Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

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...

Right. NextChess is discussable from any and all angles. The troika
(Russian word) proposal is just thrashed out at one sitting. It is obvious
enough idea to seek breakaway from pure artwork CVs are now. Rich says
''end up fragmenting,'' but apparently Yasser Seirawan's reaction to
some IAGO idea shows already facade of fragmentation. Hutnik said some of
them wanted nothing to do with some of us; and actually most sides,
including supposed avant garde Variantists, prefer status quo -- like a
cold war with several actors. So much posturing to forestall deep thinking. On GMs' part at ChessBase, they seem to have
stopped talking about computer dominance and matches human-computer.  That is another stagnation in ignoring evident science. You are labelled cynical there if suggesting several programs (Rybka, Toga II) are the real world champions. Joe Joyce says ''I
don't believe there is such a thing as the next chess.'' He's right
that it's mostly matter for belief, not to mention selfishness in
preferring pure and rather pointless self-expression out of context. Better attitude includes that there is some measure of responsibility to show chess-savvy outsiders what groups may have enjoyed learning. Incidentally Rich's once saying
particular Falcon(1992) could be adequate for IAGO testing would be
approved.

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.

Thomas Raynor Dawson invented Nightrider, Grasshopper and Vao. Ralph Betza does not
even come close to matching Dawson in style and interested readership.
Dawson edited British Chess Magazine, a conventional chess journal since
1881, in its problem pages from 1931-1951. There he had Orthodox problems
and in other magazines and books heterodox. No real fracturing between
standard 8x8 Chess and fairy chess came about until after Dawson. Think of
Capablanca's reviving Carrera's 8x10 during  years of FIDE's
founding in 1920's.  FIDE still technically has  category of Chess they
call heterodox, I think, but by now because of facade of split interests, they minimize it, on the defensive when topic comes up of variant pieces or boards. Besides conventional Mates-in-Three in BCM, Dawson wrote Helpmates, Selfmates, Series-Helpmates for problemists. That was style of chess variants 
1900-1960 with no great divide betwen Orthodox and Heterodox. GM Milan Vukevich had title from problem composing or solving. I am not sure offhand which variant pieces may be accepted under FIDE for contests.  Vukevich's Hawaii speech in 1998 mentions fairy pieces in his topic of Chess for tomorrow.  Blame for the fragmentation today is almost entirely the Variantists, because of output becoming artwork independent of context in gameplay or problems. General downgrading of quality is apparent comparing today's material to times of Dawson, Boyer, and Parton mid-20th Century. Yet  sheer volume means there may be just as many  excellent new CVs  as before. However, Next Chess candidate would take further winnowing this thread explores. Next Chess may even be one-of-a-kind discovery rather than invention per se.  On the other side,  poor quality at first read of chess variants becomes excuse for dedicated Mad Queen followers to maintain grown divide, as well as their status quo.  That is why CVPage would have  responsibility not yet assumed, to explain what is of above run-of-the-mill value or even up to Dawson's standards. Over-all, split increases since emergence of Internet and since Fischer Random announcement 1996.  That greatest chess variant creator of all, T.R. Dawson, was author of FIDE-oriented BCM problem column for 20 years seems incredible.

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.

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 :-)

Prepared earlier over chess cafe caliente> Hutnik encourages CVs mentioned
here toward IAGO announcement 21.October.2008. I stated Modern,
Mastodon, and Eurasian as ''Next Chess'' status on first yearly basis.
1996 Fischer Random Chess was breakthrough because randomizing itself was
in abeyance for 75 years. 1992 Falcon Chess (8x10) claims to bring the
only existing complement to Rook, Knight and Bishop in recorded arrays
rnbfqkfbnb, frnbqkbnrf, rfnbqkbnfr and rnfbqkbfnr with free castling two or more steps
over. Centennial (10x10) had the chutzpah to proffer superior dynamics in
the 1990's. Twentieth-century and beyond Track Two (mostly) CVs never in CVPage recognized nor having
equivalent notice elsewhere include Rococo, Eight-Stone, Switching Chess, Sissa,
Altair, Giant King, Tetrahedral, Weave & Dungeon, Jetan, Quintessential, AltOrthHex, Philosophers, and Hanga Roa by deliberative value-systems.
Hierarchizing Mutators is goal for follow-up sometime later: Mutators are
both easier to visualize and more difficult to sort. Please explain other
candidate CVs and mutators for NextChess here or any allied threads convenient.

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

George, that's a very interesting idea of nominating 3 designs, one each
on 3 board sizes. To start, for 2009 you've nominated:''Maura's Modern
Chess 9x9 (with Bishop conversion), Winther's Mastodon Chess 8x10,and
Duniho's Eurasian Chess 10x10''. So let's take a look at them.

Maura's Modern 9x9
I think I'd like this better as a 9x8 for 'the next chess'; the pawns
don't work right with an odd number of squares between them, for orthodox
chess players. I'm not panning the game at all; it looks quite
interesting. I've played a few games where the pawns were an odd number
of rows apart. This changes the entire feel of the opening; there is more
pawn maneuver and the placement of minor pieces in the center is more
awkward. It adds another bit of piece shuffling to the opening phase. This
isn't bad; it forces players to think about pawn placement, and where and
how to situate a knight, say. This accomplishes a real goal of trashing
the opening book, something a variantist looks for, but this is not
necessarily what will make the orthodox happy. 

This looks like a very nice game. The added piece, the BN, is less
strong-feeling than either the RN or the RB, although HG Muller seems to
have demonstrated the rough equivalence of the 3 pieces. The bishop
adjustment rule is a nice kludge [as Fergus Duniho has defined kludges in
his recently referenced paper], bringing another opening book-killing
feature, a bit of non-symmetric random chess. All in all, this seems a
very nice game [not having played it, I cannot comment directly; having
played similar, I can comment a bit], but it feels like one that
variantists would like more than the orthodox would. It's a very nice,
close to chess game, but with enough significant differences, I suspect,
to prevent its being adopted as ... hmm, call it a chess equal by the
orthodox. The variantists should in general like this, and this sort of,
game.

The next game on the list is Mats Winther's Mastodon Chess, featuring a
powerful short range leaper. The game is 8x10, so the pawns, 10 each, are
4 squares apart and our orthochess player can be comforted by standard
pawn play. 

The piece is interesting, has been independently designed a number of
times, and can be found in several games onsite. It steps 1 square or
leaps 2 squares orthogonally or diagonally, attacking 6 to 16 squares
unstoppably. For comparison, on an 8x10, the knight attacks 2 - 8 squares
unblockably. The bishop attacks 7 - 13, the rook 16, and the queen, 23 to
29, but the bishop, rook and queen can all be blocked. This leaper is a
major piece in the game.

What that player may not be comforted by is the specific placement of
pieces in this variant. White's back rank is RMBNQKNBMR. This is jarring
to the  conventional. After consideration, I'd go with RNBMQKMBNR, over
the given setup. Why? It restores the RNB...BNR configuration. Comfort. 
The most appealing positions for a new piece inserted into FIDE as a pair
are in the center or at the ends. And this is a short range piece.
Sticking it in a corner may or may not be poor placement, but putting it
in the middle and letting the other pieces drift over, even the knight,
works for me, because the knight's first logical destination is flanked
by the mastodon's [acc. to M Winther, first known name was Pasha] two
logical opening destinations. [Note no B/N interference in the suggested
setup.] 

While the knight does suffer a bit on an 8x10, there are 1.5 times as many
center squares where the knight is at full power [24/16] and 1.25 times as
many squares where the knight is at 3/4 power. The number of corner
squares, where the N is most restricted, stays the same. So the knight
does gain in absolute power on the larger board. I don't see the need to
move the knight in on an 8x10, in general. It still is the same distance
from the opponent's back rank, which is more important than a little
extra distance side to side. On 10x10 this changes, and moving knights
forward 1 square [along with the pawns] is generally a good idea, in my
opinion.

I've twisted Mats' game around enough for one comment. If we take the
idea seriously, are there any general [design] principles coming out of
all this, that are or can be generally agreed upon?

The Mastodon is indeed a strong piece. On 8x8 I find for its end-game (i.e.
only othe pieces present King and Pawn) value ~750, when R=500 and Q=975 (R
and Q are the closest orthodox pieces I compare it with).

In a Superchess context (with standard opening array CNBQKACeR, where Ce =
Centaur = KN), as Q replacement, I find the Mastodon opening value to be
only 150 below Queen, but due to the large number of superpieces on such a
small board, all light pieces gain strongly in opening value: N=350, R=575
when Q=950 (and thus Mastodon = 800).

Right, I deliberately chose three different sizes, always putting rank
first, but '9x8' is not confusing to mean 8x9. In fact, the majority
might tend to name file first, leaving the context to clarify. No one
wants 9 ranks and 8 files in NextChess, although of course some artists
already made one. Leapers, not really having bewildering quantity of
cases,  show only five practical jumpers of note: N,Alfil,Camel, Zebra,
Dab. Likewise, practical Next Chess sizes comprise about what Joyce
recently listed: 8x9, 9x9, 8x10, 9x10, 10x10.  Carlos Cetina's ''Bishop
Conversion Rule'' from 1983, Bodlaender and Cetina in their article
suggest for Modern with (BN) and 110-year-old Chancellor Chess having
(RN), besides for Cetina's own game.  When two Bishops are on board, a
glance shows whether BCR has been used yet or not, so it is no more
artificial than Castling. In another article, ''Chancellor Chess,''
Bodlaender links how Malcolm Horne varied it reasonably to 8x9 back in
1970's.  Mastodon's piece is not new any more than Centaur(BN), as
Winther found first use of it called Pasha in Paulovits's Game around 1890,
the same decade as Foster's original Chancellor 9x9.

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.

Why can't the 'Next Chess' be 3D? This seems to be the most logical
progression of the wargame.

Though codifying the optimal field will be a chore in itself. A developer
might start with the simple 4x4x4 field, creating an effective game to
play on this tight area will prove quite difficult. But it will provide
for a simple introduction to 3D play.

Another deviation is to go beyond simple linear movement with the pieces.
Though creating complex movement will in itself not improve play.
Introduction of powers outside the movement and interdependency of the
pieces can add depth to play.

Pushing beyond the current capabilities of the computer returns the game
to the arena of the human mind. At least for a while. ;-)

Do not expect FIDE to soon give up the Mad Queen variant.

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.

Simply 'tweaking' the Mad Queen variant is not the final answer. Its form
of play is no longer sufficient to either challenge or evaluate the human
mind. But I understand that many fear stepping too far from this game
because it is familiar and comfortable. And they need not study much to
appear proficient.

Setting the condition of developing a game which can only utilize
commercially available equipment is an interesting challenge. Is the
developer restricted from making any modification to any part of such
equipment(such as painting, gluing, etc.)?

I don't think you have to worry about equipment too much. Life is going
virtual, and computers will be able to provide any virtual equipment. Be
it 3d stereo displays or extra Queens.

What s our opinion about Superchess? (The variety as in 'Superchess and
Monarch'.) It seems many of your goals are implemented there. E.g.
promotion only to pieces hold in reserve (i.e. captured or replaced from
the initial setup). It is friendy to introduction of exotic pieces, as the
initial array has much shuffle character (brought about by players picking
replacements for the pieces in the Mad Queen array and symmetrizing
those), so that intrducing something new does not automatically make tons
of opening knowledge go down the drain. Over 50 pieces are already
defined, and people can by mutual agreement decide which of those are
available as replacements and promotion pieces. All the pieces are
available as hardware (high-quality wooden piece sets).

Any game on these pages not too different from chess is 'next chess' in one or more opinions. At one point in time, I used to think this way too: that there must be a next chess either here or one that I create. But the reality is - the players decide (over the course of time) on 'next chess' or the next game not the designer or anyone else (esp NOT people with a dislike for orthodox chess).

10x10 boards seem better for this purpose - unless you want really minor changes like Displacement Chess - more deserving of next chess since it was already tried successfully and is not much change at all.

Adding Rook-knight / bishop knight compounds (or any other pieces actually) to 8x8 makes it too over-powered.

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.

So, TCVP itself fulfills the parameters for presenting the 'Next Chess'.
It only needs, some opine, an improved categorization system whereby
players can find those particular games which appeal.

One thing that I would suggest to any newbie who is interested in Chess
variants is that they first try Shogi and XiangQi. Both have larger
followings, and are also commercially available. In fact, they both have
(a lot) lower draw potential than the Mad Queen game.

What is TCVP?

Click on Next 25 items as follows: skipfirst=25

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.