[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Switching Chess. In addition to normal moves, switch with an adjacent friendly piece. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is a very interesting game, much more deep than FIDE-Chess. Try it!.
Switching Chess is a natural idea and surprisingly not in Pritchard, though I prefer its embodiment in one piece (Swapper) with unfriendly units too. Also, another pathway to an infinitude of Chess variants, as I first describe under Slide-Shuffle, utilizes this position-Shifting Chess idea. Take the 2000 games in CVP. Suppose each has average of ten piece types(approx). Let just one type of piece initiate 'Switch,' and add that sub-rule to each different game-rules set: 20,000 distinct games emerge. Let any two piece-types do so: close to 200,000 sets of rules. Allow Switching from only a subset of 8 or 10 squares: about 2 million separate ways of playing. Continuing with these factors in combinations -- switching only coordinated by squares across various diagonals (of rectangles),odd, even, prime, etc.: that one is good for 1000 per game anyway, giving 2 billion now. Randomized baseline and Pawn positioning added: 2 quadrillion, and so on, a switch-trade after capture, before check, on Move 5 or on Move 11, adjacent to Pawn, before King, the ideas are endless; somewhere between quadrillion and Googol (10*100)--as commented Slide-Shuffle-- is a practical infinity for Earth-bound minds.
Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Jul 15, 2004 09:26 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★This is a really neat one! I wonder, though, how this changes the value of the pieces!?! A bishop can now change color. Maybe that makes the bishop better than the knight. But then again, one of the problems with the knight is that it must change color when it moves; I guess that is no longer true, either. And the pawns had the least mobility to begin with, so they benefit most, yes? And that brings down the value of all the other pieces, since they are all relative to the pawn...
Roberto, Gregory, George, thank you for your comments. George, would you be able to estimate the strength of the pieces in this game?
P1, N3, B3, R5, Q9 and supposed fractions for B and Q. Orthodox values should apply because Swap becomes like alternative to a move when any piece can Switch. Bishop no longer colour-bound? Knight more mobile? Queen freer to attack? Rook to make double threat? All true, but with generalized Switch, each such nuance has its offset(s) and risk, and each other piece-type correspondingly. Pawn-Piece disparity compared to Orthodox? A piece on rank 7 or 8 switches with an unmoved pawn. The pawn promotes. That's the power of the piece more than the Pawn; moreover, one or other's switching ability is redundant. Maybe some games played would show fractional-point increase in value for Pawn, but not looking to be self-evident. I think play with orthodox valuations in back of mind suffices on 8x8, or 8x10, with added switch-rule this way. So, the same Design Analysis chart under 'Rules of Chess FAQ' applies, with similar piece gradients.
Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Jul 17, 2004 11:17 PM UTC:It might be worth considering a rule that you can't switch your way out of check. Hiding behind your pawns on the eigth rank can't get you into trouble here, and that's no fun! :) In fact, switching makes it much harder to inflict checkmate, so games will last longer. This rule-change would help mitigate that.
George, thanks for the analysis. I think it's interesting that the relative power is about the same as standard Chess. I like that.
Greg, thanks for the suggestion. I will add it as a variant.
Even with Greg's extra rule, I think the game will create many passive positions. You could restrict the switch option to non-royal pieces, so the King could not switch (and so, couldn't easily escape eventual attacks). Also, check Swap Chess (www.chessvariants.com/diffmove.dir/swap.html) as a similar CV concept.
Are swap moves that don't change the board position legal -- such as any swap of a piece with the same type of piece? <i>(If not, you could remove the swap code from the Pawns in the ZRF, which would probably result in better piece values.)</i>
Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Jul 22, 2004 03:53 PM UTC:<p>When I implemented this game in ChessV, I delibrately disallowed switching of like pieces, since if I allowed them the computer would waste time considering lots of silly moves.
<p>Now that I think about it, however, I was hasty. I did not consider that if you could swap with like pieces, it would allow you to 'pass'. This would be a significant change from Chess. A good change or not, I don't know...
Peter, Greg, thanks for the question. Switching of like pieces to avoid moving was not the intent of the swap rule, so I will disallow it and update the page.
<p>Greg, if you would revise ChessV again, that would be great.
<p>Peter, I will update the ZRF.
<p>Thanks again! -- Tony
<p>
Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Jul 23, 2004 03:12 AM UTC:ChessV is already right; I have always disallowed like-piece swapping. I disallowed it originally, because it never even occured to me that one could do that to avoid moving, and I didn't want to inflate the number of legal moves.
I think the first write-up of Switching Ch left out adjacency. Allowing same-coloured switching (excluding of course the pointless null move between like piece-types) regardless of position would create explosive play. A piece on rank 8 could switch with unmoved Pawn for immediate promotion. Or Knight switch with Queen seven spaces removed for a check or mate. That sub-rule is more in keeping with CVP's usual broadmindedness. The four-sentence rules as now evolved are more like a suggestion for serious reform of standard FIDE Chess. And as stated, SwCh plays better than Fischer's Random Chess.
Switching Chess swap could be implemented for all 2000 CVP games, as well as the 2000 Pritchard ECV games. (A couple hundred now overlap both sources, as this week's Cross and Chesquerque) Like Fischer's random baseline, the new idea--distinct from Neto's Swap--has general applicability. The fact that Switching's first use is for standard FIDE chess shows Chess Variant Page for what it is, a bastion of orthodoxy. Seriously, SwgCh likely best recommendation since FRC staying within 64 squares to upset memorized opening theory. Pritchard under Capablanca's Ch, pages 38-39, summarizes debate in 1920s to reform Chess, led by GM JRC. Not locked in a thought-rut like other Grandmasters, Capablanca, Fischer, Botvinik know every game to be CV and yet quest for few ideal forms.
George, thanks for your comments. I think you are right that switching could be used in other variants.
<p>I have updated the ZRF to disallow switching with like pieces. Zillions still seems to play the Pawns too conservatively, apparently overvaluing them.
I just noticed Ed Friedlander's applet for Swap Chess I, which is almost identical to Switching Chess except that it prohibits swapping the King, and pre-dates it by 3 years. There is no separate game page for Swap Chess I that I am aware of.
Point of clarification: In Switching Chess I can understand the original rules, in which a King can switch to get out of check. But is a piece pinned to the King allowed to switch with another piece while pinned? I was under the impression that a pinned piece could not switch as that particular switching exposed the King briefly to check (illegal). My last few moves in a game were based on a pinning piece not being allowed to switch... but it did.
Gary, I did not consider this specific issue when developing this game. I have thought about it. Both approaches have some arguments in their favor. For my part, I prefer the idea that a pinned piece cannot switch, for the reasons you cited. However, for the purposes of this tournament, you should discuss the appropriate resolution with Fergus. Thanks for bring up the issue. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and confusion.
Well, and my play in this game with Gary was based on that such switching is possible. Actually, before playing 22. Re1, I specially checked this page to see if it is forbidden. The rule is important enough to be explicitely mentioned. For example, let's consider position in chess: White: Ke1, Qe2, Black: Ke8, Qe7. If white now plays Qe2-e6, queen usually first taken off from e2 and white king is temporarily in check. Still this move is legal in chess, because this is the end of the move when the king shouldn't be in check. So, I suggest two resolutions: 1) I play another move instead of 22. Re1 and we start using a new rules (pinned piece can't switch). 2) Gary takes a move back, which was based on assumptions that a pinned piece can't switch and we continue without this rule.
Andreas Kaufmann suggested two resolutions: 1) I play another move instead of 22. Re1 and we start using a new rules (pinned piece can't switch). 2) Gary takes a move back, which was based on assumptions that a pinned piece can't switch and we continue without this rule. I like solution #1. I think a pinned piece cannot move, just as a castling can not occur through a check. Tony Q. (the games inventor) also leans towards this concept, thought it was not addressed in the rules. By going back to allow Andreas a replacement move for 22 we are at a point in the game where our different mind-sets is irrelevant. Andreas, if you agree to option #1 I will go back to the end of my move 21 and you can make a different # 22. We would then play on with the rule that a pinned piece cannot expose a King to check (similar to the castling rule). Please let me know as soon as possible and we can recommence. And thank you for offering 2 possible resolutions. Sincerely, Gary
Ok, let's go with the option #1, please make your 21 move again and we continue with the new rule.
'stuv' Switching Chess had 15 Comments in 2004, all favourable, and none for almost two years now. Not a single move either for a year in GC of Switching Chess, except completion of Jeju-Rodriguez one half year ago. FIDE having the obvious problem of stale, over-analyzed, computer-overwhelmed standard, several of us listed SwCh as in the top 10 for FIDE replacement, if CVPage were ever asked. TQuintanilla became disillusioned because of an earlier related form differing only in not allowing King to switch at all. As pointed out before, Switching is a Mutator that can be applied to virtually any chess form you make up. Still nice easy concept whether considered original with Tony or 3 years before elsewhere.
As pointed out last month, Switching Chess seems to be a Mutator declining in popularity. No Comments for two years except for these two noting no Comments. No move in a GC match-up of Switching Chess for a year, not one move but the Jeju game completed. Three years ago Switching was considered near the top. Switching is an effect that, instead of deepening, seems more prosaic, or commonplace, comparatively uninteresting as a little time is put into study. To its credit Switching should be considered as FIDE-type-replacement prospect. By contrast, recent ongoing analysis of Ralph Betza's Chess with Inverse Capture is of an article never before even Commented. Rather being in the category of CV freeform, it somehow invites deeper analysis than Switching Chess -- the opposite of what would be expected. And CwICapture has actually been borrowed from unacknowledged. We are getting to that over at its thread. Offhand, the only derivative use so far of Switching is in '91.5 Trillion'. The lack of standards and too free rein for politics cause these illusive fluctuations.
Quintanilla's Ready Chess was just noted by Kubach, and it is a shame Quintanilla's Switching Chess has been disregarded for ten years. It was very popular its first few years and it is about the best natural Mutator possible to save 64 squares interest.
24 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.