Comments by RichardHutnik

My take on this, is that Mornington Crescent, and is a bit like Calvinball.  I would consider SRC to be the Mornington Crescent of Chess games, a bit of an inside joke actually.  I will say that it does serve a useful purpose of showing people who play a game like chess, or even a particularly variant, what their game sounds like to those who don't know about it.

So, on this note, we can use this comment here as a note that SRC is very likely a joke.  The funny thing is someone I have messaged on BGG said they were responsible for its creation.

Can I again run this by everyone?  I know people say they can cut and stick
and so on.  But if you happen to play someone a game, and they like it, how
will they be able to get the equipment to play it by themselves?

Can I explain another reason why having commercially available variant
pieces would help here?  Most game purchases are done as gifts, either for
birthday or Christmas.  In order to facilitate the growth of variants, it
is going to be important to allow people to buy the equipment to give
other people as a gift.  This also would allow the variant community to
give someone variant pieces as a gift.  Like, let's say you do have a
variant, and you know people happened to like a design of yours.  If you
have pieces and equipment available for sale, you could buy it for them as
a gift.

Without this, what happens with variants is people find it a one-time
novel experience.  A one-time novel experience doesn't grow interest in
variants.

On this note, would people here be willing to buy chess variant pieces for other people, to give as gifts?  Shoot, you could even do some custom jobs where you get to name the piece after a person, give it some wacky power that is customized, and particular, as a gag gift.

Like the 'Steve' piece.  It has the power to move like a Knight (because it has noble intentions) but has the power to freeze other pieces next to it, through the power of 'smalltalk' preventing them from moving.  So, these would be gag gift pieces you can give people.  I am sure there is a Steve out there somewhere (I don't have anyone in mind by refering it).

So, when people play a customized variant chess, they can use their own custom piece instead of the queen, or replacing the king if doing extinction.

My take here on this is as follows:
1. Chess has multiple issues.  Draws are one.  Another is stale opening lines, that have pushed out innovation further in the game, making it less appealing.
2. I believe we should stop with this proposing that every single proposed rule change be a new version of chess.  Can we have a category called 'sub-variant' or something else, for things like Braves' Chess?  Such things that Braves Chess attempts to do is important.  It needs to be something experimented with as a sub-variant, mutator, or whatever else we want to call it.  It is an end-game fix mutation.  Maybe call it a patch.
3. I like a bit what is done here, but my take on the end game drawishness would be several things:
a. Get rid of draws have a score of 1/2 - 1/2.  Have it worth zero points or have it so that it is a 1/2 point score for black, if going to add 1 point minor victory conditions.  Have a win worth 2 points (this is 2 points for a win, if the following are done below).  
b. Get rid of checkmate and replace it with capturing the king.  This means no more stalemate. If you do want to play with stalemate and checkmate, then a stalemate is worth 1/2 point for the player who stalemated their opponent.
c. Count barring the king as a 1 point victory (1/2 point for draw).

In other words, add a minor victory condition.

As for the stale opening book, use pocket pieces with a variable mix of pieces (drops and gating to get them on) and shuffles.  

I believe if you do this, then both the beginning and end game issues with chess will be resolved.

You can see these ideas expanded upon here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=19128

By the way, is there any reason why the variant community should NOT consider implementing some standardized anti-draw procedures between all their games?  Consider what I stated above, for example.  Why not have it so that a variant will NEVER run into draw issues, no matter how much it is played out.  Also consider what was stated above also as a standard way to address all these issues to.  Such standard way can be deviated from, if shown to be otherwise.  But I would suggest people NOT have hubris in believing that a variant is so great, that it will NEVER face draw issues.

Here is my take on stale openings and the issues of draws with chess.
1. Chess has multiple issues.  Draws are one.  Another is stale opening
lines, that have pushed out innovation further in the game, making it less
appealing.
2. I believe we should stop with this proposing that every single proposed
rule change be a new version of chess.  Can we have a category called
'sub-variant' or something else, for things like Braves' Chess?  Such
things that Braves Chess attempts to do is important.  It needs to be
something experimented with as a sub-variant, mutator, or whatever else we
want to call it.  It is an end-game fix mutation.  Maybe call it a patch.
3. I like a bit what is done here, but my take on the end game drawishness
would be several things (well, besides ending drawishness, at least having
a draw still count as something that gets a player some points):
a. Get rid of draws have a score of 1/2 - 1/2.  Have it worth zero points
or have it so that it is a 1/2 point score for black.  Have a win worth 2 points (this is 2 points for a win, if the following are done below, otherwise a win is 1 point).  Given the below rules, here will be very few games where a situation would arise that a chess match is not advanced.  
b. Get rid of checkmate and replace it with capturing the king.  This
means no more stalemate. If you do want to play with stalemate and
checkmate, then a stalemate is worth 1 point for the player who
stalemated their opponent.
c. Count 3 move check repetition as a 1 point (minor) victory for the
player who checks their opponent's king 3 times.
d. In event of of a 3 move repetition on a rare chance that it is mutual
checking back and forth, that would end up counting as a victory for the
first player to get the 3 checks in at the same time, and it is worth 1/2 point.  
e. In the event of a 3 move repetition where neither side checks the other
king, the player who goes second to cause a third move repetition would end
up losing, awarding their opponent 1/2 points.   
f. Count barring the king as a 1 point victory.

In other words, add multiple levels of victory condition with different
points.

As for the stale opening book, use pocket pieces that could vary game to
game, and they would get on the board by means of drops and gating. Drops
could be used before the game in a set up zone, or later in the game into
a set-up zone (drops and gating to get them on).  Later in the game, both
gating and drops could be used.  For preset pieces on the board, you would
use a shuffle.  The default shuffle is the 960 version found in Fisher
Random Chess.  

I believe if you do this, then both the beginning and end game issues with
chess will be resolved.  Please comment here.

Over 60% of chess tournaments are ending in draws on the highest level. 
That looks like a problem to me.

One thing I would suggest here is...

STOP POSTING AN IDEA OR THREE TOGETHER TO FIX THE STALE OPENING OR DRAWISH ENDGAME AS A NEW GAME (or game variant)!

Ok, I said it.  If there is one thing, and only one thing that I would ask people to agree to on this subject, is that there come up with two lists: One for how to mix up the openings, and another to reduce draws.  Have these as a codified list of some sort (call them mutators).  Players playing a variant can agree to which of these can be used between them, and people play them. This goes from shuffles to gating for openings to no more stalemate, barring the king, etc... for the end game.  Let people pick and choose from the list and see.  Play a LOT of games to see what works, and perhaps come up with a values for the end game conditions to be worth.

My take on all this variant talk is there is far too much proposing and not enough testing for what works.  So, everyone has what they think is a brilliant idea, and it is tossed into a pile with a bunch of others, not tested to see if it works or not.

And then, you have another camp, even among variants people who say everything is just jim dandy, eventhough these things people think are ok with chess now, weren't in there prior to the mad queen.  Things I suggested about barring the king, and getting rid of stalemate were actually reverting back to pre-mad queen days.  These elements were considered minor victories back then.  But, when the mad queen got introduced, everyone thought chess was so fantastic, they decide to go with stalemate and also get rid of barring the king because 'it is not needed' because people saw the firepower and thought that 

Look at the rules to Shatranj, what chess was before the mad queen, if you don't believe me:
http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/shatranj.html

# Stalemate counts as a win.
# Bare King counts as a win, provided that your King cannot be bared on the very next move. (See below.)

Again, if you want to do deal with issues, how about going pre-mad queen chess and bringing things back?  For those who suggest what I said is to radical, what can I say here except maybe people have been conditioned by habit.  I don't think being conditioned by habit is a think a person who is into variants should use to justify why something is.  Such talk is like a local Speed Chess club I know, lamenting that Speed Chess wasn't taken seriously, why they managed to frown upon anything else.

Sofia rule, which you wrote of, apparently reduced the number of draws by
less than 5%:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4553

My question is, even if the number of draws ends up being 45-50% why is
this still acceptable?

Ok, looks like we are building up a list of issues chess faces.  Let's review thus far:
1. Stale openings
2. Drawishness
3. Computers outthinking humans.

How about we also look at other issues relating to this?  Like some of these isses:
4. Chess is boring people who don't know it and not getting their interest.  It is facing a growth problem, and it doesn't captivate non-chess players.  Pretty much the world outside the chess world knows what chess is but doesn't care about it.  It faces an issue with getting youths interested, with it using 'education' as a supposed hook to get tax dollars spent on it.  Yes, it is pitched as some form of getting smarter, that you want to get your kids into.  It isn't a fun thing in its own right, but is something that is supposed to fix schools and improve science scores.  Yes, chess has gotten into the 'infotainment' business, because it isn't captivating based on its own merits (had it been done right, it could do that).  
5. You can also add to the mix here that chess ends up being people playing the game, rather than playing the player.  Well, if they are playing the player, people don't see this.  People see chess as something they want to master, rather than a battlefield where they can demonstrate they master their opponent.  Games like poker, which get on TV have player vs player to them.  Chess is more like player vs board.  Only when it was Fischer vs the Russian Chess Machine (Bobby as defender of the free world), did people care outside of chess, and chess popularity exploded, bring a flock of new players to the game.  When something gets like this, it generates new players (for example, number of poker players has doubled since the pocket cam entered into poker programming in North America).  
6. Can you also add to the mix that no one has figured out how to make chess sustainable on TV either? 
7. Political infighting.

Can we sum up by just saying that chess in its current state is stale?  That is an issue that encompasses a lot, and leads to a lot of political infighting.  And those who say, eventhough people still do footraces while there are cars and trains, physical or not, if no one outside of those involved cares or is interested, then what?  Sure, a computer can solve Sudoku puzzles faster than a human.  Humans still can play it.  People like Sudoku, so the whole computer beats humans isn't that important of an issue.

It is a state of staleness that produces 60% draws on the highest level and squabbling over a few percentages getting it down (aka, thinking Sofia's rule is the answer, and thinking that your scoring system that rewards players drawing will suddenly cause players not to game it and draw less).  It is shooting down just about every idea, and resting on your laurels thinking the next Bobby Fischer will show up to save the day.  It is also saying, 'What is wrong with 60% draws?  So long as it isn't early offering of draws and they are 'fought out' that is ok'.'  In other words, things are the way they are, handed down by the divine, so let's not question it at all.  If such is a reason for things being stale, who is each person to question it?  

It is thinking in the area of intellectual competition, you have no other peers (nevermind that Go and other games will be making inroads, and kids play real-time strategy games).  It is then whining you don't get the respect you deserve, because you think your being around so long means you will remain forever.  And it is being upset at 'mindless' poker getting the attention and money instead of chess. 

I would say the issues of chess are just a TAD larger than whether or not there is a draw issue, or the opening book is stale.  The variant community could actually help to fix a lot of these issues, if it was allowed into the conversation, and if it believed it could actually help to fix things.  The variant community, working towards this end could help to revive chess, in multiple forms, making things exciting again.  But, if things are going to be just a bunch of artists on separate islands passing notes in a bottle, then we may not see much going on.  Not to say that this is the case, but it is easy to end up keeping to oneself, and one's own ideas.  I know this from personal experience.

Just my two cents.  And if you think it is worth less than that, well that is your choice :-)

Can you explain why a single promoted pawn forcing stalemate would be a reason for dropping the Bare King Loss rule?  I don't see the connection.

An approach I am seeing is you have something like 3 types of win conditions with 3 different scores:
1. Checkmate, resignation = 2 points.
2. Shatranj type minor wins = 1 point.  This includes stalemate or baring the king.
3. Positions that are normally considered draws in FIDE or Shatranj = 1/2 point.  This would include things like 3 move repetition check, barring a king and then next move having your king barred, and so on.  Of course, one player would only get he half point.
4. A genuine draw, based on obscure positions.  My proposal to deal with this is to allow one player to pick a color and their opponent only get 1/2 point for the draw, or they can take the 1/2 point for the rare draw and their opponent picks the color.

This approach, while a tad more complicated, handles more situation and actually allows room for handicapping.  If people want me to post it in greater detail, I can put it up here.

The original chess is Shatranj, and it had multiple victory conditions,
including barring the king and stalemate as a win, provided only one side
had their king barred.  These rules were taken out when people thought the
changes made to what we have with regular chess, would mean you would
almost never draw.

You also didn't have castling, which left the king in the middle of the
board, vulnerable to being checkmated.  I can also, through my playing
with Near Chess, see that when you do what you do with the pawns by giving
them extra mobility (2 spaces to start instead of one), it results in pawn
structures that remain solid all the way through, which reduces the
chances of creating uneven pawn structures that help to cause the endgame
generating more pawn promotions.  Also this, in addition giving the other
pieces more mobility means that you have the firepower pieces getting out
in front of the pawns, burning off faster, with less firepower left in the
end game to bust up pawn structures more.  All this leads to more draws.

The end result was it was far less likely to have the draw conditions we
have today, which are pushing around 60% on the highest levels of play.  I
would like to hear someone explain why draw rate of 60% or higher is a good
thing, particularly people who are into variants and are willing to adopt
whatever rules are needed to make an enjoyable game.

I will suggest anyone here to download Near Chess and have the Zillions AI
try it and see what happens when you move chess back closer to Shatranj
than regular chess.  I believe you get a lot less draws.

What I saw in Braves Chess was the need that we come up with something to
differentiate a proposed rule fix (that would work with a lot of games)
verses a complete stand-alone variant that is a collection of rules.  Can
we work on a greater category name for Mutators (universal rules changes
you can apply to a game to vary things to keep interested) and Fixes,
which are used to address possible issues, like excessive amount of draws.
 Also possibly included would be other categories.  If anyone have a good
name for the category of mutators and fixes, please speak on it.  In the
mean time, may I suggest that the following names be used at the end of a
game entry to let people know what it is (please suggest better names for
these, if you have them):
1. Game or Chess:  This is a collection of rules, pieces, playing pieces,
win conditions, etc... that work together as a stand-alone system. 
Something like Different Army Chess or Chinese Chess would count here. 
Chess960 I would argue is more of a variant actually, and a 960 Shuffle
would be a Mutator (see below).
2. Variant: This is a set of specific rules applied to a particular game,
as a proposed variant.  For example, 'Chess 960 Variant', would be
regular chess, with the 960 position shuffled applied to pieces (I.E
Fischer Random Chess).  There are also other rules applied to make this
variant work.  In the suggested notation I am recommending here, you would
stick Variant at the end.  I will let others see the best way to format
this.
3. Piece: This is a playing piece that could be used in other games.  For
example, the Falcon (patented) is a piece that can be used in a lot of
games.  As a title on here, it would have 'Falcon Piece' as the title. 
Since it is a piece, this total notates that it is a piece to use.  Now,
you could then have 'Falcon Chess' which would be a standalone game
specifically designed around the Falcon piece.
4. Board/Play Area: This would cover the playing area pieces take place
in.  An entry 'Byzantine Board' would refer to the board 16x4 round,
that Byzantine chess plays on.  'Byzantine Chess' would refer to a game
that is based specifically around the board.
5. Mutator: This is a game condition that would work across a lot of
games.  One could, for example, have a '960 Shuffle Mutator'.  This
would mean the mutator performs a Chess960 Shuffle.  One could view these
as a more universal version of a variant, because they work over a wide
range of games.  I view 'Reformed Chess' as actually being a 'Reformed
Pawn Mutator', because the rule could be applied to lots of rules.
6. Fix/Rules Fix/Rule/Rules: This is one or more rules that work together
that can be applied to a wide range of games, in order to address certain
issues.  It is meant to be a steady state Mutator of a sort, used to
address draw issues, play balanced, etc...  This is also meant to denote
that it is stable, and the person proposing it has the intention for it to
be a solution, not just something that can used to vary the action of play.
 In this would be opening issues, midgame, ending, scoring, time-control,
etc...  This could likely use more granularity to it, so it can apply
more.  For example, I have an alternate form of scoring for chess uses to
address the end-game issue.  I would like to have it here and the word
'Rules' at the end looks like it would apply. 
7. Theory: This is meant for discussion of general issues in the area of
chess and chess variants, where a common underlying theme and structure. 
The discussion of 'Catastrophic Chess' recently here (whatever it was
called), would apply here.  The name slips my mind now, but I think people
remember that mathematical formula. 

So, what I am asking for here is perhaps when we do a game entry, we can
at least label the ending of the title different, so people know what you
are talking about when the see the title. It also frees people from the
need to form a complete and totally different game of chess, when all they
want is a single piece to experiment with.  Also, if anyone knows of other
categories here.

And again it is 'draws are not a problem'.  Well, the highest level of chess represents chess played at an optimal level, right? If it is drawing at that level, what impact does it have on the game?  I can also break out Connect 4, for example, and among inexperienced players, and even average players, they won't always win if they play in the middle.  For them, the game is fine.  But if you were to play Connect 4 on the highest level, then what?  One player always wins by starting in the middle, so I guess maybe less experienced players should play?  Is one also going to slap tournament checkers on the wrist for changing how it does things?

I would argue that it is relevant for chess that there is greater granularity in scoring.  Shatranj had this granularity in the past.  It got taken out under the presumption that the power pieces would make draws far less relevant.  Well, on the highest levels, which is normally what draws media attention, there is a high degree of draws.

And if people think this isn't a problem, I suggest they take a look at the current state of chess associations.  Things are not good.  People say it is just politics, but is it?

Anyone have any idea what is going on with Chess in Canada?

I happened to find these articles on the Chess Federation of Canada:
http://members5.boardhost.com/ChessTalk/msg/1208372663.html
http://www.chess.ca/Gls/07-08GL7.pdf

Talk of restructuring, and potentially going under, borrowing money from
FIDE in order to stay afloat and make their payments to be a member? 

People are speculating the Chess Federation of Canada may be going under. 
I am seeing other stories regarding FIDE and the U.S Chess Federation also
(although it isn't as bad).

If anyone wonders why I am concerned about chess, and believe that even
small issues (aka, excessive drawishness on the highest level) are
important, it is because of things like this.  If a game can't support an
organized association for it, it isn't going to be taken seriously.

If you want to liken Chess to Boxing, then if boxing were like chess, if
there wasn't a knockout, the boxing match would end in a draw.  Do you
think this would be good for boxing?  Can you name any other sport where
this is so and why it is good for tournament play?

Please present the case that have 60%+ of all chess matches ending in
draws is good for chess as a sport.  I would like to see the argument how
it fosters growth.  I would like to see the appeal to soccer and hockey
having draws in them be shown how the Stanley Cup and the World Cup end in
draws.  Are there ANY other sports which end in draws?  How about ones
where if the entire thing ends in a draw, the defending champion retains
their title.  Does ANYTHING else besides Chess have this?

Anyhow, if you want to declare a draw as a 'non-checkmate' ending to a
chess match, then fine.  But explain how having it end in 1/2-1/2 for both
players resulting in the chess match not reaching a conclusion (except for
the defending champ) actually helps chess grow as a game.  I am interested
hearing the argument how this actually fosters growth of chess.  Not that
it is 'well, we have bad leadership in the chess world, which is why it
isn't growing'.  I am asking if it helps chess grow in any way having
the 19th century 1/2 to 1/2 for a draw for both sides.

Jianying Ji, move the pawns forward one?  I stumbled across this when trying to adapt Grand Chess to an 8x8 board.  The end result is Near Chess on here.  Please do review this.  I also take a bunch of things out of normal chess when going this route.  The rules are here, if anyone wants to play with them:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSnearchess

I will hopefully have a PDF up on Boardgame Geek that will be downloadable.  I do find it makes things interesting actually.  The position holds its own for the most part against regular chess.

I personally believe the issue with draws isn't draws, but how they are scored.

How about having some 'mutator' scoring system or Rules that can be
applied on top of just about any group of chess variants, and if the game
hardly ever doesn't end in draws, but checkmate, then these extra
conditions don't matter.  But, if it is more prone to certain conditions,
then the scoring system can handle these rare exceptions?  It is good to
design games that are less drawish and more decisive, but if you have a
popular game that is more draw-prone, why not differentiate the quality of
the draws and account for them appropriately.  In other words, you don't
just have set over all conditions that have the same score, but you have
more granularity.  They do this now in chess anyhow, awarding 1/2 point to
each player on a draw, and 1 point for a win.  This is two scores.  Why do
multiple varieties of draws (non-checkmate ends) have to all have the same
score?

A reason why I am discussing this now is look at normal chess.  What you
see is that the multiple varieties of draws are all worth the same 1/2
point for BOTH players.  Add that to the defending champion retaining
title on a tie in score, and you are going to produce draws.

Anyhow, this also goes to the person arguing for stalemate staying in the
game.  I will say that is fine, but why should it score 1/2-1/2 for both
players (count as a draw?).  What did the player who was stalemated
exactly do?  They get a draw due to the bungling of the other player,
which does nothing to advance the ending of the results?  How about
awarding the player who stalemated their opponent 1/2 point, but their
opponent doesn't get any points?  It still hurts to mess up like that,
but still respects the stalemate as a gotcha someone can mess up on.

I have seen that in the poker world, they have happened to come up with a 5
game event they call HORSE as a tournament: Hold'em, Omaha, Razz, Stud,
Eight or higher stud.

Well, on this note, I am curious what people would think of as a 5 game
chess variant tournament, each beginning with the 5 letters.  The object
is to have a range mix of games that would offer a good sample.  Each game
begins with H O R S E, for each event.  You would want avoid events that
are too similar, if possible (my view that having Hostage Chess and Shogi
would be too close).  So, this being said, anyone have proposals for what
the 5 games can be?  I will list ideas I have here:
H: Hostage chess, Hexagon chess
O: Omega chess
R: Rococo, Round chess, Rollerball, Random(960)
S: Shogi, Smess, Shatranj, Shatranj Kamil, Shatranj of Troy, Skirmish
E: Extinction chess

Anyone have any other ideas?