Comments by RichardHutnik

If 10x8 (10 wide, 8 deep) which is what I assume is the subject is dead, it
is because you can't find the board anywhere.  Anytime you deviate from
8x8, you have problems.  This is why I personally propose 8x8 be the
starting point for anything.

As far as Seirawan Chess goes, it is on an 8x8 board.  I believe it has
issues also, but less then Capablanca.

M Winther, how many Seirawan Chess games have you seen actually played?  I find with IAGO Chess, which is like Seirawan Chess, the Bishops don't disappear too fast.  Not sure why you argue that the do disappear too fast with Seirawan.  A bishop fianchetto is just one of the types of opens you can do.  I don't see why bishops are diminished that much personally.

In IAGO Chess, the game, you can also drop a Cap piece besides gating it in.    It is also not part of castling, and there is less of a rush to get the Cap pieces in.  Maybe that makes for a difference.  If you don't gate in a piece in Seirawan Chess, you may not be able to get it into the game.

IAGO Chess (the game) doesn't forbid pieces entering anywhere, because entrance of pieces can be delayed.  When Zillions ran it, it would sometimes delay until the end game.  When you enter pieces in early, you lose the ability to enter them later, as needed.  Your concerns about bishop fianchetto, I can see as something that you may give up as a result of gating.  It is not a big deal to myself personally.  

As for losing the bishops, I don't see it at all.  Maybe the way Zillions worked with yourself it happened, but how does one go down BOTH bishops when only ONE of the Cap pieces has the bishop movement.  Even in games where I allow players to put down a Hawk (Cardinal), Elephant (Marshal) or Queen in the start space, instead of just the Queen in IAGO Chess (C-Class), it didn't seem a problem at all.

Now that I saw King's Guard Chess:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSkingsguardches

I believe I have the answer to the concerns I have with Single Combat Chess. By adding in the attack values of all the friendly pieces that can attack a space, it does enable a wargame solution to the concerns I have had.  This is wargamish in nature, and a proper fit I feel for Single Combat Chess.

I believe the idea of pieces in support role for an attack, as seen here, could possibly offer an answer for concerns I have had with Single Combat Chess:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSsinglecombatch

When the game 'IAGO Chess' (contrast with The IAGO Chess System, which is a way to systematize all of chess, and has the game IAGO Chess in it), it was meant to address issues I saw with Seirawan Chess:
1. The 9 queen problem.  It is theoretically possible to have 9 queens in chess, but they don't supply 9 queens.  This may seem ok to people, if the idea of flipping a rook (not in the rules) is used to signify a queen.  The 9 queen problem becomes worse, when you try to add even a wider range of pieces.  Exactly how does a physical version of the game handle this?  As I see it, it is not able to.  This hinders the adoption of chess variants, and chess continuing to evolve.

What IAGO Chess states is that you are limited to your piece mix.  Due to the sheer firepower added (3 queen level pieces) available.  It also addresses the issue.

2. I have issues with the case of where you may not be able to get pieces onto the board from reserve, if you just only allow for gating as a way to get them onto the board.  All reserve pieces should have a chance to get onto the board at some point.  Not allowing this means that reserve pieces are merely an extension of the opening game.  This hinders the depth of the game.

3. If one is going to work on 'The Next Chess' (Seirawan would fit into this), as opposed to a gimmick (or unplayed variant), it should represent the fullness of the chess experience.  Things should lend towards maximization of options, so that continued play can show what should or should not work.  From EXPERIENCE of play, of MULTIPLE people, consensus should be reached.  For this reason, IAGO Chess (in the IAGO Chess System) is set up how it is.  It is meant to be played and seen from multiple eyeballs.  The IAGO Chess System framework allows people to adjust their own game, and take out what they want or don't want.  The idea is to get enough games close enough playing, so we can see what will work.  This is critically important.

My take on what happens is people have pet projects they label a 'Chess' as if it is supposed to be a full-blown game, one that joins a flood of other games, and it is a discrete item that doesn't lend to the body of language at all.  What should be derived is what people collective decide to play, that can collectively lend to the experience.
---------------------

In all this, I do have much respect for the pieces and suggestions you have.  Even your recommended form of displacement in Alternative Chess, I believe is something that should be played.  However, I think what you have in Alternative Chess, is merely a rules tweak that can be applied when there are reserve pieces in play.  Labeled as a full-blown game, it gets boxed in and not played.  Same goes with your 'Reformed Chess', which I see as a mutator for chess, rather than a full-blown game.  Same with all your neat pieces.  These pieces should be put in Alternative, IAGO or Seirawan, or some other form that uses part or all.

What is needed is a community to play with a range of mix of rules and pieces, and a framework to manage this.  Arguing over Seirawan, IAGO or Alternative ends up not advancing anything.  PLAY should dictate this, as the use of your 'Reformed Chess' pawn.

If this is not done, we aren't going to have 'The Next Chess' (the proper adaptation of chess which reduces the number of draws and makes the opening less stale).  We will have a variant community that is continued to be divorced from the normal chess community.

And, as far as 'IAGO Chess' goes, I suggest the IAGO Chess System be looked at, and what is in it, as far as specific game rules, be proposed and adopted.  IAGO Chess (the game) can be modified as play and experience dictates.  Let that be what the community deems to be 'The Next Chess'.

To sum up, we need a whole lot more PLAYING and less PROPOSING of ideas, and adoption, and community that will play these.

frozen, I wanted to comment here on what I have said.

I am not trying to argue that designers don't play their variants, just am saying that proposed ideas need to be played before a larger audience to see how well they work.  Again, more playing by larger numbers, and less merely posting ideas.  To this end, I suggest games be broken down to variant elements and people try to 'roll their own'.  Maybe in this, the evolutionary path of chess can not be blocked.

Jianying Ji,

I also find castling fiddly, but also see if you don't have it, protecting the king and mobilizing the rook is shorted.

I do believe the 8x7 board (Simplified Chess Board) does provide solid merit though, considering that Henry VIII Chess also uses it.  I also have Simpleton's Chess, which is like Henry VIII but simplier also uses it.

Hello Charles.  For some reason, I am feeling that this thread should be part of the IAGO Chess System game, and not Omega Chess :-).

What will be in IAGO Chess, will end up having to be decided by consensus.  I actually only push for ONE thing, the restriction on promotion, because of the problematic issues that arises when you start adding more pieces to chess besides the Queen.  Do you want a flipped rook to be considered a 'Jester' piece that can be used to represent anything in the game?  There are issues I see with physical pieces if you don't add a restriction on promoting.  One may prefer to have a wider range, but explain how it is able to be done practically.  Let's say we have a Cardinal, Cannon, Marshall, and Amazon all in reserve, and then you want to promote a pawn to a piece.  How do you have it so you would have two Amazons around?  You end up declaring a flipped rook anything?  This is the issue I see regarding pawn promotion not being restricted.  One can say, 'Wait, we just play electronic version on CV website, and we are set'.  Ok, exactly how many people will you get to play here if they want to play chess?  And when do you exactly create a market for new pieces?

By the way, all that is asked with the 'restriction' anyhow, is that whomever decides to design a chess variant be able to have physical equipment map to the rules.  You don't have it so someone can bring in pieces into the game the equipment doesn't handle.  Like, do we force someone to have to use a salt shaker as a piece because you are missing a second piece?  Pretty much account for all the needed pieces, and don't require players to make stuff up.  At least be forthright to tell a person they have to flip a rook to be your piece in question.  Please let me know why this is not a preferred approach.

The basic idea of the IAGO Chess System is to start with normal chess as the base game, and then provide a migration path to deviate.  Why would you go beyond an 8x8 board as your board?  Are such boards readily available?  People can be free to choose, but how about we have some standards by which the conversation can be provided?  What you see here with your comment about not enough play-testers relates to this.

Also the reason for an evolutionary approach to chess, and 'the next chess' was to break the 'solved' issue with chess, that could cause the audience to end up dissolving over time.  I believe it would be beneficial to have a middle ground between the variant community and the normal chess community.

I will hold off rating these pieces, but will say that I am confused by them.

Charles, thanks for the comments on IAGO Chess System.  I do believe those are some of the objectives.  More work needs to be done to make it so.  Also, thanks for the reply here.  It makes sense to have it attached to the IAGO Chess System.

I am all in favor of coming up with some 'Universal' chess variant kit that has a larger board.  I would actually like one under the IAGO banner that could encompass a wide range of games.  There are several issues though that are a potential barriers to making this so (You need to keep in mind FIDE folk when proposing anything):
1. The availability to purchase such equipment.  Rationalizing people can make their own boards and so on, isn't going to cut it with most people.  Most people aren't interested in arts and crafts projects to do their games.  Saying you can import it isn't going to cut it either.  People need things more immediate.
2. You have to take an evolutionary starting point to get the FIDE crowd interested in variants.  I am of the belief that the use of reserve pieces with drops and gating is the least disruptive way to do this.  IAGO, Seirawan and Alternative all provide ways to get new pieces into regular chess, without disrupting the starting point.  Of course, Seirawan is proprietary and the designers don't want it tweaked in any way, so I use it as a hypothetical here.  I am suspect that the FIDE crowd wants to go with a larger board now.  At least NOT from the perspective of investing in new equipment.  The movement has to be subtle, but also opening up the doorway for variants.  On this point, I think we need to do an actual survey of what they want, rather than doing presumptive speculation on what they want. 

I also want to add that Seirawan, IAGO and Alternative all can be adapted to a wide range of chess variants. Like the Beyond Chess board, there are more universal in how they work, thus are compatible with a range of games.  This compatibility in approach is what is needed.  Things like this, and mutators, are what matters.  My take on the board is that, taking a wargames approach, it should be nothing more than a 'map' for a scenario.  The board shouldn't be the end all and be all answer for anything.  It is just a part of a larger picture.  The 8x8 board is readily available and comfortable with people, so I say this should be the starting point.  Let me add here also that IAGO Chess (and Alternative to some extent) are able to strengthen Chess960, by addressing any weaknesses in configuration of pieces.


As for my 'next chess', I am looking for an evolutionary path for it to grow and continue to adapt, that would encompass the fullness of the variant world, in the most rational way.  In this Chess960 is part of the solution, as is the use of reserves that enter via drops and gating.  You also throw in mutators in this. And, players can go beyond with new boards also.  The idea is to loosen things up, but provide a feedback loop on what works, that would bring the variant and FIDE crowd together.

In regards to the various projects, I want 'The Next Chess' to be a separate project.  I had discussed 'The Chess of Tomorrow' project as a place for this.  The results are what IAGO can adopt.  IAGO Chess (the game) is an example now, definitely subject to modification.  It was an attempt to do Capablanca chess in IAGO, through the use of drops and gating, as a compromise.  There is also the classification approach (IAGO Chess System) which I believe should be expanded and tweaked, 'The Chess of Tomorrow' project would fit into this.

Also, don't diminish the 9 queen problem.  It gets worse the more you have promotion and an ever wider variety of pieces.  Chess players, FIDE folk, play with a fixed number of pieces.  You start bring variant pieces in, then you have issues.  The issue is that the salt shaker is no longer a queen, but an ever-growing number of pieces.  The variant crowd does have a chance to find a practical solution for this in some form.

What we need to do now is have action.  We need to start doing things.  We need to make variants more financially viable, and available to people, and have it interesting.  In this comes standards.  We need to increase the pool of games played, and see how the interplay works.  Cutting the Gordian Knot of piece values would be a big help also, and figuring out how to balance the unknown would be a big plus.  Throw in here a base of equipment used, with standardized names, and equipment standards, and what kind of boards apply, and you are on to something.

And in this, if there is decent involvement and results, you can have IAGO get behind whatever the findings are.  That is one of the roles of IAGO, to help bring about consensus.

I am kicking around a way to promote chess variants (and other games).  How
about we take Gary (hello Gary) and have him play a chess variant against
the entire Internet?  People could register and then vote on a given move.
 After a day or two, the top position voted upon would end up being played
against Gary, and Gary would play against the mob on the Internet.  Need
to resolve a draw, perhaps having it so there is an ongoing list that
shows what the top proposed move is, and for another move to replace it,
it would have to get more votes.  Everyone on the Internet would see what
the top proposed move is and vote for it or against it.  I suggest Gary,
since he is the top CV site player at this point.  We could put someone
else up here to take on the entire Internet
 
Any thoughts here?

Vox Populi Chess (Crowd/mob plays itself at a game of chess, or another
game).  Please comment and I will get it into site as an actual game, once
this is finalized.

This is a way to have a crowd play itself at chess (or another game):
1. Divide the crowd up into 2 teams.  This can be done randomly, or crowd
members can select one side or another real-time.  Need to make sure there
is a minimum number on a given side to start.
2. One team votes its moves (most popular move at a given time is shown. 
Maybe show the top 3 or 4, ranked).  Members of one team can change their
votes within a given time limit.  After that, then the top vote getter is
that team's vote.  First move selected becomes the default move.
3. Other team does the same.
4. After both teams have made their moves, players have a set time to
decide whether to switch teams.  This is done in secret and
simultaneously.
5. You also provide a third side called 'Draw'.  Once a players selects
Draw side, they no longer can change sides.  They would score one point
for for each turn they are part of draw side at end of game, in event game
ends in draw.  
6. Members of the crowd on both teams score one point for each turn they
voted for a move while part of the winning team.  Member of crowd that was
part of the winning side the longest wins.  In event of tie, possible
tiebreaker would be player who voted for same move of winning side (draw
side excluded from this).  A member of the crowd must cast a vote for a
move to get a point in the end.
7. Game would continue until a judge determines the game is over, or one
side has no players on it.  At that point, players who had the most points
advance to next round to play again.  Play continues until there is one
winner. 
8. Multiple games would be played until there is one crowd member left. 
That crowd member would be considered the winner.

To be able to work this as a gameshow, you have two players battle each
other.  The crowd decides who to side with, or even draw.  They give
suggested top move to players.  Game doesn't end if a side has no one in
the crowd on their side.  Crowd is a secondary game.  Multiple rounds are
played.  Winner of the crowd could end up battling the top player.  If
there is no winner after a set number of games, and one crowd member who
won, that crowd member could be considered the winner.

Here is an idea for a mob playing itself at a game:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=VoxPopuliChess