[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by RichardHutnik
Hello John. I believe you are onto something here. What you describe is what I would like to see. I believe an important part to this is, even if people in their own games have their own terminology and so on, when engaging in a common discussion, a common lexicon of terms is used to describe this. Also, working on ways for players to combine different works from the past would help. Let me chime in a sec from an IAGO perspective (PLEASE don't take this as namedropping as a plug). IAGO (read here myself would like to see IAGO do this) would like to elevate the chess variant community by having different variants on the IAGO World Tour, and also to have a recognized 'Chess Variant Player of the Year' and also have a universal ranking for variant players, across a pool of games. Besides this, IAGO would also like to have the variant community be able to input in the future of chess, by having the common works on here lending to the discussion. All this is done for mutual benefit to the community, like variant pieces being produced commercially, and variants being taken as a legitimate form of chess. So, for all this, IAGO (again read me seeing what I believe IAGO needs to do) would like the variant community to come together and push things in this direction. Have something out of this efforts that can be used, and IAGO get behind it. In this, go for what has been spoken on, and get stuff happening.
That looks like a mess. Looks like someone hijacked the original 'American Chess Association' name and tried to make it their own name. Need to see if it comes off properly. Not sure an event using a yahoo.com email address for sponsors is going to come off properly. Well, just my 2 cents. Need to keep an eye on it.
I am not sure what I am seeing with Liberation Chess, outside of the board looks cool, and we may have a way to handle a range of variants with it. Please fill me in on what I am looking for here.
Thanks for the clarification John. Please give me insight into how we can derive a more universal application from this.
Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Xiangqi (Chinese Chess). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would also disagree with Go having an entry on here. It isn't part of the same family of abstract strategy games Chess is.
Ok, how about we start a 'syncretism project'? We create a school of competitive chess variant playing that involves games that are a mix of two or more chess variants? Anyone up for this?
Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Xiangqi (Chinese Chess). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Not sure triviality or not is an issue here. What may be beneficial is if the CV site had a place to reference other games that aren't in the same family as chess. I do believe the Courier system does enable people to play Go on it (and checkers also).
Rapid and Blitz are the games of choice. More indication that the Chess community has decided to reduce the time to play, as the main way to address the issues it has with chess.
May I propose the IAGO Chess System be considered as part of this discussion? http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste I am of the belief now that the Chess community is settling on Speed Chess to resolve a lot of its issues. I would suggest the reasons why be studied by the variant community.
An entry as a 'variant' on the CV site, is found here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSmultipleformat Please continue discussions there.
Ok, I updated Mr. Smiths Wiki entry. Please add others here: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/drafting-page
Multiple Formations. A proposal to add a set of formations to Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George, which entry you referring to? Maybe we can get some synergy involved here.
Universal Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Looks like a good continuation of the study on how to integrate variants into a single system that can be played. I hope more work can be done. Thank you for the contribution.
Basic Chess. Variable baseline chess without drawing lots. Restrict Rooks to a and h files, and King to d or e files.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]With my suggestions of 'Multiple Formations' and 'IAGO Chess System' and also this and Universal Chess (http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSuniversalchess), I believe we are having things advance into a way to integrate variants together for play (my hope is in tournament format). I am in favor of having Multiple Formations adopt the rules to this for the formation where everything starts in the back row(s), while the pieces starting in the second row(s) would follow what is in Multiple Formations. Keep up the good work everyone. Hopefully we can get something going.
Multiple Formations. A proposal to add a set of formations to Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George, thanks for the clarification. When I did this entry, I didn't see Basic Chess: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MLbasicchess I am also seeing 'Universal Chess' has been added on here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSuniversalchess
10 Minute Melee. Score as many points during 10 minutes of time with regular chessset. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Another, more mild, variant that comes to mind would be that the capture piece goes back to its start space (only one pawn per column) instead of anywhere.
Capablanca's chess. An enlarged chess variant, proposed by Capablanca. (10x8, Cells: 80) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I know in discussion of Capablanca and other games in the Knight+Rook and Knight+Bishop family of variants, there is concern over uncovered pawns. I happened to just look at the Capablanca arrangement and was curious if anyone else might of tried to do the following: Swap the positions of the King's Knight and the Chancellor. When I did this, it looks like the initial position of every pawn is covered in the game, and there are no uncovered pawns. Anyone else ever play with this? I know the Chancellor and Archbishop don't have the same symmetry, but it appears there isn't a problem with uncovered pawns. So, what we had as the original position: White: King f1; Queen e1; Archbishop c1; Chancellor h1; Rook a1, j1; Knight b1, i1; Bishop d1, g1; Pawn a2, b2, c2, d2, e2, f2, g2, h2, i2, j2. Black: King f8; Queen e8; Archbishop c8; Chancellor h8; Rook a8, j8; Knight b8, i8; Bishop d8, g8; Pawn a7, b7, c7, d7, e7, f7, g7, h7, i7, j7. Becomes... White: King f1; Queen e1; Archbishop c1; Chancellor i1; Rook a1, j1; Knight b1, h1; Bishop d1, g1; Pawn a2, b2, c2, d2, e2, f2, g2, h2, i2, j2. Black: King f8; Queen e8; Archbishop c8; Chancellor i8; Rook a8, j8; Knight b8, h8; Bishop d8, g8; Pawn a7, b7, c7, d7, e7, f7, g7, h7, i7, j7.
Mats, I was posting an observation I noticed, and requesting feedback on it. I was not trying to critique any other variant of the game suggestions people have for the game itself, like what you suggested.
Joe, I have no idea what short-range pieces would do, or the impact of this new configuration I proposed. It is more of an observation than anything else.
Do you have a 'Eurasian Pawn' (if not that, one under another name)? It moves forward one space, but may capture one space forward, or either space in front of it diagonally. There is an option with it where it may move either one or two spaces forward as its first move (option depends on player and game conditions)
In regards to the question about 'NextChess' (if this is the name we are agreeing to, or 'Next Chess', that is fine, and doesn't look taken), may I suggest there be a focus on HOW it will come about, addressing the issues we would like to see dealt with, and not just WHAT? Like, what do we all want 'NextChess' to be like? What do we want in it to have? What do we find appealing about variants, and what can we distill from them? And can we have a game that isn't static, but one that can evolve so it remains fresh? You can look at what I have written before, and what I have proposed as variants, so you can get some idea what I am interested in, from mutators, to a range of formations, to a classification system for handling a range of variant types, in terms of complexity and stability.
Fergus, I do appreciate what you are saying as each game being a standalone game with its own flavor, and arguably each one being a 'work of art' in its own right. My concern about this is that it makes each game a deadend that can't be picked up and tweaked the way Chess has to spawn variants. The community doesn't end up owning the game and collectively tweaking it to its wishes. It is a take it or leave it, which ends up resulting in a bunch of games that have their own followings, but not enough to reach a critical mass to support mass adoption. There is also egos at stake where one designer or another jockeys for position to have their game as 'the next chess'. I have dealt with such individuals on the commercial level, who have staked their financial lives on it, and it isn't pretty. I could name multiple of them, and then ask if any of their games have a following here. I don't see it. I believe in an earlier NextChess discussion, we saw limitations on a select game being picked. So, let me amend what I said by saying we should have room for preferred configurations, and also games as stand alone, but I also believe we should have some form (or several forms) that allow the community to give feedback and we evolve a design we can get enough people to play that has a critical mass behind it that it could get adopted and we get some neat byproducts of this, like commercial equipment being made to be able to play (you finally get variant pieces... YIPPIE). In a nutshell, can we have both what you want (each game as a work of art unto itself) and also something we can evolve as a community, that can borrow from all over? Maybe have a third way also of an Athlon format where, over a given year, a set number of the established games are the pool that is played, and we push for a championship over that format. Let's do everything I say, rather than either or.
I am bringing this up to get some ideas here. The discussion on NextChess had me wondering if we can come up with some format for having people play stand-alone chess variants, but them linking together. Call it 'Pick your Poison'. In this format, a player would challenge another player, and one of the players would then pick a variant to play, and somehow it consist of a selection of possible games to play. I am not sure how this format is determined. Maybe players have a preferred list of games played, and the overlap is what they play. Basic idea is to come up with a way for players to have the freedom to play what they way, games to retain their own unique flavor, but also we have an standard way for establish ratings over a season, in a certain format. Please give some thoughts to the best way to run 'Pick Your Poison' (or please come up with a better name here). Consider it as a way to get my wish of there be a world champion at chess variants overall.
Hello Fergus. I think it would be useful to clarify a bit of what I was
speaking about here:
1. My use of 'art' is meant to be in contrast to that of 'science'. In
one sense 'art' and 'craft' were put next to each other. You can take
what I said to speak about something created that can be admired for its
quality and stand alone.
2. While I can understand and appreciate designer's works standing alone,
as a fine piece of work, I am also of the belief games are designed to be
played, and not just put in some museum somewhere. Because of this, I
believe there needs to be a dialog between the designer and players of
games, to make sure what comes about is played. We can continue to follow
the old path of 'monkeys at the typewriter' spitting out more and more
works, and hope one sticks, with each game is its own and end of
discussion. But I believe for a game to grow, it needs a community of
players behind it. To this end, the community needs to feel as they are
part owners over the game, and have input. You can see examples of this
involvement in 'crowdsourcing':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing
Part of the reason for FIDE Chess being what it is, is that a community
adopted the game, and how it developed wasn't from one person, but a
community that played it and codified the rules. I know designers wish
they could create stand-alone games that would get the same degree of
reverence FIDE Chess has. But I believe, unless a community feels the game
is their game, it isn't going to happen.
3. As for the effectiveness of the stand-alone game method, I can refer to
what you wrote in the original NextChess thread goes into the problems we
face with the current approach:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=NextChess
As for 'why not just have a collection of variants like we have now,
and no do some NextChess'. Well, how is this working?
Let me answer this...:
Equipment Availability
Good.
My comment: Availability I would rate actually as poor. One can
theoretically make their own equipment for everything. However, that
doesn't mean that equipment is readily available. Most games are given as
gifts to other people. If giving gifts is the criterion of availability,
how exactly can we rate equipment availability as good? Take the example
of Games Magazine in its Games 100 lists. They list chess variants, and
tell people about Grand Chess. People get interested. Ok, now where do
they get the board and pieces? They don't. They have to make them.
Player Interest
Poor. Some variants have fairly large followings and most don't. I'm sure
it is also that way with card games, for which most everyone already has
the equipment. Most people are simply interested in playing the same games
everyone else already knows how to play. In most places around the world,
it will be easy to find someone else who plays Chess, but probably next to
impossible to find someone who plays your favorite variants. Naturally, the
promotion of Chess variants helps, but I don't know what promotion of some
kind of meta-game would do in addition to this.
4. We have some practical reasons to get NextChess to function. We need to
have it so that we can make it commercially viable to supply equipment for.
Despite people saying 'Let's just be digital' such doesn't have the
same degree of accessibility through physical equipment to have things take
off. And unlike cardgames, we DON'T have equipment readily available at
all. Like, how about going out and getting a 10x10 chess board in North
America? Sorry, not easily doable.25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.