Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Hi, Kevin. Regarding playtesting all posted games, I'd like to offer some comments. In general, there are very few people who play chess variants. This is a sad fact of life. And of those who do play variants, only a subset are of value as playtesters. How do you find them?

Often, you find hem by posting a game and seeing if people will play it. My experience has been about as contrarian as many of my views. The games I posted without any playtesting have in general done better than the games I've posted after playtesting. Nobody plays Hyperchess or my "activator" variants, which have been fairly extensively playtested. My shatranj variants not only get played on occasion, some people even like them! They were not playtested at all before posting, because I knew they would work, and I didn't really have anybody to playtest them with, except people here.

Yes, playtesting will eliminate a lot of unplayable games.But it would eliminate such gems as Salmon P. Chess or Stanley Random, also. And it would eliminate a lot of games that may have flaws, even major ones, but also have an idea that is worth saving. Of course, I have a prejudice toward more ideas, not fewer. Not everyone agrees with me. ;)

Hi Joe

Thanks for the comments, especially as you're a CVP editor. Due to being very rusty at any sort of programming, and having the odd back & neck troubles, I'm quite reluctant to attempt writing any sort of lengthy, complex preset myself at the moment, as I think may be required, if rule enforcing, for many/all of my variants that have no presets, though my circumstances may miraculously change soon, who knows. Personally I don't quite like presets that aren't rule enforcing, unless a game seems surely interesting, or the game's rules & pieces are simple (but then, there really ought to be a rule enforcing preset in that case). There's no one in my area to playtest any number of variants with over the board, if I had an appropriate board & pieces. To my regret I gave away an old hexagonal set some years ago because no one would play against me, but nowadays I might have used it to analyze any online games, at least. In addition, I understand such equipment is hard to get hold of now.

Currently I'm checking & re-checking which variants with presets I'd like to play most often (if I resume playing soon), and settling on how many games maximum I might play at a time (until completing at least 1 of them). I'm thinking about 4 games max. at the moment, which I've estimated might take 1 & 1/2 or 3 hours a day of my time depending if I make 1 or 2 moves a day per game on average, after so many minutes of thought & computer startup & shut-down time (including both my laptop's slow-starting MS email & Firefox browser). As a (Canadian) master I don't know for sure if chess skill transfers a lot to chess variants in general, or perhaps even just to most variants. One game I lost earlier in the year on Game Courier may have been somewhat due to over-valuing certain pieces; I gather estimating piece values is a huge theme/factor for variantists (sp?). I wish I could easily look up any [inter]national ratings for chess that Game Courier players & CVP members may have, though Game Courier rating(s) is at least some (possibly strong!?) indication of relative skill (still, the highest & lowest Game Courier ratings [for all variants combined] seem rather close to each other, especially considering the total number of players in the system).

Thanks for mentioning the 2 gem variants that you did. I hadn't noticed those, but rather I've looked at Game Courier's list of games, plus the dated(?) lists on CVP, such as Recognized Variants, plus some with eye-catching descriptions in the huge CVP alphabetical list. Perhaps more such lists can be made or updated at some point when editor(s) have time. Of the dozens of variants I've looked at, however briefly, many seemed worthy of play, in that what they may lack in ways(s) compared to, say, chess, they compensate for in other way(s) IMHO. Also, fwiw I've recently reassured myself that standard chess is still well worth playing, in spite of some apparent modern problems with it (especially due to computers, which in some ways are a boon to chess, too).

P.S. One man on a Canadian chess message board has suggested that an over the board chess variants tournament would be little different than a Poker tournament, with many of its variants. I told him I thought mastering another variant of chess would be harder than mastering another variant of Poker, generally. Not sure I was right, though. Fwiw, a feeling I get is that the chess variants community could be a house both united and divided, in a way, unlike the chess community, which rallies round a single game. Again, not sure this applies to Poker & its variants. For example, bughouse and crazyhouse players are almost communities to themselves, and may one day have their own organizations, like for Shogi players, IMHO.

Take care, Kevin

Kevin, I keep the slide rule I used in college under an abacus on my encyclopedia bookshelves. I don't program. All my presets are bare bones board and pieces. I am a dinosaur. Gronk! ;) Seriously, I am perfectly happy with a board and pieces, it's all you need. And most games here don't have a preset, which I see meaning 1 of 2 things, they're dinosaurs like me or they aren't serious game designers. Maybe it's just because they don't believe enough in their games, but if you don't make a preset, nobody will play your game. So what you're offering is an idea, not actually a game. You are still participating in the conversation, but at a lower level, and are much less likely to get your say.

The question of how FIDE chess skills transfer is an interesting one, and is related to the value of variants in playing better FIDE. To an extent, I think it depends on how flexible as a person one is. It's been my experience that the skills can transfer well and transfer better the closer to FIDE a game is. Grin, if you want to try an experiment, play Grand Chess, Modern Shatranj, Xiang Qi, Shogi, and Jetan, and see what you think. I believe experience helps, and the broader the experience, the more help it can provide. I learned more about pawns in designing and developing Hyperchess and playing Grand Shatranj than I ever did playing and studying FIDE. (Well, and Texas Two-Step...) Until then, I didn't even realize that there was more to learn about pawns. So I am definitely in the camp that says the more diferent kinds of chess you play, the better you will play all of them.

I believe you're right about the splits in variantists' preferred games - there are many. Some games, like Bughouse or Grand Chess, have their dedicated adherents. I've also noticed designer styles generally reflect the kinds of games they like playing. But that's not only an obvious but a very blurry observation because variants are so varied. Currently there are some 5000 or so variants listed, and roughly 1000 have presets. Logistically, most people are forced to "specialize". But many who do play variants, play only 1 or 2 exclusively. I don't see that as much different than only playing FIDE.

Rule enforcing presets certainly aren’t necessary, but configuring it so lifting a piece shows the squares to which it can move is certainly helpful.  Also, automation is very helpful for games with multiple moves, games with drops, etc, so you can play just by clicking the mouse.

As for creating games and not even bothering to make a plain preset, that I just don’t understand.

Kevin, regarding your neck and back troubles, if you haven’t done so, you should get an ergonomic keyboard and work environment (the right chair, desk and monitor at just the right height, etc.)  I know from personal (painful) experience that this makes a huge difference.

As for sorting through this massive site for games worth looking at, I think Fergus has made great progress here, by compiling lists that are determined in different ways to try to identify them: http://www.chessvariants.com/which.html.  I’d personally like to see some future updates to the Recognized Variants list.

Posted by Joe Joyce:

"Kevin, I keep the slide rule I used in college under an abacus on my encyclopedia bookshelves. I don't program. All my presets are bare bones board and pieces. I am a dinosaur. Gronk! ;) Seriously, I am perfectly happy with a board and pieces, it's all you need. And most games here don't have a preset, which I see meaning 1 of 2 things, they're dinosaurs like me or they aren't serious game designers. Maybe it's just because they don't believe enough in their games, but if you don't make a preset, nobody will play your game. So what you're offering is an idea, not actually a game. You are still participating in the conversation, but at a lower level, and are much less likely to get your say.

The question of how FIDE chess skills transfer is an interesting one, and is related to the value of variants in playing better FIDE. To an extent, I think it depends on how flexible as a person one is. It's been my experience that the skills can transfer well and transfer better the closer to FIDE a game is. Grin, if you want to try an experiment, play Grand Chess, Modern Shatranj, Xiang Qi, Shogi, and Jetan, and see what you think. I believe experience helps, and the broader the experience, the more help it can provide. I learned more about pawns in designing and developing Hyperchess and playing Grand Shatranj than I ever did playing and studying FIDE. (Well, and Texas Two-Step...) Until then, I didn't even realize that there was more to learn about pawns. So I am definitely in the camp that says the more diferent kinds of chess you play, the better you will play all of them.

I believe you're right about the splits in variantists' preferred games - there are many. Some games, like Bughouse or Grand Chess, have their dedicated adherents. I've also noticed designer styles generally reflect the kinds of games they like playing. But that's not only an obvious but a very blurry observation because variants are so varied. Currently there are some 5000 or so variants listed, and roughly 1000 have presets. Logistically, most people are forced to "specialize". But many who do play variants, play only 1 or 2 exclusively. I don't see that as much different than only playing FIDE."

Hi Joe

When I first came to CVP, it was with the minimal purpose of leaving a record (other than on my blog) for a small number of chess variants I invented, which I wasn't sure were worthwhile, i.e. I was just offering ideas, as you put it. CVP's database is massive, and so, on a rather less impressive/important level, to me it's all been somewhat like the end of the blockbuster movie RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, where the lost ark is stored deep in a US government warehouse, somewhere amongst all the other boxed up items. :) The variant I had the most hope for was Sac Chess, my first submission, and pleasantly enough, Carlos quickly made a rule enforcing preset for it without my asking, as he rather liked the variant on sight. So, sometimes ideas do indeed have a chance to rise to prominence, if someone notices and likes them at some point. Not that Sac Chess has been played much on Game Courier, yet, but at least I've practiced a bit more against H.G.'s interesting program for Sac Chess since abstaining from Game Courier play for about 6 months now.

The six 4D variants I've made so far I now think of as more for show, unless 4D Quasi-Alice Chess turns out to be of interest to someone. At this point I feel it's in the shadow of Alice Chess (if it has no other problems with it), even though Alice Chess is only 3D, as Alice is already very popular and perhaps too similar (a similar concern goes for a number of my other variants that are non-4D that I largely created after first coming to CVP). The 5 other 4D variants all have the typical limitations of higher dimensional variants that you pointed out to me (though I immensely enjoyed finding all the largely unforcible mating positions with minimal material for 4*Chess, and diagramming them for its submission). Still, fwiw, there are so few 4D variants in the massive CVP database at the moment that anyone cannot help but see mine if they search the 4D category, should they be looking for ideas from it.

I may get around to trying to make a plain preset at last, though due to painful experience I'm often shy about trying something new, e.g. in conjunction with modern computers, if it may turn out to be complex or quirky in an unpredictable way. I've done no HTML language code at all, so I'm kind of a dinosaur (I was born in the early 1960s, overseas on an RCAF base, before France temporarily left NATO, militarily). So far just one variant of mine has been at all rated, by one person (as Average), but it's a solitaire dice variant that's so generally applicable to CVs that I'd say it was not suitable for a preset; otherwise, a higher than Average rating for someone's variant that's without a preset might better encourage the making of a preset for it. I'm kind of surprised there are about 1,000 presets compared to the total number of about 5,000 CVP variant submissions. That seems like a healthy ratio, though I'd guess some people, like Fergus, have made a lot of the presets, and not just for their own variants.

I've played any number of games of Shogi over the years, though I've been relatively rusty for several years now. Xiang Qi I've played far less, and the book I have for it (unlike the one I have for Shogi) is largely unfathomable to me, even though it's in English. Every time I casually mention chess variants to my fellow serious competitive chess players, with a couple of exceptions (the friends I play certain Oriental games with, very occasionally nowadays), they look at me quizzically and remark they haven't got time for more games. That's in spite of some being Bridge players, Go players, or very occasional bughouse players. One reaction seemed most honest to me: when I told the fellow I've played hexagonal chess, with 3 cell colours, he remarked just the thought of the effort hurt his head. I'm probably in over my head in dabbling in all these variants, especially due to being out of shape and often a bit foggy due to supposedly mild medications. At least some of the people on CVP must be highly energetic (at the risk of channeling The Donald), not to mention flexible.

Even if the most popular variants eventually become worldbeaters in terms of popularity, and players peel off to specialize in them, or one variant replaces chess in dominance one day, a general chess variant organization or website like CVP at the least serves as a laboratory for untried or currently less popular variants. In the case of CVP's Game Courier, it provides a place to play chess variants by correspondence, rather than rushing with a server that also may not carry a variant someone wants to play. Some people use Game Courier to play standard chess, too, which kind of surprised me. Fwiw, being introduced to rated tournament chess by a friend's very competitive older brother, I became at least somewhat competitive, typical for veteran chess players. The availability of chess on Game Courier has the attraction of allowing veteran chess players the possible improvement of their overall Game Courier ratings, even though that rating is not supposed to mean too much by itself. As I get older, I'm more concerned with having relatively respectable looking ratings (at least at chess), rather than going all out for improving them. Still, some variants strike me quickly at first sight as fun, if a little challenging (e.g. Circular Chess), the playing of which could easily be worth risking (status symbol-like, albeit paltry) Game Courier rating points over. Fwiw, to this day there are some people who wish there were no rating systems for chess.