Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I think the joy of inventing a Chess variant is the joy of being able to develop opening, midgame, and endgame theory for the new game and new rules.

This is why I only have invented a single chess variant, but I made it one I extensively tested using Zillions before making public, one where I developed some opening theory, and one that I spent hours having the computer play against itself in computer-vs-computer games (usually two different programs playing each other) to creating interesting mating positions.

I personally prefer quality over quantity; 90% of everything is crud, but I think it's better to make just a single variant where it's fully fleshed out: The game includes a game courier preset, a zillion's implementation, in addition to a clearly written description of the rules. Ideally, the game should have some theory established, such as the value of the pieces in the variant, some opening theory developed, and even some mating problems.

I agree with the need to put quality over quantity. I discovered last night
that Charles Gilman has now created over 180 games. How many of these have
I played? Zero. I have occasionally looked at some of his games, but none
have ever appealed to me. Given that he has not written a single ZRF or
Game Courier preset for any of his games (except maybe for one co-credited
with Tony Quintanilla), I can only assume that he is not making use of
these tools to prototype and playtest his games. Looking at the games he
has played on Game Courier, I count only five. I wonder if he plays his
games much at all. I'm under the impression that he will publish any new
game idea that pops into his head. This is classic proliferation. But it
hurts his own games more than it hurts the games of others. Putting out
more and more games doesn't much improve the chances that someone will
eventually play one. What would help is spending time on development and
presentation, so that people are more likely to want to play his games,
and spending time on providing means, whether through Zillions-of-Games or
Game Courier, for people to play the games.

I would say that MiniXiang was inspired and well worth the presence of the
other contributions.

• Making sure the variant has a Zillions and a Game Courier preset
• Calculating the value of the pieces in the variant
• Coming up with some mating problems from actual games played in the variant, either human-vs-human, human-vs-computer, or computer-vs-computer
• Coming up with some opening theory for the game

It sounds a lot like what I am already doing. Except that I usually do not
bother with ZoG, but configure Fairy-Max to play the game, or make a
dedicated engine by adapting Joker. For on-line play I am developing the
Internet Chess Server now. Using the material-imbalance-self-play method I
have, for instance, determined the piece values for Capablanca, Knightmate,
Great Shatranj, Falcon Chess, and Superchess. I have tens of thousands of
comp-comp games on file for these variants, which could be filtered for
interesting checkmates (e.g. early in the game). Only opening theory is of
no interest to me; even my normal Chess engine plays without opening book.

I have an idea.

For those who believe that all variants must be thoroughly vetted, they
might start by submitting theirs to FIDE for consideration.

Get back to me on the results.

Isn't that a bit like having Ron Paul vetted by Hannity and Colmes? Any
vetting of Chess variants has to be done by people who are seriously
interested in Chess variants. FIDE's main interest is in preserving the
integrity of Chess, not in entertaining alternatives to it. The main point
I was making earlier can be summed up like this:

If you neglect the development of your games, and you neglect the
presentation of your games, and you neglect to provide software to play
your games, and you neglect to play your games yourself, you're liable to
find that other people will neglect your games too.

So I encourage game inventors to invest time and attention into
development, presentation, playtesting, and providing ZRFs or Game Courier
presets.

I've read through this thread a few times now, and have some idea of what
to say. As always in a large group of people, we have positions that can be seen as polar opposites, and enough people of either persuasion to keep some interesting conversations going. As an aside, is there a third way that can accommodate both of these positions and deal with their issues?

Sam, you have expressed the position of one pole better than I could ever
hope to. And set out a plan of action that would concentrate the bulk of
games played here on 1 single variant at a time. HG's work has given
values for the pieces that are workable and consistent, so all you really
need for any Capa setup, such as Schoolbook, is some opening studies.
Wouldn't these be far more quickly and effectively done if you got some
playtesters together and ran several full-kibitz opening-variations
playtests of the same game? The object would not be to play games, but to
test out possibilities in openings. I do not mean to just push wood, but
for each player to look for the best moves and counter-moves in a
designated opening, and examine all the interesting possibilities of the
first 10 moves, say. 

Play one version out, then go back and follow up on something you thought
of but didn't do. Then do it again. Play a different opening against each
other playtester at the same time. You will rapidly gain a vast amount of
data for analysis, and it will be gathered from as many different
perspectives as possible. I see that as a solid and fruitful project for a
few people that can provide some real data for comparisons. If you organize
it as a 'Potluck Playtest' session, then each playtester may bring his or
her own game, and playtest that game with everybody else, while also playtesting each game everybody else brought. 

But there is Larry Smith's point of view [the one which goes: 'games are
fun - more games, more fun'], which I'd like to expand on. I enjoy more
than one game, and more than one form of game. I also really enjoy
designing games. [I was an automation expert in the post office, so I did
more than my share of endless variations on one theme. ;-) I prefer to
expand my horizons.] I like interesting new pieces, if I can understand
and use them. I like new board shapes that work. I like good fusion games
like Graeme Neatham's Save the Standard, a cross of chess with Tafl.
There are a lot of reasonably simple games that fuse 2 genres and so might
offer a gateway for many or, more likely, some fun for the handful of
players who encounter these games. 

The best of these are the cutting edge, the source and inspiration for new
ideas, innovation in chess. Some like innovation, some don't; it's a
question of taste.

It would be interesting to start a committee to review the games at this
site. But we would really need to be considerate while doing so.

Yes, we can use mathematical formulae to quantify various aspects of a
given variant. Being careful not to carry over prejudices from one to
another. And all evaluations must be taken in the context within which
they are being derived.

And I can quickly see an initial area of debate. This being the value of
pieces. It must be kept in mind that this can take many forms. One piece
could be valued one way in a particular variant and might receive another
value in another variant. Overall rules can have a dramatic effect in this
regard.

And the approach to these reviews should not be to prove or disprove any
particular preconceived preference for the game. But simply to categorize
the various aspects and thus help others to make their own personal
determinations.

For example, a game may have a rather large number of potential turns.
This can be noted. But whether this is a positive or negative aspect
should not be the goal of the review. Some people enjoy long games(see
RPGs).

And if there are discovered 'errors' in the examined game, we should
offer assistance in repairing such. Let's not be simply critics but offer
positive feedback.

And if we play-test these games, there should be a fair number of games
played. I would opt for at least twenty, but some might find this rather
tedious. But to really get a good feel for any particular game, it might
be necessary to play it at least a hundred times(gasp).

And the data from these reviews could be used to expand the categorization
at this site. Thus helping people quickly discover those games which appeal
to them.

Might I suggest that we start with the Recognized Variants at this site.
This will give a nice baseline to work from when tackling the remaining
games.

Joe Joyce writes:

As always in a large group of people, we have have positions that can be seen as polar opposites, and enough people of either persuasion to keep some interesting conversations going. As an aside, is there a third way that can accommodate both of these positions and deal with their issues?

On a site devoted to variety, you're likely to find a variety of opinions. My position is in the middle and so may be the third way you're asking about. I believe quantity and variety of Chess variants is good up until it starts to compromise quality. When someone is sacrificing quality for the sake of quantity, he needs to slow down and pay more time and attention to developing the game before releasing it to the public, to playtesting the game before asking others to play it, to writing a clear and detailed description of the game that is good enough for a programmer to use to program the rules of the game, and, as far as he's able, to designing graphics and writing software for the game. One thing I want to stress is the importance of moving beyond the idea stage to working out your idea, playtesting it, modifying it as needed, and presenting it to others only when you're satisfied that it is good and ready. When you buy a recipe book, you expect that the recipes have previously been tried and tested and that they are not just a bunch of ideas people have for what might taste good. It's important to pay the Chess variant audience the same consideration that the recipe audience expects from cookbooks.

I would not echo Sam's recommendation that people focus on only a single variant -- unless that is what they want to do by their own choice. I certainly don't focus on a single variant myself, and I'm not liable to in the future.

I would not worry too much about presenting the game to GMs or other people of stature in the Chess world. They are not the target demographic of most Chess variants. But I would recommend the following. (1) Write a clear and detailed description that covers all the contingencies in your game. If you're not able to program your game yourself, gaining the interest of a programmer is an important step toward increasing interest in your game in general. (2) Make effective use of graphics. Include a graphic image of the setup, graphic images of individual pieces with your piece descriptions, and, as needed, movement diagrams and any other diagrams that might be needed to help describe how your game works. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Even if it is possible for a person to understand your game from a text description alone, graphics can speed up comprehension and elicit interest in your game sooner than text alone could. Also, some people are just more visually minded than others. By combining a good text description with good use of graphics, you will more effectively reach a wider audience.

I have to second what Fergus has said about CV gamepage submissions:
'I would recommend the following. 
(1) Write a clear and detailed description that covers all the
contingencies in your game. 
(2) Make effective use of graphics. Include a graphic image of the setup,
graphic images of individual pieces with your piece descriptions, and, as
needed, movement diagrams and any other diagrams that might be needed to
help describe how your game works.'

In general, at a minimum, you should provide a graphic image of the setup
and images of each piece in that piece's description. There are always
exceptions, but the easiest way to create the necessary graphics,
including movement diagrams, is by making a Game Courier preset for the
game. 

However, if you're like me, then you didn't have a clue, either. My
first games have no diagrams because I can't actually make them - but
look at my last game pages - I did those myself, because I got walked
through the process enough to understand what to do. Then, in trying to
explain how to do it to someone else, I put some simple instructions
together on the CVwiki, that walk you through how to do totally basic,
non-rules-checking presets. It's called a Preset Primer, and comes with
examples: 
   http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/preset-primer
Don't expect great writing. If you get stuck anywhere in it, just ask for
a better explanation. But 2 people have successfully used it, and they're
the only 2 I know about that tried it. So far, so good. It could be
expanded a bit. All comments, questions, criticisms welcome.

Occasionally, I have offered my modest talents to create Zillions
implementations of a developer's game. Particularly when the game catches
my interest.

But I have found a few which resisted this form of quantification. Whether
because elments of the game exist beyond the playing field(for example,
those games which require referees) or the conditionals were just too
complex(for example, Nemoroth).

But I must admit that simple variations of the Mad Queen do not often
appeal to me. Why? Because I think they are trivial? No. I just find
them often a little boring. This is totally my own problem and should not
be construed as condemnation of those form of play.

But, every now and then, while attempting to implement a particular game I
run into conflict. Usually regarding the aesthetics of the game. My
suggestion to anyone wanting someone else to program their variant is to
either provide graphics up front or accept those which the programmer has
access to. Creating new graphics can be a time-consuming effort.

And I also have an un-written rule. If a developer shows little tolerance
for others, I will not assist in this effort by providing some illusionary
basis to justify their attitude. This has happened before and I've
promised myself not to allow it to happen again.

BTW, I am still trying to implement Nemoroth. I have a file dedicated to
this project. Every now and then I get an idea and try it out. But so far,
I have not accomplished this task. In fact, I might just return to this
project soon. Maybe time has given me a new perspective.

I think looking at a Capa 8x10 setup is probably the best chess variant to deeply analyze. These particular avenue has been pretty deeply analyzed, with a pretty good idea about the value of the pieces and what not. I think it's important the opening setup has no controversy; I like the original Carrera setup (RANBQKBNCR), but Embassy chess (RNBQKCABNR) can also be worth looking at.

- Sam

I know that for the unspeakable variant a lot of opening theory already
exists, but I don't trust it, as those who have been playing the Capa
variants seem to have been consistently underestimating the value of the
Archbishop. The Capablanca position, for instance, is often mentioned as
unplayable for black, due to the thereat Axi7, where the A-fork on Ch8 and
Rj8 gains white the 'Unspeakable exchange' , A vs C (often in exchange
for a Pawn elsewhere on the board). Joker80, however, often allows this as
black, as it apparently feels the half-open i-file for its Rook is
sufficient compensation for this 'exchange', which it values close to
zero. IMO this puts any existing opening theory on very shaky grounds.

There is no greater waste of time than to develop theory for chess variants that hardly anyone plays. It would be a great waste even when it concerns Fide-chess. This activity should be a peripheral pastime in one's life. People should try to find some better outlet for their intellectual energy than developing theory for chess variants. They could read a good intellectual book, for instance, or make something useful of their energy. The creativity involved in inventing a variant is another thing because it is a form of mandala creation. It fulfils a psychological function. But to try to turn this into a serious science is a waste of life.
/Mats

I, myself, don't trust anything to do with or associated with said
unspeakable variant.

Mr. Muller: What is your favorite Capa opening setup? Do you prefer the
Carrera (RANBQKBNCR), Embassy (RNBQKCABNR), or some other Capa opening
setup?

Okay, I don't play FIDE chess, so let's discuss this thing about opening
theory. As I understand it, opening theory is when you memorize a whole
bunch of opening positions, and the best continuations from each one. I
have [and always have had] a terrible memory which explains in good part
why I don't play FIDE. But since I don't [always] play completely
randomly, I must have some guide. That guide is opening principles, and
basic military ideas. 

One of the things I've seen written about Fischer Random Chess is that
after several turns, you can't tell it's Fischer Random. This would seem
to imply there is some leveling effect. It says that people can get to a
standard sort of midgame and an absolutely typical endgame no matter what
they start out with in FRC. How, and why? Because everyone uses the same
general principles of mobility, economy of action, taking of space,
building of defenses and attacks, and all are familiar with the standard 5
chesspieces and the pawn. Opening theory is fine if one wishes to
specialize in one game and beat everyone at that game. Opening principles
and familiarity with many different [types of] pieces are what allow
players to successfully play a wide range of games. 

I'd rather see a discussion of general opening principles and the effects
of different sorts of pieces on a game than a study of one or a few games'
many possible opening moves. I'm not opposed to that sort of study, and
could see it as a benefit, if it did a range of games, comparing and
contrasting them.

On another page, it came up that Ralph Betza, Charles Gilman, and Mats Winther are the three CV inventors who have invented the greatest number of games. Within this context, Mats Winther wrote, “Fergus, it's not so many variants, really. Most of my variants are variations on a theme, often in the 'modest' category. In many cases the variants are very similar, but with a different extra piece. However, this makes a great difference in practical play. In nearly every variant a new piece is introduced. So I am really prolific in the creation of new pieces, introduced into variants that are guaranteed to be playable, close to standard chess. But I have not been particularly creative when it comes to variants of great originality.”

This is noteworthy, because it helps answer the question, what do the most prolific CV inventors share in common? These three all share a strong interest in pieces. Ralph Betza is perhaps best known for his Betza notation for pieces and his game Chess with Different Armies, which introduces a host of different pieces to the chessboard. Charles Gilman has shown strong interest in pieces through his many articles attempting to categorize and name pieces. And, as Mats Winther has confessed, he is primarily a piece-maker.

It is also noteworthy that the approach to creating CVs described by Mats Winther is the opposite of my approach. He begins by creating pieces and then makes a game to put them into, whereas I focus on creating games and invent new pieces only as my games require them. This difference is like the difference between focusing on the trees or focusing on the forest. My approach is like focusing on the forest, while Winther's, and maybe Gilman and Betza's too, is like focusing on the trees.

So my hypothesis is that a greater interest in pieces over games leads to more games, because the piece inventor wants to use each of his new pieces in a game, and since the game serves mainly as a vehicle for using the piece, development time is reduced by not putting a lot of craftsmanship into the game. In contrast, my method of crafting games around themes or ideas produces fewer games, because (1) carefully crafting a game takes more time, and (2) ideas for new games come less frequently than ideas for new pieces come to those whose focus is on pieces.

In addition to pieces, he has also brought the Gustav board back, something I never heard of until seeing it mentioned on his page. I think the Gustav board is a good way of introducing new pieces to FIDE chess without having the new board affecting the game too much, and without somewhat clunky ideas as gating (Gating makes sense when you want the game to be just as much like FIDE chess with new pieces as possible; but the Gustav board is more intuitive and makes for simpler rules).

One can argue 'Why design games that no one plays', just as one can argue 'why analyze games no one plays', and in both cases the answer is the same: Because it can be an enjoyable way to pass the time. If the act of creating a game brings pleasure to someone, it doesn't matter if that game is never played by anyone.

Fergus, I am actually interested in the actual strategy and tactical
finesses that a certain piece introduces. It is the dynamics of the
chessboard that interests me, and not so much the setup variegation, or
the board shape, etc. There is a lot of creativity going on in all the
invisible aspects of chess. Even grandmasters are surprised sometimes,
when they see something new. Focusing on new chess pieces in a more or
less traditional setting has this effect. On the surface not much is
changed, but in reality a new world of variations are created.
/Mats

Sam, the Gustavian board has some interesting characteristics. It would
probably work if the popular Capablanca-knights are placed in the corners,
similar to Gustav III's Chess, which is excellent. One aspect of the
Gustavian board is that the king can move to the extra corner square and
launch a pawn storm on the same wing, without leaving the king exposed. 

It is also true that one must use different setups also in modest
variants. On the Gustavian board one cannot always place the extra pieces
in the corners. Luckily, it works fine to place the knights there. For
some reason, on the Gustavian board, unlike on the 8x10 board, the knights
aren't weakened, not even when placed at the extra corners.

Introduction of an extra piece by dropping can be done by pawn relocation,
either one or two steps forward. The new piece is placed either on the
first or second rank, depending on piece type. For instance, in order for
the Perier cannon to function reasonably well in this context, it must be
input on the first rank, and the pawn relocated two steps (not one).
Although it is a lazy way of creating a new variant, it isn't wholly
trivial. 
/Mats

This site has at least 26 people who have posted 15 or more games.
Apologies for anyone left out, and for the question marks by 3 names, as I
do not know their countries of origin or residence. And there are a number
of other variantists that do not post, or post much, on the CVPages;
Christian Freeling [Grand Chess] is one name that springs instantly to
mind, and there are others. [I guesstimate there are roughly 100 living
prolificists right now. Considering history, and what's been lost from
it, I'd estimate there have been on the order of 1000 prolificists so
far. Hmm, given a total human population throughout history of not that
much more than 10,000,000,000, it seems roughly one in ten million people
is a chess variant prolificist.] The topic of style has come up.

What are the styles of prolificists? Here are the 26 names, 24 copied from
earlier in this thread, and 2 recent people added from memory, all
contributors to this site. Fergus Duniho has noted that the three most
prolific, Betza, Gilman, and Winther, design pieces primarily, while he
[Fergus] designed entire games, and it was this comment that really got me
started thinking on the topic of styles. So, with foolish optimism instead
of great trepidation, let us open a discussion on styles. We can always
hope to learn something.

Adrian Alvarez de la Campa USA
Peter Aronson USA
Christine Bagley-Jones Australia
Ralph Betza USA
(zzo38)A. Black USA
Charles Daniel USA
Fergus Duniho USA
Gary K. Gifford USA
Charles Gilman UK
Jeremy Gabriel Good USA
David Howe USA
Joe Joyce USA
Roberto Lavieri Venezuela
Jared B. McComb USA
A. Missoum ?
Graeme Neatham [UK]
Joao Pedro Neto Portugal
Vernon Rylands Parton UK
David Paulowich Canada
David Short USA
John Smith USA
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi [Saudi Arabia]
Sergey Sirotkin ?
Larry L. Smith USA
M. Winther Sweden
Namik Zade ?

Allow me to confess my sins. ;-)

I approach Chess from the background of abstract game design. I look upon
it simply as a form of wargame. Over the centuries it has gravitated
toward particular elements which many confuse as absolute parameters for
this potential wargame. But are there limitations, or are they only what
we impose ourselves?

Many of my creations have a theme. This is primarily people are attracted
to games which exhibit an atmosphere of fantasy. It appeals to their
imagination.

Of course, there are those which are merely humorous. These are just for
fun. Not meant to be taken seriously. But they often do show some signs of
tactical and strategic play.

I also like the games of Asia. This being possibly the birthplace of
Chess, and it is interesting to see their approach to the wargame. Thus
several of my creations have had an oriental flavor, though a few could
just as easily been rendered in the western mode. But that goes back to
theme.

I like interesting playing pieces, but I don't start with simply the
creation of such and attempt to make it fit a game. I start with the game
as a concept, and work the various elements until they 'fit'. Sometimes
this results in new pieces, and sometimes even different conditions of
play.

I often like to ask the question, 'What is Chess?'  And I can receive
just as many answers as there are people. Though, unfortunately, many
westerners have been heavily indoctrinated by the Mad Queen variant
believing it represents the entire world of Chess.

But permit me to answer that question. 'What is Chess?' Simple, 'Chess
is War.' And war can take many forms. Thus the wargame of Chess can have
many forms.

Particularly if we let it.

What Larry describes is very similar to my own methods for creating Chess
variants. Many of my games began with a theme in mind. Clockwork Orange
Chess began with the idea of translating the conditioning of criminals
used in A Clockwork Orange into Chess. Metamorph Chess grew out of
watching Transformers: Beast Wars, Fusion Chess is a successor to Sentai
Chess, which was inspired by Power Rangers in Space, and Assimilation
Chess was inspired by the Borg in Star Trek: TNG. Caïssa Britannia was
inspired by the British monarch being a Queen. Some of my games grew out
of the constraints imposed by design competitions. The small variant
contests got me to try out various boards, which led to worthy games such
as Voidrider Chess and Hex Shogi. The 32-turn contest led to Wormhole
Chess, one of my best received variants. Insights into what is possible
have also inspired games. I created Storm the Ivory Tower after I realized
that the pieces in Chinese Chess could be distinguished by qualities other
than direction of movement, meaning that they could all be adapted to
Smess without losing their individual character.

An important part of my method is that I don't stop once I have an idea.
Instead, I take that idea and work out the details. For example, Wormhole
Chess began with the usual Chess pieces and closely resembled Parton's
Chesire Cat Chess. I had not yet learned about Parton's game, but it
seemed to me that the usual Chess pieces did not take best advantage of
the rule changes made to this game. I decided to replace the riders with
leapers, whose movement would be more affected by the loss of spaces.

Another important part of my method is reliance on tools. I routinely use
Zillions-of-Games or Game Courier to prototype my games. I normally rely
on Zillions to playtest my games before releasing them. By programming the
games I release, I make sure to cover all the fine points of the rules in
detail.