On Apr 10, 12:58 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:25 am, wrote:

I believe Heraclitean (or is it Heraclitian, as I am using it, not
just full of strife, but never twice) is supposed to be either it is
or isn't.

Then I'm probably not using the term the way you are. I'm just
thinking of my old idea of a basic structure where one chooses one of
a large number of variants in a way similar to the way Checkers
players choose one of a number of three-move openings.

As I was discussing Heraclitian, it was meant as a philosophical
boundaries of variant question.

This isn't like Calvinball, where the rule is to change the rules in
the middle of play, so as to not take anything seriously except having
fun.

The Heraclitian question asks initially if the starting rules to the
game can be infinite (if they don't change during play). A version of
the Heraclitian question, which refers to changes during play, would
be the Calvinball variety of Heraclitian. Such changes can be done in
a strategic manner.

Nor is it like IAGO Chess, where different pieces are dropped on the
board during play - but made more complicated.

If you speak of your game, it looks like a variant on Chess960, but
with fantasy pieces. As far as the IAGO Chess System goes, it is
meant to have a framework where you can use the drops at the start.
In fact, in Near Chess, which would fit in the IAGO Chess System, the
pieces enter the game at the start, before any moves. If you allow
entry not just at the start, it makes for a deeper game that calls
upon judgment, and makes the game less likely to be solved
(mathematically speaking). This is why I had proposed in the IAGO
Chess (game) it be done via gates and dropping. The game is also
meant to introduce people to the fullness of chess variants, which is
why the C-Class version has you doing a start of the game drop on the
queen space.

Let's say, for example, one plays on a chessboard where the squares
have numbers printed on them in a random arrangement. The last two
digits of the sum of the numbers on the squares that are occupied by
both players' Pawns (think of this as a hash function of the
position)... indicates one of a hundred different Fairy Pieces - and,
on any turn, a player can choose to either drop a piece in hand for
dropping, or *drop the piece indicated by this number* which also
gives his opponent the same type of piece in his hand to drop later.

So, you are using a shuffle to decide where the pieces go (rather than
deterministically). A shuffle is good for mixing things up, but has
the definite risk of leaving pawns unprotected and forcing players to
use moves to compensate for poor starting position. I will say it is
a good thing to have as one of the ways to play, but I don't see a
shuffle alone as being the answer to the migration path.

So as the game goes on, the type of pieces on the board varies
"randomly", but it's all from the same starting position and rules.

Some rule would have to be added to prevent the board from having on
it almost as many pieces as there are squares, but this is just a
thought example, not a serious variant yet.

But if this is the sort of direction you're thinking of, I don't know
of a good direction to go in to make that kind of variant.

I will say this here, that Heraclitian Chess or Calvinball chess are
not meant to be a form of chess that is actually to be played. They
have to do with the boundaries of variants, whether the rules changes
happen at the start (Heraclitian) or also during play (Calvinball), to
the extent of whether they are unlimited or not. And this gets back
to the original question of whether or not it is possible.

- Rich