Capablanca Chess, one game from a family of thousands is chosen, and
the initial layout looks nice and orderly, so despite having thousands
of starting possibilities, each one is sort of like "real" chess.

Besides looking at Checkers, I also found out that Go was undergoing
problems, having a drawish phase. Because of the nature of the game, a
sensitive handicap system is possible - and that also allowed the draw
problem to be addressed with a points offset in counting territory at
the end, _komidashi_. It solved the problem of the first player (black
in Go) almost always winning with defensive play, and made Go popular
and exciting again. If only undoing Steinitz were so easy for Chess.

In something I call "Dynamic Scoring", I've illustrated how it might
be possible to come close to achieving for Chess a system of scoring
that encourages more open, aggressive play by changing the balance
between White and Black. It may not work, because bringing back
stalemate and Bare King as partial victories may not be enough, and
going further and making perpetual check a really tiny kind of win may
be going too far. But the principle of giving Black greater credit for
the smaller victories - which White can shrink by opening up the game
more and playing for the larger victories - is in itself a valid one.

What I've thought of may not be much. But it shows that there are
things that can be thought of that are better than what's been tried
so far. There are people out there who know Chess very well, and just
need to use their brains to come up with ideas much better than mine -
ideas that could raise Chess to a position of importance and
popularity once more.

It would be a shame for Chess to fade into insignificance and
obscurity when that can be fixed, and all it takes to fix it is for
you to use your heads.

John Savard


 
Date: 31 May 2008 07:34:37
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On May 31, 9:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:


> Some guy rated 2450 recently played a correspondance 'new' move in a KG
> before move 7 [...c6]. Nobody here had ever encountered it before!

Some guy rated 2450 on a candyass server where the conversion is
probably (Candyassserver Elo)-600=USCF.

And since when do theoreticians of any caliber inhabit this groups?

>
> I doubt anyone in these newsgroups could even go a dozen moves, if tested,
> in mainline variations. This is to say, that even when they play over top GM
> games, they don't know if they are mainline or not - don't know if they are
> minor lines, or even if they are TN's.

Jeesh Phil, you just ... Nah, you won't be able to see it.

But you doubt if *anyone*? I think that is another check your mouth
wrote that you can't cash.

But why not write the test and see who - wait, you aren't competent to
write the test, being as you are "in these newsgroups."

What an absolute buffoon you are.

>
> For almost all players the game is so far from played out, I could say, not
> even the opening is played out.

You seem to say whatever you want, so sure, go ahead.


 
Date: 31 May 2008 10:17:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess

"ChessVariant Inventor" <[email protected] >
wrote in message news:[email protected]
>
> While chess is quite a popular game, many detractors point to the
> increased number of draws and public disinterest in major chess events
> as a sign of chess's decline.
>
> However both sides of the camp have missed the obvious:
>
> Chess has lost some of the its original luster due to the excess of
> opening theory available that makes finding original and effective
> "over the board" opening moves very difficult especially at the very
> high levels.

Some guy rated 2450 recently played a correspondance 'new' move in a KG
before move 7 [...c6]. Nobody here had ever encountered it before!

I doubt anyone in these newsgroups could even go a dozen moves, if tested,
in mainline variations. This is to say, that even when they play over top GM
games, they don't know if they are mainline or not - don't know if they are
minor lines, or even if they are TN's.

For almost all players the game is so far from played out, I could say, not
even the opening is played out.

> Detractors do acknowledge this but believe this has to do with the
> "drawing nature" of the game. As expected most chess players find this
> argument faulty and simply ignore all attempts to develop new ideas .

Of about 500 corres games I have drawn 5. Of course, I'd rather fight and
lose than draw. But draws aren't my problem. At the local chess club they
are also unusual.

Phil Innes

> My theory is simple: Keep chess as is and it will be a fun game to play
> for beginners to mid-level players.
>
> A chess-like game played on a larger board with more pieces that
> preserves the original rules and ideas could be a breath of fresh air
> and a scintillating alternative to chess.
>
> Enter Herculean chess:
>
> http://chess.computerwebservices.net/herculean.php
>
>
> Played on a 12 x 12 board with 4 rooks, 4 bishops, 4 leaping pieces and
> 22 pawns!
> The 2 extra rooks and 2 extra bishops are flying (leaping) versions of
> the rooks and bishops.
> The 2 knights have different side stepping properties as do the other
> two leapers, which leap a longer distance (a Zebra leap) instead of the
> standard knight jump.
> The 10 ninja pawns are more powerful than the pawns since they can
> move sideways and capture sideways on the other side of the board.
> The regular pawn can accelerate to the middle of the board at any point
> (making a double or triple move forward as required) but otherwise
> remains the same.
> The King , queen rook and bishop stay the same.
>
>
> The additional pawns balance the extra powers of the new pieces quite
> nicely. In fact, unlike most large board chess games, pawn play is
> actually enhanced in Herculean chess.
>
>
> I have tried this game out many times and it always creates exciting
> play.
>
> One interesting point - it is quite hard to crack your opponent's king
> right away because of the double pawn protection.
>
>
> Anyway I hope viewers will find this game interesting. In light of
> recent discussion of chess being stale and not having much to offer,
> this game can surely keep chess well ahead of opening theory
> saturation.
>
> http://chess.computerwebservices.net/herculean.php
>
>
>
>
> --
> ChessVariant Inventor




 
Date: 31 May 2008 03:55:20
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess
On May 30, 3:09 pm, ChessVariant Inventor <ChessVariant.Inventor.
[email protected] > wrote:

> Anyway I hope viewers will find this game interesting. In light of
> recent discussion of chess being stale and not having much to offer,
> this game can surely keep chess well ahead of opening theory
> saturation.

But so can so many other chess variants that have been invented
through the ages!

So, while it is fun to come up with new variants, evidently something
more is needed.

Perhaps a 'variant' that has only a very slight difference from
regular Chess, so that it is more of a technical rules change than a
new game, yet which somehow has a massive effect on draws. Checkers,
and the two-move restriction and its successors, is one case study.
Go, and komidashi, is another.

See what works, what doesn't, and what players prefer or resent.

Of course, a chess game with flying rooks might be well received at
Castle Wulfenbach...

John Savard


  
Date: 02 Jun 2008 18:54:10
From: ChessVariant Inventor
Subject: Re: Herculean Chess: Possible large board future of chess

Quadibloc;272036 Wrote:
>
> But so can so many other chess variants that have been invented
> through the ages!
>
> So, while it is fun to come up with new variants, evidently something
> more is needed.
>
> Perhaps a 'variant' that has only a very slight difference from
> regular Chess, so that it is more of a technical rules change than a
> new game, yet which somehow has a massive effect on draws. Checkers,
> and the two-move restriction and its successors, is one case study.
> Go, and komidashi, is another.
>
>
> John Savard

hello ,
The idea of Herculean chess is to move chess to a bigger board withou
losing the beauty of the original game. The flying rooks leap to tw
square or leap to 3 squares if two pieces are in between. It is a mor
versatile piece that speed s up this game that would be much slower i
there was just 4 rooks and 4 bishops.


I know you are absolutely WRONG about what is "needed" . I think yo
are totally unaware of the fact that most people dont have a proble
with chess and dont care about draws at all.


This is why all the chess variants have been ignored because people se
no need to "improve" it - its is perfect as is. . not because of som
alleged problem

However I must point out that after extensive research on ches
variants, i realized only a few games are made as an alternative o
extension to chess. Many variants are unplayable or have som
ridiculous conditions built in to correct some alleged flaw in th
original game. The commercial games Omega and gothic are exception
though Omega site also discusses "flaws" in the game. Omega is in m
opinion the best alternative but it does not offer very dynamic paw
play.

the game, Birds and Ninjas is tactically superior while offerin
slightly better pawn play (4 ninja pawns can be dropped into th
game).


http://chess.computerwebservices.net/birds.php

http://chess.computerwebservices.net/herculean.php

However, Herculean chess offers even better pawn play and square 12x1
board with more strategically rich play.



It is very easy to promote chess variants as some solution to the dra
problem (no matter that it is a non-existent problem) but the realit
is - they are alternatives and restart opening theory, an excess o
which does bother some people


--
ChessVariant Inventor