[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by RichardHutnik
Half Chess. Pieces have approximately half their usual movement possibilities. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The purpose of Dipole (and Forwards) Chess isn't to introduce new pieces, but add restrictions regarding normal movement of all pieces, to force the game to progress and reach a conclusion. The pieces have half the moves, they don't move half the distance. I write this as a serious reply assuming that George didn't write his reply as an attempt at dry humor.
Dipole Chess. A cross between Chess and the game Dipole by Mark Steere. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Dipole Chess is not a single attempt to save chess. It is, however, if continued play holds up, a case for mutators to be introduced into the chess variant world, as a way to change things up. Dipole could be a mutator, just as forwards is, as would extinction or other things. It would provide a way for variants to get integrated into a common base game that people could play, and a proving ground for new rules, pieces and so on. Consider what is written in the IAGO Chess System rules here as a framework for doing this. And yes, IAGO Chess System does need to be worked on.
Rule Zero. A base or starting rule set for most Chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I do applaud the effort here. More needs to be done in this area. However, I disagree with the pawn promotion rule. Currently chess has a '9 Queen' problem. It is theoretically possible in Normal chess for a player to have 9 queens. The problem is that NO chess set provides you 9 queens. This problem will get worse when you add variants. Unless we want to have 'Jester' pieces who act as wildcards, and officially codify it in the rules (today a flipped rook in FIDE chess would be a Jester), the need for the rules and pieces to match should be dealt with. I would recommend that whatever is the base rules, aka Rule Zero here, state that pawns can only promote to material that exists in the game, and accounted for my the rules, enabling players to also differentiate whose pieces belong to whom when promoting. This is far more robust than the Rule Zero promotion rules. I am interested in hearing someone argue against this, particularly when dealing with physical chess equipment.
Shogi. The Japanese form of Chess, in which players get to keep and replay captured pieces. (9x9, Cells: 81) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Shogi is on the XBox 360! I just saw this on XBox Live Arcade. Shotest Shogi has been released for the XBox 360, and able to be obtained through XBox Live. It contains both traditional and symbolic notation. You can learn more on it here: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/s/shotestshogixboxlivearcade/ http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1917/Shotest-Shogi/p1/ I rate it good, because finally a console gets Shogi.
Star Trek? Well, I do see from time to time, people attempting to go where 'no one has gone before'. That is both good and bad. It is good as far as innovation goes. Bad, when it involves pushing the edge as far as insulting anyone.
Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Let me know if you have gone multiple dimensions and different space shapes. Also, how about point to point configurations?
I stumbled into this topic, in an attempt to make a lame Star Trek joke, based on what Joe wrote. Now, since Mr. Duke happened to reply in such a way my joke appears to be taken seriously as a comment on the subject (well, either that or he is commenting on what I had written before), I felt compelled to read what was written in here, and want to comment. I will say this: Unless there is something common that allows all ideas to lend to a common development structure, that can collective be used by this community here, and worldwide, it is more of the same that doesn't advance anything. All these attempts to generate endless variants is an activity that doesn't do much to advance chess variants collectively, but may get someone a few minutes of spotlight in a, 'gee that was clever', sort of way. There seems to be a fixation on wanting to be clever, rather than doing what works. Either the cleverness comes in some form of trying to get as weird as possible, so people will be amazed at how different you are, or it is in the form of 'THE NEXT CHESS' (to which one designer I have written says, 'Yeah, and I have 10 of them') where the person thinks they have the magic bullet that will be THE game that the world will play as the next form of chess. To this end, can I propose that some thought be given to there being developed a system for handling new ideas that they work more like legos than they do discrete items that are meant to be seen as clever and 'Brilliant', that live and die on their own, and aren't used for any other purpose but stand alone? My take here is MAYBE if we design cool bits (like the Simplified Chess Board), that people can roll their own with, rather than entire systems that are give and take by themselves, we maybe can do something that advances chess variants, rather than spin of a near infinite number of reinventions of the wheel, in a state that we don't even know if it is Heraclitian-Calvinballish or not.
Hey George, several comments here: 1. I DON'T believe a 8x7 Simplified Chess should be the staring point. I believe 8x8 should be the starting point, because it is the most available. I believe 8x7 is a cool board to use for game designs, as a different way to do things create variants. It isn't THE starting place, just one of the boards we can use. 2. I am not interested in me being THE leader on the standardized evolving chess project. I would like to be part of the process, to help, but I am too busy with ALL abstract strategy games, to be focused on one the niches. Currently, I am involved with a Hall of Fame project, the IAGO World Tour, helping abstract strategy game associations media coverage and sponsors, and an IAGO Clubhouse project, to get people places to play abstract strategy games and other players of these games. There are other things to. So, I am too busy to head up this project. I am up for helping out and giving advice, but NOT work on it now. Maybe IAGO gets off and everything is going fine, I could jump in more. But, a key about the 'Chess of Tomorrow' project, IAGO Chess System, and so on, is that it needs to be a community that runs with it, not one person sitting as a mad dictator on top. Do you know a throng that is demanding that I lead this? If no, then I am no going to slave drive this. I do say that leadership IS needed though. If people want to know how it should work, study the concept of crowdsharing, and how Linux came abou. 3. If people want a thread to discuss this Legos project, then please feel free to find the 'Chess of Tomorrow' project on the Wiki page, and IAGO Chess System: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste And start commenting. Whatever becomes of standards out of this process will become part of what IAGO does need. 4. I also don't think the chess variant community is in any place to deliver ultimatums. I once did that with a group of chess grandmasters regarding their game, and the results didn't go well. I ended up spending the following week emails saying I was sorry. I won't do that again.
I will assume that this thread has to do with discussing what 'The Next Chess' is. I am of the belief unless we develop a common lexicon for terminology we can use when talking to one another, and a common taxonomy used to discuss elements, the idea if a 'Next Chess' is never going to happen. Note the lexicon and taxonomy don't need to be enforced set of standards, but a tool used so people know what the heck everyone is talking about. Anyhow, that is my take. I believe focus needs to be there. Outside of that, you will likely find a stumbling method of going from one fad to another that will end up fragmenting the community of players. Whether it be 'The Next Chess', 'Chess of Tomorrow', or whatever else will fit into IAGO Chess, having common points of reference will be needed. Pretty much it is making oneself more conscious of what exactly is going on in the chess variant community today. Just my 2 cents...
In regards to this conversation, I would like people to consider the game Rithmomachy, for example. This game was what was played in Europe before Chess came in. Chess comes in and replaces it and it drops off. You can see it here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/17118 My take regarding chess is this: Unless you want to watch what happened with Rithmomachy to chess, in other words, the community abandons the game and goes plays other things, things should be mindful as to what should be done with the game to keep the community in place before they fracture. Fracturing is the norm, but doesn't need to be so. In regards to this, I would rather give thought to how we can have an environment for chess to continually evolve, rather than one that leads to the community dying off. I know in conversations I have had with some, they would like to say to games like chess or checkers: 'Your game is now broken! Abandon it, and play something better, like games in the Gipf series that will never break!' Of course, my view of abstract strategy games is, once a codified set of rules for a game with no luck, 2 players, and perfect information is written, it gets an expiration date stamped on it. It is on its way to being solved. Because of this the thought of what the next version of chess or any other abstract strategy game is, does need to come into place. Well, unless one wants to throw in imperfect information or luck. By the way, my experience with Seirawan Chess is more of a typical example than some new form of fragmenting. Fragmenting is more of the norm, that creates deadends historically. Also, I am curious about the end of discussions of humans against AI. Is it that Deep Blue did it, and now the community would rather pursue other activities to find meaning in their game? Or are they just bored? Is it the facing the possible inevitable end of their game as it is and they are just waiting? What is your take on this? In the case of myself, my interest in the future of chess as AIs beating humans as a lower priority in others. I am more interested in chess (and other games) to both continue to delight people with new innovations and novelty, and also provide a place for people's adaptive cognitive abilities to be measured. In the current age, the ability to adapt to new mental challenges is what is high on the list. And, in his, I believe that the games that are played benefit if they map to this. Again, I get back to Heraclitian-Calvinball, but so be it. I believe in a H-C environment is where one is able to find higher levels of universal strategy that have more universal application.
As of now, October 20, 2008 (Monday) the initial Inductees into the IAGO Hall of Fame (for abstract strategy games) will be released. The information will be released here: http://www.IAGOHallOfFame.com/ Pop by the site at that time to see what from the world of chess and chess variants made it. And, feel free to give feedback on the abstractgamers site in regards to what you want to see in the future. Games that have no one arguing for them will be less likely to get into the Hall of Fame.
George, I am sorry to see that happen with the fracturing. I will say that if there is a serious effort to help standardize chess variants, and also work towards 'The Next Chess' (in all its flavors, using mutators, and other things perhaps, like gating), IAGO should be able to get fully behind it, and help to sanction tournaments and help to get champions of variants, and 'The Next Chess', whatever it may be. To this end, I do offer up the IAGO Chess System as a framework, and would look for it to be modified and a LOT more added. I am up for mutators, formations (see Near and Near vs Normal Chess), reserves, and whatever else people want, and we go from there. On the equipment front, there is the IAGO Hall of Fame that will be looking to push getting more equipment out there. This could lead to a 10x10 board becoming available, which then will help the variant community, through the demands perhaps for International Draughts. Work in the area of producing a version of an abstract strategy game 'Decathlon' can also help. Anyhow, if yourself and others want to work on this, I am in favor of it.
I figure Europe carries them. However, with the States, it is 'Good luck'. Game companies rather put Backgammon on the other side, instead of a larger board.
By the way, Mr. Duke, if he position of commissioner to reform chess pops up, please tell the world what your platform would be to reform chess. This is The 'Next Chess for Tomorrow' project :-)
Regarding mutators, I think it is best to try to categorize them by what they affect in the game. If you would like to be able to have something to break down mutators, look at this abstract strategy games definitions document, which tries to atomize what goes into abstract strategy games: http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/definitions-of-abstracts
Vox Populi Chess variant. A crowd plays itself at a game with only one winner.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for the reply here. Pretty much, this is an earlier set of rules. It lays out the framework for it. It has gone through multiple revisions since it first was posted. I will say that one would be expected to play multiple games, to determine a real winner. A second way to do this is to have it so that you want to be on the winning side at the end of the game. You can defect late, and still remain. People on losing side get knocked out of the game. Eventually you get down to two people. I have done an analog version (boardgame) using another game besides chess, and it worked. Being on the winning side the longest can remain a tiebreaker though. What you do want this to test is the ability for people to judge the state of the game, their team, and be able recommend competent moves. It is something that is also mean to add intrigue to any game pretty much, as spectators watching the crowd will wonder how the crowd will function. It is also a way to have kibitzing done as an actual game. And this is ideally suited for a game like chess and Go (abstract strategy game, perfect information, no luck). As more play happens, more tweaks can be made. Consider this a germ of an idea with some development behind it. I do see you have a concern with people being punished for defecting. I believe it shouldn't be rewarded or punished, just rewarding the best judgment. One could end up awarding a higher score to the player who started on the losing side. But, I don't see where the idea is to 'come back'. It is meant you decide to jump ship before it is too late, as it is going down.
By the way, on this 'Next Chess' project, why not have it so that it is more 'Atomized' allowing people to customize some. Also, why not go for 12x12 and 11x11 being the base boards people work with? If you are going to jump, jump here. I do believe, if you are going to evolve off FIDE Chess, the base board you start with will be an 8x8. Then, you need to think in terms of things that allow you to work with what you have, but advance into new ways to play. I believe mutators need to be seriously looked at.
Mr. Duke, how serious are you to have 'The Next Chess' come into being? If so, please send me some email. I can be reached at: rich [@ symbol] iagoworldtour.com Please send me email. I am looking to get an IAGO Standards committee formed, and would be interested in you working on this as something for IAGO.
Unless mass numbers of people get equipment to play 3D, I don't see 3D happening any time soon. Unless you want to count stacking and/or leaping as 3D movement, I don't see people handling 3D well when trying to think what to d. If you want 'The Next Chess' to encompass 3D, that is fine. I personally don't think 'The Next Chess' is going to be reached by someone saying, 'Why not have it go this way, it is only natural!' Well, only what people actually will play is natural. This is not going to be forced. As I see it now, one off games from FIDE are positioning for 'The Next Chess'. I believe, unless there is a framework to enable a wider range of variation to be expressed and tested, you will be looking at a mix of these games being collectively 'The Next Chess': 1. Chess960 2. Bughouse 3. Speed Chess 4. Some game using the Knight+Bishop/Rook. Seirawan Chess has a chance of maybe dong this. 5. Some form of Kriegspiel/Dark Chess. 6. Possibly changes made to the board and play area. The Next Chess will be one off, unless a framework is developed that is friendly to the variant community.. This framework should be able to handle (and also include): * Multiple board types and sizes * Reserves (brought in by drops and Gating) * Mutators * Multiple accepted pre-set formations (this is a preset configuration were units are dropped in a set relationship to one another before play begins). * Shuffles * A system to minimize draws, or at least one where a draw condition scores differently depending on the sides * The ability to handle a bunch of new pieces and add more as time goes on * Preferably a system for being able to evaluate the strength of new pieces being added in comparison to others. Besides this, a way to be able to have people assemble their own armies and have them fair. * A handicapping system so that newbies and experienced players can play and compete fairly. * In a perfect word, a way for different chess variant sides to play each other (different armies) and able to develop a way of assessing how well each side did. * A form of chess that is easier to learn than normal chess, but acts as a gateway into a wider range of games. * Equipment to play whatever would be played needs to be readily available to buy. I likely did miss more here, but I d believe a SYSTEM for handling all the above is going to be what is needed for the Next Chess to appear. Short of that, what people play, the bulk of which are FIDE fans looking for minor changes from their normal play, will be what will be here. And this will lock out the variant community once more. And, you will again rationalize how home made pieces are FANTASTIC and all you need. So long as people keep thinking that doing ONE thing is all that is needed, then nothing is going to change.
Charles, I agree here that it is the players who would decide what the 'Next Chess' will be by what they play. I believe what the variant community can do, is work towards making the environment for it to appear easier, and more natural. Enable separate parts of the form to be tested and tried and lend to a common pool of experience. Also, think in terms of considering the 'Next Chess' to not be a static set of rules but a FRAMEWORK by which the rules can continue to evolve over time, while keeping the community of players intact. The game should remain fresh and enable the community to get its needs met. This means some having the needs for innovation. Others for being able to discuss and plan strategy. And also the idea that a game remains novel. As for the equipment question, what does matter is that people have ACCESS to the equipment and can try out something with as little risk on their part. If you say it will be virtual, then players must be able to easily access the equipment when they want to play. If they want to buy the equipment, then it needs to be easy for them. If you require people to have to order overseas, it isn't going to happen. So, I would say that more thought needs to be given to how the 'Next Chess' would emerge, rather than what it is. And then work to make it so. Other ways are attempts for people to want to be seen as a genius and have a name made for themselves. Plenty of commercial chess variants fall under that. The person thinks they have it, and then they decide to sink a lot of money and time and effort into it. In a large number of cases, they get drunk by early success, and then think they have it. And they think they own it then. One can see what happened with the 'name that shall not be named' and this site regarding this. I know of others also. I have seen them request IAGO have nothing to do with their game, because they wanted complete control of the game, or felt they had to have it in their name completely. This goes as far also as one person who has a cool playing area the pieces rest on, thinking the play area he pieces rest on (the board) is what the next chess holds. Ok, I will close here by saying that if you want to see what the 'Next Chess' is, lets get a bunch of monkeys a typewriters trying a lot of things and seeing what sticks and gets popular. This approach can be the game of a month as Mr. Duke has hinted at, lending to a champion, but also elements of games atomized, and remixed, to see what will mix will. Maybe we do this atomizing, MAYBE we can also figure out what the value of pieces are in relation to one another. The atomizing happens to then lead to the community collectively determining it. Well, that is my take on this. I will probably blab more here on this. I am under the impression people do have a serious interest in this happening, eventhough people may question whether or not it can come to pass. We have seen it all before. Even Super Chess gets mentioned here. By the way, I do believe the 'Next Chess' will need a migration path from FIDE chess, in order have the community migrate over. A rapid jump isn't going to do it. Of course, where the game goes after that is an entirely different animal. If anyone can show that Chess didn't develop this way, and didn't evolve from Shatranj, and was a rules modification (evolution) off that game, then I will stand corrected. However, if you can't, then I believe the 'Next Chess' will have to have a way to be similar to this AND also lead to a place where it can keep evolving, while keeping the community of players intact.
Lubny Chess
. 100 cell chess variant invented in 1972.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hello George. Let me chime in from an IAGO perspective. Even if FIDE doesn't say: ''In April 1, 2008, at session of executive committee of FIDE the Rules of 100 Cells Chess were authorized and the first world tournament should be held up to the extremity of 2008.'', IAGO will get around to be doing that, once we get more established. The IAGO Standards Committee needs to get rolling, and we need to get a LOT more buy-in from stakeholders here (IAGO doing it without anyone else involved isn't going to count much). 'NextChess' will end up relating to this, once it is spelled out, and worked on. IAGO will get on this, and if FIDE doesn't move, IAGO will. I believe IAGO should work on officially recognizing World Champions at Chess960, Speed Chess (if they don't) and also Bughouse. We should also get SOME form of the Capablanca school recognized. All the troubles with the IAGO Chess System stemmed from IAGO trying to get Capablanca school of chess set up. So, in a nutshell, I would like to move on this. We could adapt Grand Chess as the first version, and get the 10x10 board. Maybe even do Random Grand Chess, where the pieces in the second and 9th rows are shuffled and the rooks stay in the corner. Well, this stuff is the work of the Standards Committee. Just my 2 cents...
Well, unless some fundamentals get implemented, I am also agnostic to whether we will see a 'Next Chess'. We will end up likely seeing the chess community fragment, rather than continue to work together on things.
Greetings Fergus. I just wanted to comment on several things, based upon my reading over what has been written on here, and the history of chess variants, including abstract strategy games as a whole. 1. At any given time, I see there will be a set of rules that will represent a set way to play. There will be standardization in these rules. What I have suggested is that variants be factored in and standardized into this. Do you have objections to these being in the next chess: Reserve pieces (enter by drops and gating), variable set ups, shuffles, mutators, multiple board layouts? 2. Beyond just the current static set of rules, will be a framework for managing change, with the full expectation that the rules will adapt and change over time. Ignoring this reality ignores the reality of abstract strategy games as a whole: Any game with a static set of fixed rules, the moment the rules are written down and played, is putting an expiration date in place. The game will push to be solved, particularly when there isn't luck or hidden information that allows the game to map to the psyche of the players who play them. Any living game makes changes. If it didn't, then the world would still be playing Sharanj. 3. If you don't have crossover appeal to the FIDE chess community to offer something that would appeal to them, you aren't going to draw much of a crowd. And this will lead me up to my next point. There is NO WAY the Next Chess will even get remotely as popular as chess, without the current chess community picking it up. It just isn't going to happen. Next Chess is going to have to be able to be picked up by current chess players. I believe, in some sense, the Next Chess has to be an evolutionary next step for chess, that would be like the way FIDE chess is an extension of Shatranj. 4. If you want to create an organization with a limited shelf life, then create an organization dedicated exclusively to this new game. Look towards fighting an uphill battle to promote your game, and try to compete against commercial games out there that are funded better, and try to get the attention of the world. There are multiple examples of this happening, and the organization fading away. They had their 15 minute of fame and then they were gone, and the game become a non-played relic that now rests in here. The reason for IAGO being IAGO (and it is an extension of an idea in the 1990s to start a chess variants association) is to provide support and promotion for a WIDE RANGE of games, so they all stand a better chance of making. IAGO is about the best shot now of the Next Chess ever coming about. If the CV site, IAGO and the British Chess Variants Society get together and work on the Next Chess project, we can get something. 5. We are going to have to come up with a meaningful ratings system for people playing a range of games anyhow here. The single game approach, without cross-linking hasn't worked at all. 6. IAGO is fully dedicated to helping whatever the Next Chess is, and help it catch on. Only way we will get this is going a multigame organization, so that all the games have a shot to make it, and the best rise to the top. And only by having a large group who plays multiple games, will there be enough people to test what will work vs what won't. 7. The idea of 'multiple rules' is to have a single framework that allows for customizing of initial conditions and game conditions, as scenarios, they way they do in ASL. Unless you believe that you can somehow have a game with fixed positions, and no changes EVER in the board, and no mutators, and just some set of pieces hat never change, and no reserves, and no formations, and no shuffles, and that it would work and catch on and supplant FIDE chess some day, I believe you need to account for all this, in a standardized set of rules. I personally don't think something that is static everything isn't going to appeal to the variant community at all. It may get played sometime in a pool of games, but not be the main game people focus on. Among the FIDE folk, it would seem weird. And among people not playing chess now, it would seem odd. Of course, you can try to argue that it be easier than chess. But at what cost to depth will you do to have that happen? 8. Another reason for accounting for a range of things that modify games is to have an environment rich enough that play of a range of configurations can help the beer configurations rise to the top. Short of this by experience approach, you are looking a chess in an ivory tower with an egghead shouting out to the world how they have 'THE NEXT CHESS'. Yes, we are going to need standardization here, but this doesn't mean that one game is going to be it. In this hubris of people thinking they know best, I could argue 'Near Chess' and 'Near vs Normal' and other formations, are THE BEST thing to start with when doing The Next Chess. The opening book is more varied than FIDE, and the rules less complicated (there is a way for people chess faster by it). Besides this, you can mix formations to wreck book memorization, while having stability in line structure. And you can play it NOW without any need for special equipment. Now, you want me to stop shoveling the bull, and acknowledge other things that also lend to the experience: reserves, mutators, shuffles and different board types? I don't want to shovel bull. I will, however, say that Near Chess brings multiple formations to the mix, but it alone isn't the answer. Anyhow that is my take on this. And thanks for the feedback.
Larry, thanks for the feedback. I do believe the CV site does have the elements here needed for the Next Chess. I do think the next chess should be too weird.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.