Comments by DerekNalls
I'm a 43-year-old white (Celtic-Teutonic bloodlines) American male (born on April Fool's Day). Interested in chess variants since the mid-80's but never achieved any work of lasting value until appr. 2002.
Please note that I intentionally used the word 'intransigent' thrice in association with the word 'dilemma'. I sought (with insufficient clarity that is my fault) a more thoroughgoing meaning than 'intrinsic' would convey since a dilemma cannot be driven out of existence via adjusting the limited factors within one's control to one extreme or the other. Ultimate causes can be overlooked with effects misidentified as causes when trying to minimize game-design problems. YES, people who seek games which are a mixture of luck and skill, probably for the purposes of gambling, are after something we do not offer- an opportunity to wreck their lives!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d377e/d377e9a248635db27523c28cfa618150d7a2da97" alt="A game information page"
Well, don't buy a non-refundable airline ticket to Iceland for this event just yet. Fischer is notoriously eccentric and difficult to negotiate with. The weird thing is that I suspect all of the publicity surrounding his detention in Japan and fugitive status in US-America made this tentative event hold stronger interest to the public and hence, more feasible as a business venture.
The social customs at the tournament level sharply contrast those at the amateur level where NOT announcing check can cause you grief as you wait for your opponent to move and finally, he/she tries to make a move unrelated to their condition of check. [Note- This message did not make it under the correct category 'Rules Of Chess FAQ' because the internet connection kept crashing.]
Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379296/
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d46ef/d46ef8110c7b10c365d3a4e35c8700cdeb05cb69" alt="A game information page"
Wikipedia Zillions Of Games Votes For Deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zillions_of_Games At least one not-as-smart-as-he-or-she-imagines editor at Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) is trying to get the Zillions Of Games entry deleted on the grounds that it is only an advertisement. Please register any opinions otherwise before it is too late?
The decision from a senior editor at Wikipedia was to KEEP the article. Congratulations! We won. Thank you all for helping esp. Fergus Duniho who did a needed, comprehensive revision and expansion of this entry which entirely put it out-of-reach in terms of quality and completeness (in my opinion).
The ChessBrain Network http://www.chessbrain.net The distributive computing approach towards playing chess and variants well under time constraints currently has a lot of technical problems and inefficiencies to overcome but it has unlimited potential. [Note- Their web host is fairly unreliable. If you hit nothing today, try again tomorrow.]
There are many types of mental endeavors which can help people exercise their minds, sharpen their acuity or even, enhance their intelligence slightly-to-moderately over time. I would not assess playing board games as being of greater importance than many other, unrelated (or seemingly so) ways. However, game-playing is ideal for this purpose due to the great number of events which can be simulated and learned from via feedback within a brief time without risking harm to one's self or others in any non-trivial way (unless gambling is involved). At a cursory glance, people generally classify games as trivial pursuits. Maybe so. Yet game theory is the most instructive branch of mathematics applicable to areas of life generally agreed to be far more effectual and important than mere parlor games. Economics, business, political science, revolutionary theory, military science, legal theory, legislation, police science, terrorist behavior, criminal behavior, social behavior, etc can all be learned from, to some extent, from the perspective of game theory. Essentially, game theory offers some valuable holistic insights with predictive, empowering or controlling potential into many of the possible resourceful, rational decisions and moves by governments, corporations and individuals designed to maximize rewards and minimize losses or risks. Of course, the complexity intrinsic to these non-scientific subjects, which do not allow some important variables to be isolated or treated mathematically, gives rise to many errors and limitations. Nonetheless, a wide range of seemingly-unrelated subjects which involve utilitarian behavior and its various methods of calculation can be approached with some fruitfulness by this mathematical science with interdisciplinary value. The reason I do not consider chess variants trivial lies in my marginally-tenable theory, ideal or notion that perfect game(s) truly exist within the infinite universe of possibilities. Moreover, I am confident that our efforts to discover or invent perfect game(s) can and eventually, will succeed (if they have not already). Furthermore, I would classify any perfect game created as a perfect model and in turn, value any perfect model very highly instead of trivially as an educational tool which could possibly be catalytic to rapid and/or deep human learning to the greatest extent. In turn, this extraordinary tool for human learning could have an unprecedented, high positive transfer to other important subjects of study effecting humanity which are also approachable from game theory- the limiting factors involving levels of emergence and mental adaptivity where crossing distinct subject matters.
I suspect the estimation of Pres. George W. Bush's IQ at 91 is about right, perhaps even generous. Sometimes, IQ tests yield results which make one wonder how reasonable or accurate they may be. After all, there seems to be no way to definitively test IQ tests and educational psychology is far from an exact science. The estimated IQ of 135 for Gary Kasparov is some proof or indication of how inaccurate IQ tests can be. Anyone who has memorized an opening book of appr. 2 million positions for chess, can reliably identify and execute any part of it quickly and errorlessly and moreover, is one of the very best in the world at intelligently improvising mid-game and endgame scenarios without it is extremely intelligent (if not a genius or borderline). Yes, some highly intelligent people do not find standardized tests or normal conversations (thru which their IQ can be revealed) especially interesting, engaging or motivating.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d377e/d377e9a248635db27523c28cfa618150d7a2da97" alt="A game information page"
Description- (Symmetrical Chess Collection) section- '3-D chess variants' page 25 http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/descript.pdf Until recently, I was also passionate about 3-D chess designs and at least, my prospects for creating games sometime in the distant future when 3-D graphics in a universal chess variant program (perhaps, ZOG) were up-to-par. Currently, I no longer intend to develope any 3-D games. Nonetheless, you have mentioned (on a few forums) one method which may acceptably, practically overcome my so-called 'fatal flaw': 'Planar pieces' (as opposed to 'linear pieces') with greatly enhanced moving capabilities. Personally, I am unwilling to admit 'planar pieces' into any games of my creation as their movements supercede vision (much as the transporter in Star Trek lore). Obviously, you do not find this objectionable, though. This, in tandem with a white-black-black-white turn order, may be the key to your dreams as it would insure that your resulting 3-D games are not too drawish.
'The drawish-ness of 3D Chess is not predicated upon the turn order but upon the material necessary to form a mating position.' _______________________________________________________ In this instance, I did not mention the white-black-black-white turn order due to concern over the first-move-of-the-game advantage (by white). The material necessary to form a mating position is greatly reduced in games where a double-move is commonplace since, for example, having 2 moves per turn (instead of 1 move) can enable a player to strike any space on a 2-D board (if not too exotic in its geometry) with a 2-D queen (a linear piece) within 1 turn. Using planar pieces, I ascertain that it is likewise possible on a 3-D board (if not too exotic in its geometry) with a 3-D omni-directional piece (a planar piece). In light of what I know now, you Smith brothers (no relation) have devised the only feasible and potentially, complete solution to the numerous problems endemic to 3-D chess variants. I wish you success in your future efforts.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d377e/d377e9a248635db27523c28cfa618150d7a2da97" alt="A game information page"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d377e/d377e9a248635db27523c28cfa618150d7a2da97" alt="A game information page"
Fischer vs. Topalov Fischer Random Chess http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=53662 According to this news report, both are willing to play one another. Will negotiations over money and the details of the competition hold-up, though?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d377e/d377e9a248635db27523c28cfa618150d7a2da97" alt="A game information page"
I would at least recommend that your editorial policy insist that all gamepages be mainly serious and rational in describing the rules, board, pieces, history, etc. In this case, it should clearly state that Stanley Random Chess is a game where the rules are hidden information. Advocates of this game are not winning any new fans by having their game genuinely mistaken for a hoax or a practical joke by intelligent peers. Furthermore, frustrating people who show a serious interest with endless layers of presumably funny or witty bullshit is neither humorous nor clever. A number of people have received extremely-far-from-straight answers to their straight questions. The humor in their treatment escapes me completely.
Welcome! This is the friendliest place in the world.
Tragic. Somehow we must survive this setback and carry on.
Chessboxing- the thinking man's contact sport http://www.chessboxing.com
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d377e/d377e9a248635db27523c28cfa618150d7a2da97" alt="A game information page"
'Adrian King tried to cure all the ills of chess in one ambitious variant. While this attempt was doomed to fail, it is worth studying carefully.' I cannot understand such extreme pessimism. Why do you automatically believe all possible solutions to a problem are 'doomed to fail'?
Yes, 'there are plenty of good reasons for making chess variants besides trying to create the perfect one'. However, 'trying to create the perfect one' is the truly outstanding and inspiring reason. As to whether or not it is actually achievable, I maintain that creating a virtually perfect game is. Moreover, I can tentatively offer only ONE game I have ever created as a living proof ... to be lacerated at will by any or all naysayers who hang out here. It is named 'Hex Chess (square-spaced)'. Please check it out!
I prefer to venture that a more appropriate or correctly applicable parallel or analogy is a limit (in the sense of calculus) whereby perfection is not absolutely achievable but progressively approachable thru the correct solution of as many successive, problem terms or steps as possible. By no means do I regard this parallel or analogy as a perfect fit to our endeavor, though:
1. I strongly doubt that the number of game-design principles which must be adhered to in order to create the best chess variant possible is infinite (and thus, unachievable). I am aware of only appr. 25 essential and appr. 25 non-essential game-design principles which I consider important enough to comply with in every case. After six years of thought and work, I have become convinced that I have not overlooked or failed to consider any critically important topics within our craft.
2. The importance of the various problem terms or factors in game design varies greatly. One is most important (symmetry), several are vital, dozens are of minor-to-trivial benefit ... to comply with. Consequently, I have reasons to think that a board game exhibiting 75%-90% perfection (as if anyone has devised a proven, reliable mathematical method to measure such value-judgment laden qualities) can readily be implemented by anyone with sufficient expertise to follow several well-defined guidelines.
_____________________________________________
'It may also hold for chess variants that all the ideal characteristics of a chess variant cannot compatibly coexist in the same game. If that is so, then the ideal chess variant is a pipedream.'
Your logic is impeccable but your premise, although very interesting, is dubious as it is drawn via precarious, interdisciplinary leaps from abstract findings in political philosophy and mathematical logic which may not be pertinent or unconditionally applicable to our specialized area. By the way, I address the issue of the apparent-yet-surpassable, incompatibility of ideal characteristics in chess variants within (and to some extent, throughout) my main descriptive essay and demonstrate the feasibility of these ideas via the implementation of one game.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.