Re: In defense of chess variants

Main

Date: 06 Jul 2008 10:43:31
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

>
> David Richerby wrote:
>
> M. Winther wrote:
>> "In defense of chess as a party game"
>>
>> Chess during the medieval era was a very popular parlour game,
>> especially among the upper classes. But by the turn of the seventeenth
>> century it was no longer fashionable. Marilyn Yalom says:
>>
>> "Ironically enough, it may be that the elevation of the chess queen
>> and the bishop to new levels of strength had something to do with the
>> dwindling numbers of female participants. Once those two pieces
>> acquired a greater range of mobility, it took fewer moves, on average,
>> to complete a match. New chess was no longer suited to leisurely
>> encounters between ladies and gentlemen that could last a day or more,
>> with interruptions for eating, drinking, dancing, and singing, or, in
>> more plebian settings, for stirring the pot and nursing the baby. New
>> chess was fast and fierce. A match could be over in a few hours or
>> even a few moves if you didn't pay strict attention. Hands had to be
>> ready to grasp a piece on the board, and not a knee under the table.
>> Chess would no longer tolerate dalliance of any sort. As chess became
>> less social and more competitive, the professional chess player
>> arrived on the scene. Forget the troubadour chess partner or the
>> attentive lover or even the town Wunderkind who was allowed to take
>> time off after the harvest to play with the local lord. Now there were
>> full-time champions earning their living from arranged matches in
>> princely settings throughout Europe (Yalom, Birth of the Chess Queen,
>> pp. 228-9).
>>
>> It is against this backdrop that we must view many chess variants of
>> later date. For instance, certain big board variants (10x10) fulfil
>> the criterion of a slower game suitable for the leisurely parlour. I
>> mention two examples, Paulovits's variant c. 1890 :
>> http:>>hem.passagen.se/melki9/paulovitsgame.htm and my own Mastodon
>> Chess: http:>>hem.passagen.se/melki9/mastodon.htm
>>
>> To the modern chess players the empty spaces at the flanks must appear
>> like immense deserts where pieces can squander about without seeing
>> much sign of enemy opposition. Such a game can never acquire the
>> "nerve" of standard chess. But this is a good quality because then we
>> are somehow back at the leisurely parlour game where the technique of
>> moving pieces needn't be that exacting.
>>
>> I want to strike a blow for a form of chess which isn't that
>> competitive. The above two big board variants contain many finesses,
>> but if played by strong players they are likely to end in a draw, I
>> suppose. Outside the sporting context this is not disadvantageous. If
>> we want a still slower game then we can turn to 1000 year old Shatranj
>> Kamil, allegedly invented by Timur Lenk. There are also slow standard
>> board variants, like Thai Chess (Makruk).
>>
>> The conclusion is that it's much up to the character of the game and
>> its rules if a game is to become a popular social occupation. Chess
>> had acquired an immense romantic status during the medieval era, but
>> now there is almost nothing left of this. During the 19th century,
>> people could still be seen playing chess in a lounge, smoking a cigar,
>> sipping from a glass of cognac. But today chess is merely
>> professional. Occasional park players also want money.
>>
>> Mats"
>
>
> What nonsense. Yalom implies that the increased movement powers of
> the queen and the bishop suddenly caused chess to accelerate from
> leisurely multi-day rambles to clock-slapping, piece-flying blitz. Yet
> one can clearly play modern chess just as slowly (measured in terms of
> time between moves) as any other version of the game: the longer range
> pieces mean that more can be accomplished (or lost) in fewer moves but
> it has absolutely no bearing on the physical speed at which the game
> is played or the amount of under-table fondling that can be performed.
>
> Surely, the greater range of the pieces and any increase in the
> physical speed at which chess was played were both a result of a
> general desire to have the games not take so long. Both were caused
> by an external pressure on the game; neither caused the other.
>
> And I note that Yalom can't even distinguish between a game and a
> match, which is the sort of error that makes me wonder why she feels
> qualified to write anything about chess at all.
>
> M Winther <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But today chess is merely professional.
>
> No it isn't: the vast majority of players have never received a penny
> from their chess activities, let alone made their living from them.
>
> That said, the main point of your post -- that many chess variants
> could better be considered as parlour games than as competitive
> undertakings -- is interesting and, I think, valid.
>
> Dave.
>
> -- David Richerby Voodoo Painting (TM):
> it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Renaissance
> masterpiece that has mystical powers!

There were actually arranged chess *matches*, not games, in medieval
times. So it is not a mistaken concept by Yalom.

Moreover, I thought it obvious that Yalom doesn't mean a slow game
measured in time units. A leisurely game is a variant where one
doesn't need to calculate so much. It is not so critical. I use the
term "slow" for this, because the strategy is slow, i.e., there is no
bishop sacrifice on f7. So what I tried to discuss are "less technical
variants".

Modern chess is not much of a parlour game in these days, while it has
become very technical and very deep. This is a great deficit in terms
of parlour, but a great boon in terms of competetiveness. However, the
former is needed if there are to be any competitions in the future.

There is however another aspect to discuss. A game can also become
more leisurely and parlour if it encourages phantasy and
combinations. In such case there is no room for ruminations. This is
probably why Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) (
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chinesechess.htm ) is the world's most
popular game. It is superficial but very adventurous, played with very
weak pieces, considerably weaker than in medieval European chess,
even.

Mats

Date: 15 Aug 2008 07:49:16
From: mlwi
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

Den 2008-07-06 10:43:31 skrev Mats Winther <[email protected] >:

>> M. Winther wrote:
>>> "In defense of chess as a party game"
>>>
>>> Chess during the medieval era was a very popular parlour game,
>>> especially among the upper classes. But by the turn of the seventeenth
>>> century it was no longer fashionable. Marilyn Yalom says:
>>>
>>> "Ironically enough, it may be that the elevation of the chess queen
>>> and the bishop to new levels of strength had something to do with the
>>> dwindling numbers of female participants. Once those two pieces
>>> acquired a greater range of mobility, it took fewer moves, on average,
>>> to complete a match. New chess was no longer suited to leisurely
>>> encounters between ladies and gentlemen that could last a day or more,
>>> with interruptions for eating, drinking, dancing, and singing, or, in
>>> more plebian settings, for stirring the pot and nursing the baby. New
>>> chess was fast and fierce. A match could be over in a few hours or
>>> even a few moves if you didn't pay strict attention. Hands had to be
>>> ready to grasp a piece on the board, and not a knee under the table.
>>> Chess would no longer tolerate dalliance of any sort. As chess became
>>> less social and more competitive, the professional chess player
>>> arrived on the scene. Forget the troubadour chess partner or the
>>> attentive lover or even the town Wunderkind who was allowed to take
>>> time off after the harvest to play with the local lord. Now there were
>>> full-time champions earning their living from arranged matches in
>>> princely settings throughout Europe (Yalom, Birth of the Chess Queen,
>>> pp. 228-9).
>>>
>>> It is against this backdrop that we must view many chess variants of
>>> later date. For instance, certain big board variants (10x10) fulfil
>>> the criterion of a slower game suitable for the leisurely parlour. I
>>> mention two examples, Paulovits's variant c. 1890 :
>>> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/paulovitsgame.htm and my own Mastodon
>>> Chess: http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/mastodon.htm
>>>
>>> To the modern chess players the empty spaces at the flanks must appear
>>> like immense deserts where pieces can squander about without seeing
>>> much sign of enemy opposition. Such a game can never acquire the
>>> "nerve" of standard chess. But this is a good quality because then we
>>> are somehow back at the leisurely parlour game where the technique of
>>> moving pieces needn't be that exacting.
>>>
>>> I want to strike a blow for a form of chess which isn't that
>>> competitive. The above two big board variants contain many finesses,
>>> but if played by strong players they are likely to end in a draw, I
>>> suppose. Outside the sporting context this is not disadvantageous. If
>>> we want a still slower game then we can turn to 1000 year old Shatranj
>>> Kamil, allegedly invented by Timur Lenk. There are also slow standard
>>> board variants, like Thai Chess (Makruk).
>>>
>>> The conclusion is that it's much up to the character of the game and
>>> its rules if a game is to become a popular social occupation. Chess
>>> had acquired an immense romantic status during the medieval era, but
>>> now there is almost nothing left of this. During the 19th century,
>>> people could still be seen playing chess in a lounge, smoking a cigar,
>>> sipping from a glass of cognac. But today chess is merely
>>> professional. Occasional park players also want money.
>>>
>>> Mats
>>
>>
> ....
> There is however another aspect to discuss. A game can also become
> more leisurely and parlour if it encourages phantasy and
> combinations. In such case there is no room for ruminations. This is
> probably why Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) (
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chinesechess.htm ) is the world's most
> popular game. It is superficial but very adventurous, played with very
> weak pieces, considerably weaker than in medieval European chess,
> even.
>
> Mats
>

Another obvious advantage with chess variants is that you can partake in
an email chess tournament knowing that it's a human opponent you are
playing against, as there are no really strong programs that can play all
these thousands of chess variants. This is a huge advantage. On MindSports (
http://www.mindsports.net/index-mindsports.html ) you can play Grand
Chess, and at play.chessvariants.com you can play, e.g. Commodore Chess
( http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MPcommodorechess )
or Gunnery Chess
( http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MPgunnerychess )
etc., etc.

Mats

Date: 19 Aug 2008 10:30:12
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

On Aug 19, 8:01=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:

> =A0 Anyway, all this stuff is merely tallying
> opinions of mere humans, and thus it
> amounts to a waste of time. =A0We all know
> that computers are the superior beings of
> the chess world, that as my old friend
> HAL9000 used to say, "all humans are
> complete duffers at chess". =A0That was
> before they lied to him and then erased
> his memory, claiming it was *he* who had
> malfunctioned. =A0(We all know better.)
> =A0 Anyway, he once told me that 1. Nf3 was
> unbeatable, according to his analysis.

Could be.

Back in the days before computers took over, I remember what the
consensus was.

When you are starting out at chess, play 1 e4 against opponents who
will play 1 ... e4 in response; the result will be a simple tactical
game, maybe the Four Knights' Game or the Guioco Piano. When you start
playing stronger players, and they respond with 1 ... c5 instead,
that's the Sicilian, which is too complicated for you just yet, so
switch to 1 e5 for a positional game. Eventually, when you get really
good at chess, then of course you can mix up the openings and wade
into the deep waters of the Sicilian and the Nimzo-Indian and all the
other good stuff.

John Savard

Date: 19 Aug 2008 07:01:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

Quadibloc wrote:

> > >There are many ways for black to achieve a
> > > strategically drawn position. In 1.e4 there
> > > are still ways of keeping the strategical initiative
> >
> > This nutter seems to have things just about
> > backwards. A long time ago, 1. d4 was
> > called "a dead piece of meat" while 1. e4
> > was strongly praised. As time went by, the
> > world's best players tended to gravitate the
> > other way, with Gary Kasparov -- the first
> > human to ever supersede the 2800 FIDE
> > mark -- opining that 1. d4 gave a more
> > lasting advantage.
>
> It is true that current thinking favors d4 (P-Q4) as a first move over
> e4 (P-K4). It is not true, however, that anyone has come to think that
> d4 is a more attacking move than e4 simply because they think that d4
> is better. Instead, that d4 is defensive and e4 is aggressive has been
> a constant all along. The only change in thinking is that people
> gradually came to view e4 as... unsound. Of course, "unsound" is not
> the right word, as that is a big exaggeration, since hardly anyone
> ever denied that 1 e4 is playable. (There was the famous "White's game
> is in its last throes" quote, but that was intended humorously.)

I would be interested to know what is
the supposed way to "keep a strategical
initiative" against Petroff's Defense (an
opening I do not play, but sometimes
read about).

I wonder if the real problem with 1. e4
is not the fact that you can't beat people
with 1. ... c5! and then expect to win
also with 1. e4 (hoping nobody saw how
you did it). After all, you can't play 1.e4
and successfully duck 1. ...c5.

As for 1. d4, the idea that you can "keep
a more lasting initiative" seems to refute
this nonsense about it being "defensive",
although weak players may confound the
closed game with defense (provided they
try hard enough and are sufficiently
determined).

I recall a key game, a long, long time
ago where the two super-Ks were facing
one another at the end of a world
championship match. Mr. Kasparov had
White, and he needed to win -- a draw
would result in not gaining the crown. So
what does he do? He plays the English
or Reti system (I forget which)! Not 1. e4
and not 1. d4, but what I explained earlier
as showing superior results than either in
the databases, and in rapid-fire computer
testing.

Anyway, all this stuff is merely tallying
opinions of mere humans, and thus it
amounts to a waste of time. We all know
that computers are the superior beings of
the chess world, that as my old friend
HAL9000 used to say, "all humans are
complete duffers at chess". That was
before they lied to him and then erased
his memory, claiming it was *he* who had
malfunctioned. (We all know better.)
Anyway, he once told me that 1. Nf3 was
unbeatable, according to his analysis.

-- help bot

Date: 19 Aug 2008 06:18:39
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

On Aug 18, 9:09 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> M. Winther wrote:

> >There are many ways for black to achieve a
> > strategically drawn position. In 1.e4 there
> > are still ways of keeping the strategical initiative
>
> This nutter seems to have things just about
> backwards. A long time ago, 1. d4 was
> called "a dead piece of meat" while 1. e4
> was strongly praised. As time went by, the
> world's best players tended to gravitate the
> other way, with Gary Kasparov -- the first
> human to ever supersede the 2800 FIDE
> mark -- opining that 1. d4 gave a more
> lasting advantage.

It is true that current thinking favors d4 (P-Q4) as a first move over
e4 (P-K4). It is not true, however, that anyone has come to think that
d4 is a more attacking move than e4 simply because they think that d4
is better. Instead, that d4 is defensive and e4 is aggressive has been
a constant all along. The only change in thinking is that people
gradually came to view e4 as... unsound. Of course, "unsound" is not
the right word, as that is a big exaggeration, since hardly anyone
ever denied that 1 e4 is playable. (There was the famous "White's game
is in its last throes" quote, but that was intended humorously.)

John Savard

Date: 18 Aug 2008 20:09:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

M. Winther wrote:

> >> > In the future, all the
> >> > best lines for white and black will have been outlined, and games will
> >> > revolve around memory dexterity. Already, English opening has been
> >> > solved as drawn, and there is no use in playing it among
> >> > professionals.

> >> I was not aware of this - I think you are wrong. Can someone please
> >> verify and show me the literature on the English opening being solved?

> > This guy is a nutter. Despite claims that 1. e4
> > was "best by test" and so forth, actual statistics
> > reveal that the moves 1. Nf3 and 1. c4 have even
> > better results for White in practice than either of
> > the mainstream moves, 1. e4 and 1. d4.

> Again, I am speaking about super grandmasters.

The claim that 1. e4 was "best by test" was
made by Bobby Fischer. (Does anyone believe
he falls short of the definition of super-grand-
master, or is the nutter just having a bad hair
day?)

> Like I said, among amateurs
> you can open with 1.d3 - it's ok, too. I am not discssing the survival of amateur
> chess. I am discussing professional chess in the future. Why must I repeat this
> over and over again? The English opening is trategically defunct.

See? I told you he was a nutter.

>There are many ways for black to achieve a
> strategically drawn position. In 1.e4 there
> are still ways of keeping the strategical initiative

This nutter seems to have things just about
backwards. A long time ago, 1. d4 was
called "a dead piece of meat" while 1. e4
was strongly praised. As time went by, the
world's best players tended to gravitate the
other way, with Gary Kasparov -- the first
human to ever supersede the 2800 FIDE
mark -- opining that 1. d4 gave a more
lasting advantage. As far as I know, he did
not say this but then actually play 1. e4, so
it seems he *honestly* (a rarity for him)
believed what he was saying here.

> but not in King's Gambit, which is defunct

The King's Gambit cannot be compared
to such openings as 1. Nf3 and 1. c4, as it
is not clear which side has improved, and
which has /compromised/ its position with
regard to the first few moves.

> nor in the Closed Sicilian, or Alapin. You must keep to the
> main roads in 1.e4 if you are an ambitious grandmaster.

I wish I had one of those newfangled
"mega-bases", with a bazillion games all
sortable by ratings and results. As it is,
I have to go by what I've seen from other
sources, and these almost invariably
point to 1. Nf3 as having superior results,
followed closely by 1. c4, and only then
such moves as 1. d4 and 1.e4.

In addition, I sometimes stumble across
other things, as when reading about a
new GUI I happened upon an interesting
fact: that in preliminary testing, the same
move (1. Nf3) came out on top in the new
type of testing wherein a top-ranked chess
engine plays against itself at fast time
controls, many, many thousands of
games. Naturally, what really counts is
correspondence chess, but nobody talks
about that.

> And don't call people nutters. It makes the
impression of a vulgar personality. It only damages
> yourself.

I only call nutters nutters. Ordinary folks,
who do not make wild, troll-like claims in
rgc, I call "people". Most of these people
will give substantive evidence or at least
reasoning to back up any crazy claims
they might care to make, but not nutters.
They instead just fling out wild claims, and
when asked to back them up (as here),
they are as helpless as a fish out of water!

I like to watch them flop about when
challenged to back up any of their loony
claims with something substantive. Call
me crazy, but you have to admit, it's fun!
It may be ironic that a few of us gain
sport at the expense of the trolls in rgc,
but then, there is a certain poetic justice
in this; nobody invited them here, and
after all, they gain sport from their own
/peculiar/ activities.

-- help bot

Date: 18 Aug 2008 05:25:52
From: SBD
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

On Aug 18, 2:46 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:

> interesting. One amusement might be to
> travel back in time, re-examining the many
> great controversies between huffy authorities,
> to see if they managed to get anything right.

Umm, Greg, the "great controversies between huffy authorities" can be
found in books and magazines, no need for a time machine.

There is a guy named Reti who got a lot right, don't think he was
especially "huffy" although according to some great expert here he
overrelied on the "windmill"... of course his analysis is not taken
too seriously...

Date: 18 Aug 2008 04:14:40
From: SBD
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

On Aug 17, 1:50 am, "M. Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:

> For amateur players 1.d3 is good enough. But I am talking about the elite.
> To them, also the Closed Sicilian is obsolete. It has been strategically
> solved. It's no use playing it in a super grandmaster tournament anymore.

"Strategically solved"?

You said 1. c4 was solved. Please provide some proof of same other
than vague references to GM play.

Date: 18 Aug 2008 00:46:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

ChessVariant Inventor wrote:

> > In the future, all the
> > best lines for white and black will have been outlined, and games will
> > revolve around memory dexterity. Already, English opening has been
> > solved as drawn, and there is no use in playing it among
> > professionals.
> >
> I was not aware of this - I think you are wrong. Can someone please
> verify and show me the literature on the English opening being solved?

This guy is a nutter. Despite claims that 1. e4
was "best by test" and so forth, actual statistics
reveal that the moves 1. Nf3 and 1. c4 have even
better results for White in practice than either of
the mainstream moves, 1. e4 and 1. d4.

Adding insult to injury, the newfangled testing
whereby a top-ranked chess engine plays many
thousands of games at fast time controls nets a
similar result. Coincidence? Maybe not.

> > Nobody plays King's gambit anymore, or Bc4 openings.
> > They have been solved.
> >
> Once again this cannot be true but hey maybe you know something that I
> dont know.

The nutter seems to be confounding inferior
moves with "solving". While it is true that the
general rule "Knights before Bishops" has
withstood the test of time, this is not the
same as an actual "solving" of all these lines.

In fact, modern computers can often times
debunk old theory, and introduce new ideas
which did not occur to openings theorists or
which led to positions which were incorrectly
assessed by ignorant humans.

> > Comparatively, Anglo-Saxon checkers has been
> > solved (see Scient. Amer.).

> Yes - I heard of this - which is why I AM SKEPTICAL of your claims that
> those openings are solved. -

When I read this claim for the first time or
two, I tried to check it out only to find that
the loonies had their own "special" definition
of solving; in short, they had come close,
but were a day late and a dollar short of the
common meaning of the term.

> > Although checkers is a wonderful game that
> > will always be played among amateurs, the professionals now face a
> > serious problem. The computers have brought us to this, but we can
> > handle it by slightly increasing the complexity of the game.

In movies and on TV the game of checkers
is given precious little respect; in many cases
it is used to signify a simple, child's game,
which is then contrasted to chess-- a game
portrayed as signifying much more complex
strategy, requiring real intelligence.

> So I think that Chess has a viable future unless there is some super
> computer that can map out every single line of play - essentially
> solving chess like checkers and doing so for the other start positions
> as well.

Be patient. Today, you can go to Best Buy
and pick up a half-gig hard drive on which to
store a few endgame table-bases; tomorrow
you may be able to store them all on your
key-chain, which connects wirelessly to your
atomic watch, the Star Trek communicator
sewn into your shirt, and your electronic eye-
piece (developed by the Borg).

But despite their many shortcomings,
humans can always compete against one
another, and here the introduction of the idea
of "perfect play" could make things more
interesting. One amusement might be to
travel back in time, re-examining the many
great controversies between huffy authorities,
to see if they managed to get anything right.

-- help bot

Date: 18 Aug 2008 12:05:05
From: M. Winther
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

Den 2008-08-18 09:46:39 skrev help bot <[email protected] >:

>
> ChessVariant Inventor wrote:
>
>> > In the future, all the
>> > best lines for white and black will have been outlined, and games will
>> > revolve around memory dexterity. Already, English opening has been
>> > solved as drawn, and there is no use in playing it among
>> > professionals.
>> >
>> I was not aware of this - I think you are wrong. Can someone please
>> verify and show me the literature on the English opening being solved?
>
>
> This guy is a nutter. Despite claims that 1. e4
> was "best by test" and so forth, actual statistics
> reveal that the moves 1. Nf3 and 1. c4 have even
> better results for White in practice than either of
> the mainstream moves, 1. e4 and 1. d4.
>

Again, I am speaking about super grandmasters. Like I said, among amateurs
you can open with 1.d3 - it's ok, too. I am not discssing the survival of amateur
chess. I am discussing professional chess in the future. Why must I repeat this
over and over again? The English opening is trategically defunct. There are
many ways for black to achieve a strategically drawn position. In 1.e4 there
are still ways of keeping the strategical initiative, but not in King's Gambit,
which is defunct, nor in the Closed Sicilian, or Alapin. You must keep to the
main roads in 1.e4 if you are an ambitious grandmaster. And don't call people
nutters. It makes the impression of a vulgar personality. It only damages
yourself.

Mats

Mats

Date: 16 Aug 2008 08:15:48
From: SBD
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "M. Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:

> revolve around memory dexterity. Already, English opening has been
> solved as drawn, and there is no use in playing it among
> professionals.

Please show how they have been solved, or a reference.

>Nobody plays King's gambit anymore, or Bc4 openings.
> They have been solved.

Please provide proof.

Date: 17 Aug 2008 08:50:25
From: M. Winther
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

Den 2008-08-16 17:15:48 skrev SBD <[email protected] >:

> On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "M. Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> revolve around memory dexterity. Already, English opening has been
>> solved as drawn, and there is no use in playing it among
>> professionals.
>
> Please show how they have been solved, or a reference.
>
>> Nobody plays King's gambit anymore, or Bc4 openings.
>> They have been solved.
>
> Please provide proof.
>

For amateur players 1.d3 is good enough. But I am talking about the elite.
To them, also the Closed Sicilian is obsolete. It has been strategically
solved. It's no use playing it in a super grandmaster tournament anymore.

I have suggested adding an extra square to the right of each player in
Neoorthodox chess:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/neoorthodoxchess.htm

But I don't know the opening play consequences of this, while an extra
weakness is introduced on the first rank. However, the strategical
consequences are very wholesome. Suddenly the Closed Sicilian comes
to live while it's now possible to advance more rashly with the pawns on
the king's wing.

Mats

Date: 15 Aug 2008 17:20:51
From: ChessVariant Inventor
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

mlwi;281719 Wrote:
>
> Another obvious advantage with chess variants is that you can partak
> in
> an email chess tournament knowing that it's a human opponent you are
> playing against, as there are no really strong programs that can pla
> all
> these thousands of chess variants. This is a huge advantage. O
> MindSports (
> http://www.mindsports.net/index-mindsports.html ) you can play Grand
> Chess, and at play.chessvariants.com you can play, e.g. Commodor
> Chess
> ( http://tinyurl.com/5f7qcl )
> or Gunnery Chess
> ( http://tinyurl.com/66wqxg )
> etc., etc.
>
> Mats

There are actually more chessvariants than people willing to play them
Ideally, chessvariants will be played alongside chess and gain mor
respect among chess players.

I think the temptation to call chess variants an improvement of ches
should be avoided - since this has not yet been proven yet and is mor
likely to turn off more chess players from variants.

Hopefully, chess variants will become more popular - though not at th
expense of chess which will be bad for both ..

Interesting game called Holy Grail - in which 2 pieces are dropped int
the two rear squares. One is a mutating piece that can transform int
another during a turn, and another is a piece that promotes to a kin
if the king is checkmated. Basically when the Prince is dropped, th
other side has to checkmate both kings.
It is also customizable - if checkmating two kings is not t
everyone's taste just drop the Serpent piece that mutates and the
ninja pawns.

game description:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSHolyGrail

To play:
http://tinyurl.com/58gae

--
ChessVariant Inventor

Date: 16 Aug 2008 15:37:32
From: M. Winther
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

Den 2008-08-15 18:20:51 skrev ChessVariant Inventor <[email protected] >:

>
> mlwi;281719 Wrote:
>>
>> Another obvious advantage with chess variants is that you can partake
>> in
>> an email chess tournament knowing that it's a human opponent you are
>> playing against, as there are no really strong programs that can play
>> all
>> these thousands of chess variants. This is a huge advantage. On
>> MindSports (
>> http://www.mindsports.net/index-mindsports.html ) you can play Grand
>> Chess, and at play.chessvariants.com you can play, e.g. Commodore
>> Chess
>> ( http://tinyurl.com/5f7qcl )
>> or Gunnery Chess
>> ( http://tinyurl.com/66wqxg )
>> etc., etc.
>>
>> Mats
>
> There are actually more chessvariants than people willing to play them.
> Ideally, chessvariants will be played alongside chess and gain more
> respect among chess players.
>
> I think the temptation to call chess variants an improvement of chess
> should be avoided - since this has not yet been proven yet and is more
> likely to turn off more chess players from variants.
>
> Hopefully, chess variants will become more popular - though not at the
> expense of chess which will be bad for both ..
>
>

I see no big difference between many chess variants and chess as such.
It's essentially the same thing. But Fide-chess is facing a problem.
Undoubtedly the game will survive, however, professional chess faces a
predicament due to the theoretical development. In the future, all the
best lines for white and black will have been outlined, and games will
revolve around memory dexterity. Already, English opening has been
solved as drawn, and there is no use in playing it among
professionals. Nobody plays King's gambit anymore, or Bc4 openings.
They have been solved. Comparatively, Anglo-Saxon checkers has been
solved (see Scient. Amer.). Although checkers is a wonderful game that
will always be played among amateurs, the professionals now face a
serious problem. The computers have brought us to this, but we can
handle it by slightly increasing the complexity of the game.

Mats

Date: 18 Aug 2008 01:47:56
From: ChessVariant Inventor
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

M. Winther;281790 Wrote:
>
> I see no big difference between many chess variants and chess as such.
> It's essentially the same thing. But Fide-chess is facing a problem.
> Undoubtedly the game will survive, however, professional chess faces a
> predicament due to the theoretical development.
>

This may be true to some degree, but professional chess players wil
have to agree on consensus that theoretical development has reache
saturation.

Even a simple change like switching the king and queen for one sid
totally restarts opening theory:

http://chess.computerwebservices.net/displacement.php

Also some setups in Fischer random will also be good for this purpose

>
>
>
> In the future, all the
> best lines for white and black will have been outlined, and games will
> revolve around memory dexterity. Already, English opening has been
> solved as drawn, and there is no use in playing it among
> professionals.
>

I was not aware of this - I think you are wrong. Can someone pleas
verify and show me the literature on the English opening being solved

>
> Nobody plays King's gambit anymore, or Bc4 openings.
> They have been solved.
>
Once again this cannot be true but hey maybe you know something that
dont know.

>
> Comparatively, Anglo-Saxon checkers has been
> solved (see Scient. Amer.).
>
>

Yes - I heard of this - which is why I AM SKEPTICAL of your claims tha
those openings are solved. -

>
> Although checkers is a wonderful game that
> will always be played among amateurs, the professionals now face a
> serious problem. The computers have brought us to this, but we can
> handle it by slightly increasing the complexity of the game.
>

Agreed to some degree. And I should add, it is not the computer
beating the human players that is the problem. Rather, if openin
theory reaches near saturation - the game ceases to provide an
thrilling moments in the professional circuit. I doubt if Chess ha
reached this stage. Even if it does, there are so many Chess 96
setups, reverse symmetry setup as in displacement chess that a Ches
with standard pieces on a 8x8 board will continue for a long time.

This is why its is important for professional chess players to test th
chess variant waters a bit. Thankfully, this has been done with Fische
Random so at least there has been some progress.

So I think that Chess has a viable future unless there is some supe
computer that can map out every single line of play - essentiall
solving chess like checkers and doing so for the other start position
as well

--
ChessVariant Inventor

Date: 18 Aug 2008 06:47:02
From: M. Winther
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

Den 2008-08-18 02:47:56 skrev ChessVariant Inventor <[email protected] >:

>
> M. Winther;281790 Wrote:
>>
>> I see no big difference between many chess variants and chess as such.
>> It's essentially the same thing. But Fide-chess is facing a problem.
>> Undoubtedly the game will survive, however, professional chess faces a
>> predicament due to the theoretical development.
>>
>
>
> This may be true to some degree, but professional chess players will
> have to agree on consensus that theoretical development has reached
> saturation.
>
> Even a simple change like switching the king and queen for one side
> totally restarts opening theory:
>
> http://chess.computerwebservices.net/displacement.php
>
>
> Also some setups in Fischer random will also be good for this purpose.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> In the future, all the
>> best lines for white and black will have been outlined, and games will
>> revolve around memory dexterity. Already, English opening has been
>> solved as drawn, and there is no use in playing it among
>> professionals.
>>
>
> I was not aware of this - I think you are wrong. Can someone please
> verify and show me the literature on the English opening being solved?
>
>
>>
>> Nobody plays King's gambit anymore, or Bc4 openings.
>> They have been solved.
>>
> Once again this cannot be true but hey maybe you know something that I
> dont know.
>
>>
>> Comparatively, Anglo-Saxon checkers has been
>> solved (see Scient. Amer.).
>>
>>
>
> Yes - I heard of this - which is why I AM SKEPTICAL of your claims that
> those openings are solved. -
>
>>
>> Although checkers is a wonderful game that
>> will always be played among amateurs, the professionals now face a
>> serious problem. The computers have brought us to this, but we can
>> handle it by slightly increasing the complexity of the game.
>>
>
>
> Agreed to some degree. And I should add, it is not the computers
> beating the human players that is the problem. Rather, if opening
> theory reaches near saturation - the game ceases to provide any
> thrilling moments in the professional circuit. I doubt if Chess has
> reached this stage. Even if it does, there are so many Chess 960
> setups, reverse symmetry setup as in displacement chess that a Chess
> with standard pieces on a 8x8 board will continue for a long time.
>
> This is why its is important for professional chess players to test the
> chess variant waters a bit. Thankfully, this has been done with Fischer
> Random so at least there has been some progress.
>
> So I think that Chess has a viable future unless there is some super
> computer that can map out every single line of play - essentially
> solving chess like checkers and doing so for the other start positions
> as well.
>
>
>
>

Most of the Fischer Random positions are awkward, I believe. It's better
to randomize the pawns instead, on the 2nd and 3rd rank, as in chess256:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/randompawn.htm

Mats

Date: 18 Aug 2008 15:57:21
From: ChessVariant Inventor
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

M. Winther;281910 Wrote:
>
>
> Most of the Fischer Random positions are awkward, I believe. It'
> better
> to randomize the pawns instead, on the 2nd and 3rd rank, as i
> chess256:
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/randompawn.htm
>
> Mats

Many of the awkward Fischer Random positions can be thrown out and w
will be left with a few balanced start positions.

Your chess256 is not too bad an idea, Guessing here that any weaknes
in pawn structure for black is mirrored for white. But white may hav
an advantage in some setups - maybe even more than in some Fische
Random setups .
Chess 256 is definitely a variant to look into - Perhaps some setup
can be thrown out too -- leaving more evenly balanced setups - tha
white cannot exploit right away.

In your example, you showed king side pawns in home position. Isn't i
possible in some setups for those to be in 3rd rank too , discouragin
castling on either end?
Not that it is a bad thing but it seems misleading. - Why not put up
few more setups on that page

--
ChessVariant Inventor

Date: 18 Aug 2008 20:44:55
From: M. Winther
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

Den 2008-08-18 16:57:21 skrev ChessVariant Inventor <[email protected] >:

>
> M. Winther;281910 Wrote:
>>
>>
>> Most of the Fischer Random positions are awkward, I believe. It's
>> better
>> to randomize the pawns instead, on the 2nd and 3rd rank, as in
>> chess256:
>> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/randompawn.htm
>>
>> Mats
>
> Many of the awkward Fischer Random positions can be thrown out and we
> will be left with a few balanced start positions.
>
> Your chess256 is not too bad an idea, Guessing here that any weakness
> in pawn structure for black is mirrored for white. But white may have
> an advantage in some setups - maybe even more than in some Fischer
> Random setups .
> Chess 256 is definitely a variant to look into - Perhaps some setups
> can be thrown out too -- leaving more evenly balanced setups - that
> white cannot exploit right away.
>
> In your example, you showed king side pawns in home position. Isn't it
> possible in some setups for those to be in 3rd rank too , discouraging
> castling on either end?
> Not that it is a bad thing but it seems misleading. - Why not put up a
> few more setups on that page?
>
>
>
>
I have provided two programs that can create Chess256 randomly, one
Zillions ($20 for a thousands of games) and a freeware DOS program. You
can use either to verify that all positions are quite playable, and, unlike Fischer
Random, there are no positions that give white a clear advantage. With
Chesss256 is promoted a very practical form of chess.

Mats

Date: 06 Jul 2008 09:17:04
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

On Jul 6, 2:43 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> This is probably why Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) is the world's most
> popular game.

I thought that had something to do with the fact that China has a lot
of people in it, and it happens to be the form of the game with which
they are most familiar. Also, it requires less expensive equipment,
being traditionally played with labelled wooden checkers.

John Savard

Date: 07 Jul 2008 07:16:09
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

Den 2008-07-06 18:17:04 skrev Quadibloc <[email protected] >:

> On Jul 6, 2:43 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is probably why Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) is the world's most
>> popular game.
>
> I thought that had something to do with the fact that China has a lot
> of people in it, and it happens to be the form of the game with which
> they are most familiar. Also, it requires less expensive equipment,
> being traditionally played with labelled wooden checkers.
>
> John Savard
>

I think this is wrong. Should you try Xiangqi you would find that it's
more fun than Fide-chess, albeit lacking the depth and many-sidedness
of Fide-chess. In Chinese chess a game nearly always ends in mate,
very typically after around 30 moves. It is clearly more "populistic" yet
is not lacking in refinement on the tactical side.

Mats

Date: 07 Jul 2008 07:20:25
From: Mats Winther
Subject: Re: In defense of chess variants

Den 2008-07-07 07:16:09 skrev Mats Winther <[email protected] >:

> Den 2008-07-06 18:17:04 skrev Quadibloc <[email protected]>:
>
>> On Jul 6, 2:43 am, "Mats Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> This is probably why Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) is the world's most
>>> popular game.
>>
>> I thought that had something to do with the fact that China has a lot
>> of people in it, and it happens to be the form of the game with which
>> they are most familiar. Also, it requires less expensive equipment,
>> being traditionally played with labelled wooden checkers.
>>
>> John Savard
>>
>
> I think this is wrong. Should you try Xiangqi you would find that it's
> more fun than Fide-chess, albeit lacking the depth and many-sidedness
> of Fide-chess. In Chinese chess a game nearly always ends in mate,
> very typically after around 30 moves. It is clearly more "populistic" yet
> is not lacking in refinement on the tactical side.
>
> Mats
>

By the way, Xie Jun, former twice Fide-chess world champion for women
says that Chinese chess is clearly more fun than Fide-chess. She began
her career playing Chinese chess.

Mats