Comments by RichardHutnik

I believe the framework of chess can be addressed now so that we never turn
chess into a solved game.  I personally believe there is part of the answer
in a game like Seirawan Chess, or a pocket version with reserves, but I
don't think they alone have the answer.  It also doesn't address the
framework issue either that gets chess stuck, and all the classic abstract
strategy game (stuck here means set on a path to being 'solved', without
a way to adjust before it does).  

My take on Godel's Incompleteness Theorm is that you don't solve the
systemic issues with a certain set of rules by creating more rules of the
same type.  If it is show, for example with chess, that a set
configuration of chess pieces on the board eventually produces something
that is solved, then changing the configuration of the pieces on the board
alone doesn't resolve it either (one time, fixed).  You can change the
their starting position (aka Chess960/Pick your Army/MetaChess or the V
and X versions of IAGO Chess), the layout of the board at start (and also
changing it during play, aka Beyond Chess), or when the pieces enter the
game (IAGO/Seirawan/Pocket Knight/Pocket Mutant), and help to push things
out further.  If you build into the framework by which you can do all of
the above, you buy more time.  What regular chess has now is not a way to
make chess get 'unstuck', allowing it to adjust over time.  I suggest
all of the above be considered and integrated, and the players settled on
what works best.   Eventually even this mix of everything leads to a
'stuck' position as the playing community may figure out what is
optimal.  By then, some other people will need to come up with another
layer of rules to insure things are unstuck.  

I can't say this for certain, but I do know unsticking chess by doing all
of the above should likely buy chess another 1000 years, using all of the
above methods described.  The key to having it get unstuck is to have it
done in a way that it is evolutionary, so the playing community can
migrate over time and get used to the changes.  Also added to the mix are
'mutators' which are meta-changes to how the game works that get added
during play.  PlunderChess, for example, is built on a mutator that is
active from the start, pieces fusing together.  Even these added can have
an impact, and force people to think more creatively, relying on
principles.  These changes act as weather, and another key element to
getting chess unstuck (and other abstract strategy games for that matter).
 All these elements help to battle to keep a game from getting stuck,
without the use of random element, or hidden information, which is the
standard method used to unstick a game.  Like, the case of backgammon,
luck prevents it from getting stuck for a long time.  Stratego uses hidden
information, and the bluff element causes players to play other players. 
In this you need to know your opponent more than the environment.  Because
of this, a game like poker can be played even 1000 years from now, because
you play the players, and luck also offsets (hidden information+luck). 
Magic: The Gathering, and also Cosmic Encounter also relate to this, which
has in its makeup things that continue to change the rules.  I believe such
mutators can be applied to a game like chess, but not in such a chaotic
manner.  In other words, you can have a game that is a pure abstract
strategy game, but where the rules do change during the course of a game,
if the players control when the rules come into effect and the potential
rules are fully known by all players in the game. 

Please feel free to comment here.

Singh, I will add your comment to the Unsticking Chess thread and reply there, regarding the paradigm.  

As far as The IAGO Chess System goes, may I suggest people give it thought as being one of the pieces to the new paradigm, and happen to come up with their own suggestions, modifications of what the IAGO Chess System says, or point out the flaws?  At least discuss this.  On this, I welcome people to comment about the different aspects of it.  These being:
1. The classification system for types of chess.
2. The use of drops and gating to get new pieces on the board, and setting up the board to start.
3. The basic rules on how it uses drops and gating, and how the C-Class transforms to the C-Class, then to the M-Class, and and then is able to produce a V-Class version/variant of the M-Class rules.

I welcome feedback, people to adopt, reject, debate, etc...  I will say, however, my wish is that people not ignore this completely.

In another thread, Singh wrote:

Not a member, so responding to 'Unsticking Chess' here.  Regarding:

 'doing all of the above should likely buy chess another 1000 years'

In my opinion, not even close.  As soon as someone designs a computer
smart enough to improve itself, processing power explodes exponentially. 
The future is going to be way, way different than anything we can imagine
using the current paradigm.
-----------------------------------------------------
This is why I was starting a discussion on what that paradigm can be.  I
personally believe that the open-source method would lend well towards
this, via community consensus.  This could start with the chess variant
crowd, and them coordinating. I am offer people a chance to discuss the
IAGO Chess System as a starting point, from the drops and gating, to the
classification system, to the attempt to get Capablanca pieces onto an 8x8
board.  This could perhaps lead to a new paradigm. 

I would rather this be an opening for a discussion, rather than saying it
is merely beyond what we can imagine, so why bother.

Finally, I would say that all this is for more than just 'oh it lies beyond the computer'.  It is for the purpose of serving the fullness of the chess community.

je ju, when you happened to finalize this, please make sure we have a web
page people can land on to learn about the tournament, and have it link
back to the IAGO World Tour site.

Singh, can I give you the perspective that the IAGO Chess System comes from?  It is a framework for an attempt to integrate variants into an association that promotes abstract strategy games, and insure that the play doesn't deadend so chess that is played is stuck in the margins.  It is meant as a practical solution, not as some, 'WOW that blows me away as new'.  It isn't meant to blow anyone away, but work.  That is its intent.

Anyhow, if your view is one of that it will happen, and we can't do anything about it, so don't try, then that doesn't fit anywhere into the IAGO Chess discussion. 

What I will say is that, in order for what you suggest to happen, it has to get there incrementally, and in a framework that will allow it.  A sudden jump isn't going to happen.  People won't jump all at once to something new, and abandon what they know.  It will have to happen in an evolutionary manner.  If you care to explain how FIDE Chess framework would enable that, please state how.  If you actually have any ideas to explain how it can come about, please state them.

If you just know this, but can't state, then I would say to feel free to be a player in what develops, as a recipient, and leave it sat that.

Gating has been added to the Wiki site:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/pcp-tg:gating

Please feel free to comment.

All goes well, I will be looking to submit a Zillions adaptation (the zip file should contain two adaptions of IAGO Chess) next Friday.  I will keep people posted on this.  I will also look to do an V-Class/X-Class Zillions version of this that will contain multiple variants off it. One thing I would be interested in playing with is an 8x8 version of Grand Chess, using the basic rules to IAGO Chess.

Please send me a message if you would like to get the Zip file early to play around with.

George, I would like to make several comments here:
1. Gating is supposed to be a definition, and a subset of drops.  I am
sure there are lots of way to do this.  The purpose of it is to give
people an idea as to how it differs from a standard drop.  It also
involves the relocating pieces on the board.  I am sure that people can
come up with more.  I believe the key is to have a stable definition, and
then list some major examples.  I am of the belief it is an important term
to consider, debate, and reach an agreement over.  The end and final shape
isn't as important as what it is.	
2. The issue of the 8x8 board is that it is now a convention, and a
starting point, for testing, because it is what is readily available, and
has an established chess game being played with millions of people play it
(that being FIDE Chess).  What was suggested is ONE approach to this, as a
possible way.  And no, I disagree with you on the less than 100 years
approach.  What is suggested is to use ALL the possible variant
conventions as a way to expand chess here.  This means reserves, it means
mutators, it means different board condition.  And with the reserves, it
means changing the mix of pieces.  It also means more that this.  But what
does matter is there is a common foundation this is all to fit into. 
Chess960 isn't going to get stuck in 100 years, why do you think a larger
system will?  If you suggest that it will get stuck again in 100 years,
well then this site is doomed to be stuck within 100 years.  

As for the IAGO Chess System classes, well it is taking what is seen today
as chess and variants, and expanding it, as a way to think about it.  You
have standard stuff (A-Class).  Then it is suggested that there be an
evolutionary design, that has a B-Class migration to it.  C and M Class
represent the slower fixed one, and the M-Class as the version where a
chess game can migrate to.  In the B-Class I am proposing that the piece
mix map to the rules (so we don't have an 8 pawn promote to queens
problem, which breaks when you add any more pieces).  Then with the
variants, I propose that you have a V-Class for accepted variants that
work, along with mutators, and pieces.  And an X-Class where things can be
experimented with.  This is meant as a starting point of discussion.

3. Anything that is a set of rules is axiomatic, as the definition of
axiomatic is rules.  So game rules would apply also.  What Godel's
incompleteness theorem says that no system of rules can be both complete
and non-contradictory.  In other words, every set of rules will end up
producing more rules.  In other words, rules keep evolving.  This is valid
here.  And if you think that games have nothing to do with math, I am sure
that the game theory people will be surprised.  And Combinatorial Game
Theorists (this is the foundation abstract strategy games are built on)
would be shocked.

On the chessvariants wiki, I started a top regarding an Open-Source Chess
of Tomorrow project.  If you would like to discuss this and have actual
input into what this might be please visit the Wiki discussion page:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested

- Rich

I am wondering if something could be added in order to allow the mobilization of more than one piece during a turn. Perhaps have a commander unit that mobilizes a bunch of pieces that are near it, like Joe Joyce uses in his Chieftain Chess:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSchieftainchess

This is now on Boardgame Geek:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/35433

I would like to run this concept as part of the Chess of Tomorrow project. 
Someone in discussing the future of chess, brought up Calvinball.  The
posted a link to one set of rules:
http://www.bartel.org/calvinball/

There is one permanent rule they have for Calvinball on that page.  That
rule is this one: You may not play the Calvinball the same way twice.  

So the basic framework for the ultimate chess variant would be, can you
have a chess playing framework that would enable a person to NEVER play
chess the same way twice (by the exact same set of rules).  A softer
version of this challenge would be that a person would play both side
(black and white) each once, before moving on to a set of rules.  A
Calvinball tournament would consist of this rules though.

Please feel free to discuss this hear, or if you want it to add to the
Chess of Tomorrow project, post in here:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested#post-139883

The whole 'Calvinball Chess' question is one that raises the natural boundaries of chess variants.  Is the number of variants to a game finite (bounded) or infinite (unbounded).  If it is finite, unless you add luck element to it, then all variants naturally are solvable.  However, if it is infinite, then that game is not solvable.  Well, perhaps someone can find an underlying core direction that will universally say one side or another is solved or not.

The point is that it is a THEORETICAL question asked.  It, by itself, isn't the best form of chess.  But it is meant to be a test for whether or not variants themselves are deadend.

By the way, as far as a 'sense of accomplishment' goes, it is a game.  You defeat your opponent.  If you end up the top dog by being the best player, and being champion, that is the sense of accomplishment.  One can get a sense of accomplishment from mastering an OPPONENT over mastering a particular set of RULES.

Can I add here that when it comes to war (this is what chess is an abstracted model of), that no battle ever fought is the same?  It is 'Heraclitian' in that the conditions to start the battle are never the same, and they change in the battle, independent of what the troops do.  Yet, great generals are able to be evaluated.

George, do you mean the simple fact that you can have an infinite number of boards for chess is proof of this?  Aka, a board can theoretically by infinite size?

Ok, let's say we limit the board, for discussion sake to an 8x8 board (standard chess size).  Can such a game using an 8x8 board (standard chess, not movable tiles) be infinite in the number of variations?

At this point also, I would then like to ask, what fixed set of rules would be needed to still identify the game as chess, and allow for infinite variations?

Hey, here is a good question to ponder regarding this: What rules are by their nature unbounded that they cause a game to have infinite variety of rules associated with them?  One could argue that board size is one.  But what other ones?

This list is an attempt to come up with different aspects to the rules of
chess that could produce an unlimited (unbounded) number of variants based
upon changing the parameters around this rule type.  Please suggest more if
you can, or critique.  I will look to update this as time goes on. 

I see this so far:
1. Board size and shape.  A board can theoretically be infinite in size. 
Because of this, it can theoretically take on an infinite number of shapes
(shapes representing the number of spaces it has, and where they are
located).
2. The number of players (and also number of teams).
3. Time control: Amount of time each player has to play.
4. Play to points in a chess tournament: Players can play to an infinite
number of points.

Probably unbounded (no sure):
* Turn order and sequence of play.  This is based off the way progression
works.  There may be a limit to how many times a player can move in a row,
given a minimum number of pieces, which the victory conditions can always
be met.  In light of this, this may not be infinite.

Some that I am uncertain about:
* The number of unique pieces.  Is there an infinite number of ways a
piece can act on a chessboard?
* Number of pieces on a board and their mix.  If a board is finite size,
then this should mean there can only be so many piece combinations on a
board, right?
* Reserve pool mix.  It is theoretically possible that you can have an
infinitely large reserve of pieces that can be dropped in from every turn,
but I would argue there is the possibility for a board to get clogged up
with so many pieces, that it isn't infinite.  Even shuffling the reserve
doesn't resolve.
* Adding new rule types.  Are there really an unlimited number of
different rule types that can be added to chess, that make it unlimited.

What I don't see as unlimited:
* Shuffles. Unless you have a theoretical unlimited number of pieces on an
infinitely wide board, it doesn't look infinite to me.
* Piece names and look. This doesn't functionally change how a game is
played.
* Board colors. Unless the rules governing pieces is governed by color of
the board, this is irrelevant to how the game is played.
* Space shape.  I would argue there is only a finite number of ways that
spaces can be fit together that they would fit together.  Now, the
combination of these pieces definitely could potentially fit under the
unlimited category.

Please reply with others and comment.  You can also go to the Chess of
Tomorrow Project Thread to discuss this more there:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested#post-140383