Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Apr 7, 2008 08:50 PM UTC:

This list is an attempt to come up with different aspects to the rules of
chess that could produce an unlimited (unbounded) number of variants based
upon changing the parameters around this rule type. Please suggest more if
you can, or critique. I will look to update this as time goes on.

I see this so far:
1. Board size and shape. A board can theoretically be infinite in size.
Because of this, it can theoretically take on an infinite number of shapes
(shapes representing the number of spaces it has, and where they are
located).
2. The number of players (and also number of teams).
3. Time control: Amount of time each player has to play.
4. Play to points in a chess tournament: Players can play to an infinite
number of points.

Probably unbounded (no sure):
* Turn order and sequence of play. This is based off the way progression
works. There may be a limit to how many times a player can move in a row,
given a minimum number of pieces, which the victory conditions can always
be met. In light of this, this may not be infinite.

Some that I am uncertain about:
* The number of unique pieces. Is there an infinite number of ways a
piece can act on a chessboard?
* Number of pieces on a board and their mix. If a board is finite size,
then this should mean there can only be so many piece combinations on a
board, right?
* Reserve pool mix. It is theoretically possible that you can have an
infinitely large reserve of pieces that can be dropped in from every turn,
but I would argue there is the possibility for a board to get clogged up
with so many pieces, that it isn't infinite. Even shuffling the reserve
doesn't resolve.
* Adding new rule types. Are there really an unlimited number of
different rule types that can be added to chess, that make it unlimited.

What I don't see as unlimited:
* Shuffles. Unless you have a theoretical unlimited number of pieces on an
infinitely wide board, it doesn't look infinite to me.
* Piece names and look. This doesn't functionally change how a game is
played.
* Board colors. Unless the rules governing pieces is governed by color of
the board, this is irrelevant to how the game is played.
* Space shape. I would argue there is only a finite number of ways that
spaces can be fit together that they would fit together. Now, the
combination of these pieces definitely could potentially fit under the
unlimited category.

Please reply with others and comment. You can also go to the Chess of
Tomorrow Project Thread to discuss this more there:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/forum/t-51667/chess-of-tomorrow-project-who-is-interested#post-140383

Gary Gifford wrote on Mon, Apr 7, 2008 09:50 PM UTC:

To me it looks like you are entering the 95.5 Trillion world that George Duke has put a lot of effort into.

For me, personally, the number of games already here at ChessVariants is enough to last me past my lifetime. I see no need for infinite boards and infinite pieces.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Apr 7, 2008 09:57 PM UTC:

There is also Many Rules chess (Someone suggested this be checked out):
http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/manyrules.html

All this I see as part of the Chess of Tomorrow project that can be worked
on.  Good to know what can be bounded verses unbounded and so on.

George Duke wrote on Mon, Apr 7, 2008 10:24 PM UTC:

Most likely Beyond Chess'(tm) moving squares(1) force unboundedness,
because unlimited the sequences of moves.  Once having modality of moving
squares, then new Rules-types(2) are also unlimited, as one of its
subsets, piece-move definitions(3), would then be.  So, there probably
become infinite ways to move Rook, Bishop, Knight, at least in combination
with just one other helpful Mutator like Beyond Chess'. Still to be
decided is whether one inclusive systematic definition of, say, Rook's
movement, without another Mutator and with same board size, could be
infinite.  We use up to 32 Mutators at once at '91.5 Trillion...',
exceeded by only few other (convoluted) games like Ralph Betza's
Nemeroth. The goal eventually, in understanding so-called
''inventing'' and concatenating Rules to fancy, should be to divest
99.9999% of them more systematically than mere popularity.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Apr 7, 2008 10:33 PM UTC:

My take on Beyond Chess, if players at the start of the game are able to
follow those rules, and they aren't stopped, then doesn't that represent
merely one rule in effect?  This means the rules itself are still bound,
with Beyond Chess merely adding one new rule.  Yes, this rule adds a lot
of depth to the game, but it is still one rule.  Difference would be the
slide before you move, slide after you move, transport tile elsewhere,
having tiles disappear, etc...  Different starting configurations would
each be considered a different rule.  But the sliding a tile after a move,
to me, looks like a mutator, and thus one rule. 

Now, let's say you start restricting when this sliding can take effect,
and to what degree, that that would add more rules.  The idea here isn't
just asking if the decision tree can be unlimited, but the RULES governing
the decision tree is unlimited.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Fri, Apr 11, 2008 09:42 PM UTC:

Hey, I believe Stanley Random Chess relates to this question somehow:
http://www.chessvariants.org/link2.dir/srchess.html

Or maybe a way to phrase this is whether Stanley Random Chess would
actually have any Unbound rules to it.

6 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.