Comments by RichardHutnik

You mean 'Cthulhu Chess Live'?  Just myself being distracted by the
'Unmentionable' part in your post :-)

ESPN also did a feature on it.  All the links are in the IAGO
abstractgamers thread here:
http://abstractgamers.org/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=257

This is also along with debate on the subject.  As of now, I don't see
chessboxing as part of the IAGO World Tour, but I do have interest in
getting involved with the WCBO.

Hello John.

I think the basics here are that I posted Skirmish Chess, not knowing what it was, and you suggested chopping the last rows off and removing a lot of rules.  I happened to keep the rows in actually.  You then went this chopped route, playtested it, and decided to throw a row back in.  I feel it is more like you worked on Near Chess, while Simplified Chess is your own thing.  My take on Simplified is that I would put castling in if I were to play it, and put more of a focus on the distance between the pieces (and single pawn movement) instead of it being simplified.

What I will say, out of all this, is the 8x7 board is what has seemed to have captured the most interest of people though.

I am proposing this as a simplified way to handle side switching, for an
elimination game:
A simple way to do this is to only allow people on winning side to advance
on to a future round.  Everyone on winning side up until last turn advances
on to next round.  If playing multiple rounds and using elimination, these
are varions conditions by which someone is eliminated (player leaves the
game with as many points as they would of scored had they not been knocked
out, but they can no longer score).  These conditions would be:
1. The side player is on loses the game while they are on it.  Player is
done with series of games/tournament, and score what they would of
normally scored and weren't eliminated.
2. If, when a player switches sides (during switch side phase), no players
are left on the other side.  When that happens, all players switching sides
from losing side to winning side, are out of the game/tournament (series of
games).

I am proposing this as a simplified way to handle side switching, for an
elimination game:
A simple way to do this is to only allow people on winning side to advance
on to a future round.  Everyone on winning side up until last turn advances
on to next round.  If playing multiple rounds and using elimination, these
are varions conditions by which someone is eliminated (player leaves the
game with as many points as they would of scored had they not been knocked
out, but they can no longer score).  These conditions would be:
1. The side player is on loses the game while they are on it.  Player is
done with series of games/tournament, and score what they would of
normally scored and weren't eliminated.
2. If, when a player switches sides (during switch side phase), no players
are left on the other side.  When that happens, all players switching sides
from losing side to winning side, are out of the game/tournament (series of
games).

I think an idea for being profitable doing chess variant pieces is to be in
the business of making surplus game equipment for games in general, so
people can get both replacements, and game designers can get equipment for
doing prototypes.  Come up with some standards for universal equipment and
go from there.

I do happen to like the Ultima set, by the way.

Vox Populi now stands as a variant on here.  The URL is:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSvoxpopulichess

Vox Populi is now a variant on here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSvoxpopulichess

Charles, thanks for the comment.  The idea was to try to get abstract strategy games in a format that would work for gameshows.  One could also have the whole Vox concept work as a suggestion for two players in battles with one another, and he Vox game being a side game an audience can play.

We do need to get this implemented, and played.  It is, of course for 3 or more players.  No sure how you could sanely do two.  I do have ideas for a 3-5 player specific version that I should be able to try.  I will likely use a simple game like Hex or Gomoku, as the base game to see how well the voting works.

Hey Joe, I found there is a place for people to leave comments.  I would
suggest people go there and leave comments.  Maybe someone could plug the
CV site also, and say you are up for playing XiangQi or Shogi on here.

I did mention the IAGO World Tour on the site.

I have run this multiple times in Zillions and got to play it with Joe Joyce today.  I have to give it a thumbs up.  The game has one on edge most of the time.  There is room for a single mess up multiple times in the game that can cost you.  This happened when I played Joe.  I actually had the game locked, then bungled with my King and he won.  It is amazing that by removing a few rules, you can end up with chess going in an entirely different direction.

Well, that is my brief review to explain my experience.  Beyond this, I want to get people to look at this game and argue for how much less depth it has then normal (FIDE) Chess.  My take here is that, while the game forces more restrictions, there are critical key points in the game, that force one to even have to evaluate deeper in the decision tree in order not to lose.  Joe described this as 'Chaotic'.  In a 'Butterfly effect' sort of way, I would agree here.

Anyhow, if anyone wants to argue that Dipole Chess is a lot more shallow than regular chess, due to the lack of moving backwards, I would like to hear the arguments.  I will say that Zillions is a bit prone to not playing it well, making stupid mistakes, and not reading context of pieces to one another.

I have several comments:
1. I believe Seirawan and Harper forbid their pieces being used for any other purposes but Seirawan chess.  I happened to get into an ugly email correspondence over this.  They want their pieces ONLY used for Seirawan chess.  I will say that one could put a second queen in there instead of the Bishops, and use the Bishops to replace the elephants, and it should be ok.  
2. I personally would rather not have a big X through the forts on the board.  But, that would be your choice.  I guess if everyone wanted to use it for just Chinese Chess, it might make sense though.

An interesting question regarding normal chess is: How much of the depth is meaningful depth?  It is possible to have a position in normal chess where you meaninglessly move a bishop or knight around, stalling for time and so on.  This makes the number of the moves deeper than in Dipole Chess, but is it meaningful depth?

The one thing about Dipole, because it is impossible, short of capturing, to restore a piece to a prior position, that every move has an impact in the entire game.  A decision to capture one way (and at a certain turn), instead of another (and another tunr), results in pieces in different places on the board when it comes to the end game.  This could make the difference in the end game, with a piece being able to capture backwards and buy more turns, and win the end-game tempo race game.

If one were to cut out redundancy in normal chess, then it becomes a question how much deeper it is than Dipole Chess.  One think about Dipole Chess is that positions are a bit fragile, and you can mess up much easier in the mid-game.  

Anyhow, I don't want this post to be something that sounds like I am shilling a design I did.  I just happened to see how Forwards Chess that someone else did was like Dipole, minus what is in Dipole that is added to Dipole Chess.  It also should be an interesting study in how slight changes to normal chess rules can result in a game that is very different.  One can argue that Dipole Chess is a modest chess variant, but the consequences of the removal of certain rules makes for a game that potentially plays less like chess than more wild variants out there.

There is a game called 'Hive' that is a commercial game that is like chess, but involves pieces and no board.  You can see a Boardspace tournament involving it here:
http://boardspace.net/cgi-bin/tournament-signup.cgi?tournamentid=13

It was actually on the 2008 IAGO World Tour schedule.

Charles, I think Dipole Chess exposes taxonomy issues regarding chess variants on here (and the variant community).  What you see in Dipole Chess can, on the one hand, be seen as a bunch of new pieces being added.  On the other hand, it is a simple removal of a few rules to Normal chess, that could be summed up as a mutator. One could play with mutators, have the Dipole Chess rule in the waiting, and then use it to change the dynamics.  One could also use it as a game condition that kicks in to reduce draws in Normal Chess. 

Do you see how Dipole Chess can be argued to be nothing but a simple mutator ('simple' as in how it affects the rules, NOT in its impact)?  I see it that way.  I actually am a bit hesitant to give it the full name 'Dipole Chess' as if it is some radically new game.  It is merely a rules tweak, arguably the same that Near Chess is.  

In this, I believe Dipole Chess does call for work in the taxonomy department for chess variants, so we can have a bit more standardization, and allow for more rule variations to be played, while still playing a base game of a sort.

I do hope others care to join in and debate this subject here.  I will agree that Dipole Chess ends up coming off more different than even a game on a 10x10 grid with a few new variant/fantasy) pieces (and I do believe we should also come up with a standardize name for this category rather than 'fairy').

Names are a tricky thing.  I know the case of Dipole Chess, I asked Mark Steere if he minded me naming it.  Glad you didn't go with Swarm, as TWO games have that name.

A good place to check for names of games is on boardgamegeek.com .

Hello again Charles.

I think it is important to note that a small change can have a large impact on a game.  I think people in the variant community should think on this when adding a new game.  One can get novel results by little effort.

I will stand by this being a modest variant, by the impact in the rules.  It is only marginally more than what is done with Skirmish Chess, for example.  And I will look to Skirmish Chess as an example to.  The game flat out plays different than Normal Chess, due to the proximity of the pawns and pieces.  Simplified Chess also came about when trying to shrink the size of the board.  Dipole Chess is similar in regards to rules tweaks similar, eventhough the effects are more severe.  

But, I will let people debate this.  If others want to chime in, please do so.  If this variant is considered radical, then please speak up, and I will not label it modest.  However, people may be concerned here about saying it is radical, because it is only removing a few rules.  This seems to go against the norm of what people here would want to do.  

I will also add here, that what I have been adding for the most part, had been done for practical reasons.

IAGO Chess System was done as a way to integrate the world of chess variants into normal chess (providing a migration path), and provide a way to play Capablanca chess with standard equipment for IAGO.  If anyone has an acceptable variant in the Capablanca Chess mold, please propose it.  Actually if Seirawan Chess was receptive to the variant community, the IAGO Chess System would of never came about.  It had been called, ironically, both 'too bold' and 'too modest'.  I have a feeling people may want a ton of noise that really doesn't change anything if that is the argument.

Near Chess ended up being stumbled across an attempt to do Minigrand Chess on an 8x8 board using IAGO Chess System rules.  This was then found to be Skirmish Chess, a modest chess variant, however, rules were removed, and it was repositioned as a game to help learn normal chess.  This then begat Near vs Normal (to see how it would hold up) and from there multi-formation chess (not entered in here yet) to allow for another way to mix the opening book in chess, and also a way to integrate variants into normal chess also (well, as another school of modifications to opening book that could join Chess960).

Vox Populi Chess is meant as a way to turn Chess into more of a party game, and attempting to increase its mass appeal, while making it more of a spectator sport also.  It is mean to get an audience involved.

And now, we have Dipole Chess.  This started out as Forwards Chess on SchemingMind.com site, but then was taken by myself to be like Dipole (Mark Steere's game) and done as a way to insure that there is a chess game that would never end up in a draw.  It is less severe than Forwards in what it restricts, adding depth seen in Steere's Dipole (capture to buy tempo).

A few others I added here have been for novelty effect, except for Simpleton's, which is there actually to be the world's easiest Chess game.  And this came from Henry VIII Chess actually.  Again, Simplified Chess appears in the form of the chessboard.  There is also mini-Near Chess, which has the Knights removed, again for teaching purposes.  

In all these, I wasn't trying to do anything revolutionary (well, IAGO Chess System can be said this, but it appeared to change nothing), just a minor change to deal with this and that.  They aren't meant as gimmicks either, or some sort of 'aha' thing either that thinks this is the magic bullet that would address all the perceived ills of normal chess.  I do know, however, that people who want to get fantastic about things may not give these designs much of a look.  They don't do anything way out there weird.  BUT, I will say they do end up fundamentally changing how chess works, even if the rules aren't that different.

Maybe I am a bit off.  Maybe what people want is stuff that looks really odd, but ends up playing pretty much identical to the chess they know already.  I also find it interesting people want the 'next chess' to end up allowing them to do everything they have been doing, not mess it up, but give them more variety in the opening, and being less likely to get draws at the end.  I would say people should considered Seirawan Chess for this off the top, vanilla Seirawan, and don't tweak it.  I would suggest, if not that, then people should give thought for the IAGO Chess System and make it there own, and discuss this.  It is meant to be variant community friendly.

Anyhow, in all this, I hope people look into this stuff, and even Simplified Chess.  I am finding, for example, that I do use Simplified Chess as a base for doing variants from time to time.  The board at least is interesting.  I know I am looking at Simplified Dipole Chess, for example.

Just my 2 cents.  I hope people also chime in here.  

By the way, I checked the Moves box, and unchecked the Modest box in the Index section.