[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by DerekNalls
Does anyone even know (much less, care) what was happening 500 years ago to the day in the chess variant community?
Concise Guide to Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Superb organization and presentation of a lot of material. It must have taken you a long time.
In a correspondence, L. Lynn Smith once wrote to me that some inventors lacked imagination, that all they ever introduced were 'variants of Chess' instead of 'chess variants' in the sense of infinite possibilities. Unfortunately, if the only mental limitation the people you had trouble with was a lack of imagination, they should be pleased for someone talented or insightful to happen into their midst who has imagination. Apparently, quite the contrary! I think people who have devoted an extreme amount of effort into trying to master a specific game usually have an overwhelming tendency to feel threatened by anyone who recommends ANY rule change, regardless of its merits, because its complex ramifications would change the game throughout and eradicate most/some of what they have learned.
On Designing Good Chess Variants. Design goals and design principles for creating Chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Although I regard Muller's list of seven desirable conditions as an excellent guideline (on most points, in my opinion) for being conducive to the possibly of creating a high-quality chess variant (which is pertinent to the title of this thread), the present question as to what defines a chess variant yields fewer conditions. Generally, if a game has a board (2-D or 3-D) with spaces (e.g., square, triangular or hexagonal in 2-D), some (not necessarily all) mobile pieces that occupy those spaces, a turn-based move order [Note: I've never been able to successfully devise a simultaneous move game.] implying two or more players and a winning condition, it is a chess variant. Even capturing (by various means) is not mandatory to this definition. Also, having different piece types and abundances is not mandatory although both are strongly advisable since a lack of variety diminishes tactical depth. So, chess variants actually include many classes of games that are not popularly classified as such. For example: connection games, war games, checkers variants, shogi variants, ultima variants, etc. Furthermore, the hybrid usage of dice, cards, etc to render the overall game one of imperfect information is not prohibited.
'It seems you want to erode the meaning of 'Chess variant', to become synonymous for 'board game'.' I don't have any 'want' whatsoever, in this case. No. Any one-player board game such as a puzzle or solitary connection game is definitely not a chess variant. Therefore, chess variants, even by the most holistic, responsible definition, are merely a subset of board games. _______________________________ 'I think it is very good to have language where you can make a distinction between Chess (variants), Checkers (variants), Go (variants) etc.' I agree that distinctions in language are useful. I also think it is equally important to recognize overwhelming similarities that are often overlooked, disregarded or trivialized.
DH: I highly approve of your system of classification with points. I am left wondering ... Would you please define the term 'chess variants' point-wise relative to the other terms 'chess game', 'chess-like game' and 'chess-related game'? Are all of these other terms intended to be subcategories of 'chess variants'?
In Chess, white has the privilege of choosing his/her favorite, strongest opening playing offense for the game every time. By contrast, black must adapt to whatever opening white uses which is not likely to be his/her favorite, strongest opening playing defense. That is only one reason. There are others.
I hold the opinion that in Chess, a game with a significant first-move-of-the-game advantage for white, it is a win for white with perfect play. [Unfortunately, Chess will be intractable to computer AI solutions of this nature for a very long time to come.] Checkers is a chess variant (by broad definition) also having a white-black turn order where it has been proven to be a draw with perfect play. However, checkers cannot move more than one space per turn (except when jumping enemy pieces). In Chess, a bishop (for example) may move up to seven spaces from where it rests in one turn if it has a clear path. This is comparable to seven consecutive turns in Checkers. That is why I doubt the same result will eventually be discovered for both games with perfect play.
Please do not misconstrue the following remark to imply that any move within a game of Chess is unimportant? However, the very first move in a game (by white) is the most important one and all subsequent moves have slightly, progressively diminishing importance. This is another clue.
"The first move in a game of Chess isn't even CLOSE to the most important one in a typical game." Obviously, additional explanation of my meaning is needed. In terms of a chain of events leading to a final outcome ... the first (a move, in the topic under discussion) is always the most important because it has a determinative effect upon not just itself (as the last move of the game does) but all (moves) that follow. Even though the very first move of the game (by white) is not the most exciting, it (moreso than any other move) determines the course of the game as defined by its unique move list. In Chess, where a strict white-black turn order exists, all hypothetical talk of non-existent double-move options is completely irrelevant. "I also see no particular reason to think that a Bishop moving 7 squares has equivalent value to taking 7 consecutive moves in a game of checkers--but if it were true, that would seem to severely undermine your theory that the first move in Chess is the most important one, since no piece can move farther than 2 squares on the first turn." Technically, you have one point that should be addressed. No. White cannot move any piece of unlimited range on the first move of the game. However, by advancing an appropriate pawn on the first move, white can then move a queen or bishop diagonally on the second move of the game. [Note: I don't recommend actually doing so.] The important point is the equal burden of development by white and black does not diminish the significant, measurable first-move-of-the-game advantage by white in Chess which undeniably exists and is all-but-proven statistically via a vast number of reasonably well played games. After all, white has a head start toward this development.
"If I told you we were discussing "value" rather than "importance", would that short-circuit this loop and get us back on topic?" First of all, that's a loaded question, but the answer is NO. Whichever term you prefer, value or importance, is fine with me. If I told you that appr. 50,000 years ago, the only homo sapiens on Earth were a small number in East Africa (probably, black) and that some of the things they did which by objective, modern standards seem relatively unimportant were actually important toward determining the present state of the entire human race, would you fail completely to follow my reasoning? The first event in a cause-effect chain is always supremely important. Do you know what the butterfly effect is?
"The first event in a causal chain can be important. I completely fail to follow the "always" part. Perhaps you can find a hurricane that wouldn't have formed if a particular butterfly hadn't flapped its wings, but not every flap of a butterfly's wing causes a hurricane." Please don't take my mention of the butterfly effect literally? I am not seriously asserting that it (and anything similar) explains the first-move-of-the-game advantage for white. However, I am asserting that the advantage for white in having the very first move in Chess carries all the way thru the midgame and endgame to the last move of the game and is, in fact, greater than virtually all Chess players have the complex foresight to appreciate. After all, Chess is a deterministic game of perfect information. You seem to want to argue with established facts and plausible attempts by others to explain them. Naysayers typically offer no or few ideas.
I think there is a likely chain of events in Chess whereby ... Having the very first move in the game along with control of a white-black turn order tempo gives white a head start toward development. This, in turn, gives white an irrefutible advantage in mobility throughout the opening game and results in a small positional advantage. A small positional advantage should be built into a large positional advantage. A large positional advantage should be built into a small material advantage. A small material advantage should be built into a large material advantage. A large material advantage will probably, eventually enable white to checkmate its opponent (black). If all of the links in this chain of events (plus any I have overlooked) are solid, they may account for the observed win-loss discrepancy between white & black without resorting to any mysterious theories.
Drake Eq Calculator http://www.symmetryperfect.com/SETI Just an aside.
Via causality, the small advantage white holds at the beginning of the game (in Chess), given appr. equal quality play for white & black, gets amplified into a large advantage by the end of the game roughly consistent with known win-loss stats for white & black. [Bravo to Occam's Razor.]
Due to advances in opening book theory and the introduction of chess supercomputers in recent times, I regard the most recent estimates of the first-move-of-the-game advantage (by white) in Chess as the most reliable and accurate available. These fall generally in the 54%-56% range as wins for white. Specifically, I find the "chessgames.com" results of 55.06% and CEGT results of 55.40% wins for white the most compelling. Also, it is noteworthy that the CEGT results (involving computer AI players exclusively) eliminated what a few fuzzy thinkers once considered a legitimate possibility that "psychological factors" were solely, artificially responsible for white's first move advantage. I was intrigued by Joe Joyce's assessment that white's first move advantage, as established statistically, is higher than one would intuitively expect. So, I devised a method to define and quantify it mathematically based upon what is dictated by the white-black turn order itself to discover what is actually predicted. The amount of the all-but-proven first move advantage by white now seems quite appropriate to me. Note: The following table can be adapted to any chess variant with a white-black turn order. Its use is not restricted only to Chess. first move advantage (white) white-black turn order http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/wb/wb.pdf 2 pages I've read that the average game of Chess runs appr. 40 moves. So, I completed series calculations for 40 moves. However, anyone is free to extend the series calculations as far as desired using a straightforward formula. Of course, white's first move advantage is greatest at the start of the game, gradually reduces and is least at the end of the game. The "specific move ratios" simply compare how many moves each player has taken up to every increment in the game. [The ratio is optionally presented at par 10,000 for white.] The "average move ratios" average all of the specific move ratios that have occurred up to every increment in the game. [The ratio is always presented at par 10,000 for white.] In the example provided, a simple (unweighted) average is used whereby no attempt is made to unequally weight the value of the first move of the average-length game (white's move #1) compared to the value of the last move of the average-length game (black's move #40) in accordance with their relative importance. At par, the "chessgames.com" results can optionally be expressed as 10000:08162. At par, the CEGT results can optionally be expressed as 10000:08051. The table results are 10000:09465 (at black's move #40). This accounts for only 27.45%-29.59% of the observed statistical advantage (for white) which brings us to the crossroads: Those who support the theory that the last move of the game (the checkmate move) is the most important and valuable should employ a steep weighted average defining this linear function. Unfortunately, doing so will cause the table results which are already too low for Chess to become significantly lower, rendering the irrefutably-existant first move advantage utterly inexplicable. Those who support the theory that the very first move of the game is the most important and valuable should employ a steep weighted average defining this linear function. Fortunately, doing so by the appropriate amount will cause the table results which are too low for Chess to become significantly higher, roughly in agreement with the observed statistical advantage (for white).
All of the stats I referenced came from the Wikipedia article. I cannot say whether or not other important stats, discoverable somewhere on the internet, were not noticed by the editors there. I strongly opinionate your theory must be correct that, due to the first move advantage (by white), victories for white require fewer moves (on average) than for black. No matter how important a given number move is, I notwithstanding always ascribe the move preceding it to be slightly more important because it was critical to making the given number move which followed it possible and so forth. Moreover, both players normally have many choices. Ultimately, the move that precedes all others and cannot itself be preceded is the very first move of the game (by white).
The branching factor of Marseillais Chess would be 35, the same as for Chess.
From Wikipedia- It's hard even to estimate the game-tree complexity, but for some games a reasonable lower bound can be given by raising the game's average branching factor to the power of the number of plies in an average game, or: GTC ≥ b^d
The average game of Chess with a white-black turn order runs 40 turns (moves) per player. So, the average game of Marseillais Chess with a white-black-black-white turn order should run 20 turns per player.
Alibaba. 
Jumps two orthogonally or diagonally.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In some of HG Muller's earliest comments under different topics, he did his best to explain in detail why the bishop-knight compound (or archbishop) has a significantly higher piece value than the naive sum of its parts in Capablanca chess variants.
The first move advantage (for white) is negligibly small in Marseillais Chess (balanced). Since this is aside from the topic at hand ... If you are interested in the numerical breakdown for the white-black-black-white turn order, send me a private message (E-mail) and I'll gladly send you my 3-page file (*.pdf).
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.