Comments by RichardHutnik

The 1/2 - 1/2 for a draw I believe is a mid-18th centuries addition to
chess.  Well, at least the time control is.  So, it isn't like it has
been around a lot.

Anyhow, let me give you a headline here.  Tell me if this makes chess more
or less appealing to people who would consider it:
With a Draw, Kasparov Keeps Title

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DD1138F934A15751C1A966958260

Why should a defending champion keep their title with a draw?  Gary,
please explain that to me.  And answer me if this is more advantageous to
getting people interested in chess.  I ask it this way, as the issues with
chess aren't simply draw.  But, probably a bunch of major and minor
things.  If it is a list of things, then why not consider ALL things that
may of had issues associated with them.

Added to the above description is a link to a version of Near Chess that has multiple versions with drops, and one that uses a Chess960 (Fischer Random Chess) shuffle.  The URL added above is:
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/11300?do=show;id=1580

I like Harper's approach.  However, it might end up being that you might
as well award the win to a player who has the most time on their clock.

Here is a possible solution for balancing pawns on a board larger than 8
rows.  This is particularly useful on odd rows.  Please comment.  How
about allowing pawns the ability to capture one space in front of them,
instead of just diagonal?  When I have experimented with chess on an 8x9
board, I found this solution worked well to balance the board. 

Please comment. I will write it up as a piece if the feedback is favorable.

I do like Bruce's approach also.  However, it is done after EVERY draw,
and not just done if the end result of the entire tournament was a draw. 
What I had suggested is a modification of what they did for the Chess960
tournament last year.  I am suggesting players have a chance to bid time
to see what side they play.  If there is a case of there being one last
game to decide, then this would be the best approach for that,
particularly when dealing with variants where the favored side is
unknown.

There is a secondary pragmatic reason for looking for something else
besides what Bruce Harper wants.  In my attempts to have Seirawan Chess
involved with IAGO, the response was very negative.  The last email with
him, going out at least in peaceful terms, was to wait on everything.  The
end result is that I don't see him wanting the variant community to use
anything he is working on, until he gives the word.  I am assuming his
methods are his.

How about this instead, that borrows a bit from him, but is unique? 
During the match, track how much time was left for each draw.  If there is
a tie score after it is done, add up all the times left and play two games,
one white and one black, with the remaining time that was left. Count these
scores.  If still a tie, then do one last sudden death blitz, as I have
descibed.  In other words, rather than do an overtime after every draw,
just do it at the end, if necessary.

Thanks for the responses here.  

Well, I don't see what I had suggested being done before. It does look a
bit like the Ninja Pawn or the Sergeant, but the difference as I see it,
is that this pawn merely adds one capture forward to its usual move.  This
is meant to offset the distance involved in odd number row games.  I can
see other methods working during a game.  My take is this approach of just
adding capture forward, is probably the least disruptive.  In other cases,
where you have the Sergeant, you can fix holes in pawn structures that
isn't naturally part of chess.  The Ninja pawn is a neat piece to use in
addition to Pawns, but as replacement for pawns, the lateral movement, as
I see it, stalls the game out.

What I had found on a Nx9 board is that the capture forward (in cases
where they only move one space forward) creates an additional buffer zone
in front of the pawns, which makes them act like they are an addition
space forward, even when they aren't.  They also strengthen double and
triple pawns, but don't do it by shifting.

By the way, regarding the Sergeant, anyone know what you call a pawn that
moves NSEW, promotes, and captures diagonally NE, NW, SE, SW?

Anyone on the Sergeant thing, is there a Corporal piece?  If the Sergeant moves as that, then I would suggest the piece that moves one space forward, and captures all three spaces forward, be called a Corporal piece, unless it exists under another name.  It is a weak version of a Sergeant. And a weakened version of a Corporal would be a regular Pawn, which could also have the name 'Private'.

Anyone have a link to Harper's suggestion where he goes into it?

An alternate approach I was laying out involved using a scoring system for
game conditions, like SETS.  This system could be used as a secondary
system for tie-breaking purposes, if need be.

My take is that just about ANY changes, no matter how minor and deviating
from the way it is now, is going to be argued against.  It stands a chance
of being buried with the reason, 'Well, I don't think this issue is THE
problem.'  The end result is that if it could be part of the answer, it
gets buried.  If something faces multiple issues, it is possible that
nothing changes or is fixed, because one issue alone doesn't resolve
anything.

My suggestion for a way to randomize the starting positions (also works with all shuffles) and also record this position in a way that is self-explanatory for the nature of the positions.  Please feel free to comment. 

Need 8 cards or tiles numbered 1-8.
These cards or tiles represent columns on a chessboard.  Numbers are used instead of letters, for notation purposes (see below).  Numbers correspond to different columns. 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, 4=D, 5=E, 6=F, 7=G, 8=H .   The space the pieces would go in are in the row they would normally set up in.  In normal chess, white goes into row 1 and black in row 8.  

Will place pieces in following order: Bishops, King, Rooks, Queen, Knights.  Pawns remain where they normally should be.  Whenever a card has been picked, then that card is separated from remaining cards to be used to determine placement of pieces.

To place Bishops: Separate cards into odd and even piles.  Shuffle and deal out one from each.  First place odd, then even numbers.  Record these two numbers. Example: Card 5 and card 6 came up.  Bishops are put in columns E (card 5) and F (card 6).  Record first two digits as 56

To place King: Gather together all cards that were not selected. Separate 1 and 8 cards from these cards. If the 1 card was already selected, then separate out the 2 card.  If the 8 card has already been selected, then separate out the 7 card.  These cards will be added back in to select placement of Rooks and Queen.  Shuffle together these remaining cards, and select 1.  Record this number.  Example: Card 3 came up.  Rook is put in column C (card 3).  Next digit is recorded as a 3.  The current record of pieces placed is 563.

To place Rooks: Look at position of King.  Gather together all remaining cards in a lower position than position of King in one pile (following with example here, cards 1 and 2) and all remaining cards in a higher position than King (following the ongoing examples, this would be cards 4, 7, 8).  Random select from first pile one card (or if there is only one card, then that is the position), and from second pile one card.  Record these numbers (lower then higher), and place rooks in these columns.  In this ongoing set of examples, let's say 2 and 8 were selected.  The numbers two and 8 would be recorded with the other numbers, and Rooks placed in the B (card 2) column and H (card 8) column.  The current record of pieces would be 56328

To place Queen: Take remaining cards together shuffle, and select one.  Queen would go in that column.  In this ongoing example, the remaining cards would be 1, 4, 7.  For this example, say the 1 card was picked.  Queen would be placed in the A column (card 1).  The current record would be 563281.  This is the final recorded position.

To place the Knights:  Place them in the two remaining empty positions.  In the ongoing example here, the remaining cards would be 4 and 7.  The Knights are placed in columns D (card 4) and column G (card 7).

To sum up, the position generated by this is: 564281 (b56 k3 r28 q1).  This is also the notation name for the position. 

Board set up would look like this:
qrknbbnr
pppppppp

[Empty spaces between pieces]

PPPPPPPP
QRKNBBNR

-------------------------------------
For a more random shuffle, in games without castling, the order of the pieces is done the same, but with less restrictions.  For color balance of Bishops, the same idea of sorting the cards by odd or even would apply.  Bishops would be then put on appropriate spaces.  Say 1 and 8 were picked.  The notation would be: 18 for Bishops.

Then the King would placed.  Say 2 was picked.  Notation would be 182

Then the Rooks would be placed.  Say 5, 7 were picked.  Notation would be so far 18257

Then the Queen would be placed.  Say position 3 was picked.  Notation would be 182573

Knights would be placed in empty spaces.

Pieces would be in following configuration:
BKQNRNRB

Final notation for this position is: 182573

Can someone please post the complete and final list of games so I can
update the IAGO site with the right games?  Also, please let me know which
chess variant is being played.  Would I be right to presume that Stealth
refers to Stealth Chess (the Stratego-like) chess game or something else
(for example)?

Bronstein is the original person to propose a time delay between moves,
which is the basis of the 'Bronstein clock'.  Fischer decided to take
the clock and add time, and then to the countdown.

My take on why I propose the Eurasian pawn that moves forward, but captures
NE, NW, and N is that it is a way to close the gap in spaces, without
adding extra mobility.  Whether or not it is needed, depends on the
context.  I will say in Near Chess on a 8x9 board, the pawn capture
forward is very important to the game.  The pawn capture forward (North)
is what forces pieces to develop behind the pawns instead of in front,
which is a trademark of Near Chess.  If one were to allow moving two
spaces forward for the pawn, it would be unbalanced and unfair to black.

The site I happened to find out about the 1/2 point for draws was wrong.  I
believe it is correct to say that this approach for draws is less than 200
years old, and only came about when Chess was attempted to be turned into
a sport, faced with time constraints at the event and over the calendar.

On this note, may I suggest that maybe some common terminology and so on be
agreed to?  Stuff like Braves Chess be quantified as a universal game fix,
rather than a separate game and so on?

I do agree that people need to watch what they are saying.  If someone
thinks something is flawed, please explain WHY so that a better creation
can come about?

Is that your site?  If so, could you get Near Chess up and running on it?
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSnearchess

All you need to do is remove some chess rules (see page) and also add one for piece recycling for promotion.

How exactly do the reserves come onto the board?  Also, you need to confirm with Mr. Seirawan and Harper whether or not they would allow any adaptations of it in any other place besides where they want.

You are free to end up doing my IAGO Chess if you like, in its many varieties.

Which side would have an advantage: Pieces following Near Chess or normal chess rules?

Near Chess was discovered in an attempt to adapt Christian Freeling's Grand Chess to an 8x8 board.  This produced a formation where both sets of pieces shift up one row.  This was streamlined even more by dropping castling, how pawn promotion works and having king captured instead of checkmate.  Near Chess is positioned as a chess variant friendly for those who don't normally play chess.

Anyhow, out of development of Near Chess came the question about how pieces following Near Chess rules would do against those following normal chess rules.  To answer this question,  Near vs Normal Chess was created to pit pieces following Near Chess rules against those following normal chess rules.     Initially I thought the Near Chess side would have no chance.  However, it ended up initially being closer than I expected, running it on the computer and personally playing it against human opponents.

After running the game a bunch of times over Zillions, I would likely give a slight edge to the Normal side, but I am not sure. I would like people here to perhaps speculate on which side has an advantage. Let's say we follow all of normal chess rules, except the Near side changes things this way:
1. Near moves its pieces up one row.
2. Near doesn't castle.
3. Near can En Passant Normal's pawns, but due to the limited movement of Near's Pawns can't be En Passanted.

Game is won on checkmate, and like in normal chess, you can have more pieces than usual counter mix. So, the question is, which side has an advantage in your assessment?

Near's advatages are:
1. Its pawns can be defended easier early, and aren't subject to en passant. In Near vs Normal, en passant is treated as a weakness with Normal chess pawns, not as a move that normal chess pawns do distinctly. The pressure Near's pawns put on the center also restricts how Normal would develop its pieces.
2. It can't be subject to a back rank mate or fool's mate.
3. Its pawns all start one row closer, meaning more pressure across the entire board on the center.
4. Its rooks can get mobilized earlier.
5. Its Knight, Bishop and Queen can mobilize behind its and protect themselves. Normal must bring its pieces out in front of its pawns normally to mobilize them.

Near's disadvantages:
1. No castling. King stays in middle of the board.
2. Near's non-pawn pieces are a bit limited in how they mobilize. If you bring a knight out, for example, Normal can manage to push a pawn 2 spaces, threatening to capture the Knight.


So, I will ask, which side do you believe has an advantage? My take is the sides are likely close enough to be able to have skill offset any advantage, but Normal probably has a slight edge.  However, this represents play in Zillions mostly, so it is only one computer AI.

I ask this question, because if the sides are close enough, then Near vs Normal could be a variant people could play normally to mix things up, as a side game.  If one side clearly has an edge over the other, then the stronger player could take the weaker side.  Of course, there is white vs black, and perhaps that would also impact things in that maybe White Normal vs Black Near is an advantage for Near, while White Near vs Black Normal is an advantage for Normal.  I don't know, which is why I ask here.

I guess also it would answer the question of whether or not castling plus intial pawn double move is stronger than all pieces shifted up one, and an empty back rank, without castling.  

Comments are welcomed here.  I am curious to see what people might have as thoughts regarding this.

- Rich

Near Chess was discovered in an attempt to adapt Christian Freeling's Grand Chess to an 8x8 board.  This produced a formation where both sets of pieces shift up one row.  This was streamlined even more by dropping castling, how pawn promotion works and having king captured instead of checkmate.  Near Chess is positioned as a chess variant friendly for those who don't normally play chess.

Anyhow, out of development of Near Chess came the question about how pieces following Near Chess rules would do against those following normal chess rules.  To answer this question,  Near vs Normal Chess was created to pit pieces following Near Chess rules against those following normal chess rules.     Initially I thought the Near Chess side would have no chance.  However, it ended up initially being closer than I expected, running it on the computer and personally playing it against human opponents.

After running the game a bunch of times over Zillions, I would likely give a slight edge to the Normal side, but I am not sure. I would like people here to perhaps speculate on which side has an advantage. Let's say we follow all of normal chess rules, except the Near side changes things this way:
1. Near moves its pieces up one row.
2. Near doesn't castle.
3. Near can En Passant Normal's pawns, but due to the limited movement of Near's Pawns can't be En Passanted.

Game is won on checkmate, and like in normal chess, you can have more pieces than usual counter mix. So, the question is, which side has an advantage in your assessment?

Near's advatages are:
1. Its pawns can be defended easier early, and aren't subject to en passant. In Near vs Normal, en passant is treated as a weakness with Normal chess pawns, not as a move that normal chess pawns do distinctly. The pressure Near's pawns put on the center also restricts how Normal would develop its pieces.
2. It can't be subject to a back rank mate or fool's mate.
3. Its pawns all start one row closer, meaning more pressure across the entire board on the center.
4. Its rooks can get mobilized earlier.
5. Its Knight, Bishop and Queen can mobilize behind its and protect themselves. Normal must bring its pieces out in front of its pawns normally to mobilize them.

Near's disadvantages:
1. No castling. King stays in middle of the board.
2. Near's non-pawn pieces are a bit limited in how they mobilize. If you bring a knight out, for example, Normal can manage to push a pawn 2 spaces, threatening to capture the Knight.


So, I will ask, which side do you believe has an advantage? My take is the sides are likely close enough to be able to have skill offset any advantage, but Normal probably has a slight edge.  However, this represents play in Zillions mostly, so it is only one computer AI.

I ask this question, because if the sides are close enough, then Near vs Normal could be a variant people could play normally to mix things up, as a side game.  If one side clearly has an edge over the other, then the stronger player could take the weaker side.  Of course, there is white vs black, and perhaps that would also impact things in that maybe White Normal vs Black Near is an advantage for Near, while White Near vs Black Normal is an advantage for Normal.  I don't know, which is why I ask here.

I guess also it would answer the question of whether or not castling plus intial pawn double move is stronger than all pieces shifted up one, and an empty back rank, without castling.  

Comments are welcomed here.  I am curious to see what people might have as thoughts regarding this.

Played this recently, except the pawn promotion rules were opposite.  I would recommend this as a variant.  In the way that it was played recently, player have one rook (Marshall), one bishop (Cardinal) and one Queen.  When a Pawn promotes, it only promotes to a captured piece.

The version played was 2 player only.

Near vs FIDE can be found here on here as Near vs Normal:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSnearvsnormalch