CHESS REDESIGN – V 0.1 [Second Try]


Consider the following idea.

You arrive at your favorite chess hangout and see someone new sitting in
a corner. He appears to be an out-of-towner. You go over and invite him
to play. He counters your proposal with an offer to play a new type of
chess. Somewhat puzzled, you agree. You ask him to explain what he has
in mind.

He unrolls a standard cloth chess board on the table. Nothing new there.

Next he opens up a leather bag and dumps out a set of standard Staunton
design pieces. Nothing new here either.

You reach forward to begin setting up pieces, but he holds up a hand and
says, “Wait!”

Now he pulls out a small deck of cards, holding them concealed, face
down, and asks you to pick one. You do this three times and each card
turns out to be a number. He explains that you are selecting the digits
of a number between 0 and 960. You end up with the number 465. He
hands you a small book and indicates a diagram that displays a starting
position from Chess960. Set them up like this!

You begin setting up the pieces, thinking to yourself that this must be
close to Chess960 then... He mentions that there are actually a few
more starting positions beyond those of Chess960 to bring the total up
to 1000. These extra positions are decided by international chess
authorities based on a periodic design competition.

After you finish, he reshuffles the same small deck and says, “Now let
us see what kind of pawns we play with. Pick a card.” You select a 5.
He directs you to another section of the book that is titled pawn
prototypes. You examine this closely and see that number five is named
the Lancer. It can only move forward one square at a time. But, it can
capture diagonally, one or two squares at a time.

This process of drawing a card to index a variant design in the small
book is repeated for the Rooks, Knights, Bishops, Queen and even the
King. The standard definition of the pawns and pieces abilities in
classical chess is the fundamental subset of the game and may end up
randomly selected. The extra piece designs are decided by international
chess authorities based on a periodic design competition.

After a clock-timed period of reflection on the powers of the variant
pieces, you both begin playing an unusual game...



NOTES:

You wouldn't have to randomly select. In casual club play if two
players get interested in a particular configuration they can just agree
to start with it. In large tournaments, organizers could decide to
devote the tournament to some thematic subset of the variants, or just
one configuration.

This kind of solution is economical, and could be adopted worldwide. It
avoids the glut of computer analysis and monolithic opening theory. It
even largely avoids endgame table-bases. It adds a new creative element
to chess in piece and starting position design. And, replacing huge
amounts of opening theory with exotic new types of endgame studies suits
my personal preferences fine.

One downside: the folks that designed PGN/algebraic notation would have
some serious work to do. The notation would have to capture how new
pieces move and how to name them as well. Since the board retains it
shape and size, and the number of pieces remains constant, perhaps this
is not as big a challenge as it might first appear.

They say that the game of Go is much more complex than classical chess.
I have not heard a similar comparison for Go and Chess960. With this
new variant, Chess960 is a subset of the game. Just as classical chess
is a subset of Chess960. The addition of all the variant piece designs
would make this game have a truly immense number of possibilities. I
would love to hear what a mathematician would have to say about
complexity here.

The actual implementation of the idea may not involve decks of cards and
reference books. I chose that method to better illustrate the ideas.

If this idea actually takes off, it should have a name to make it easy
to refer to. What should it be called? A possibility that sticks in my
mind is “The Equalizer.” But surely there is something better.

This is all sketchy thinking out loud. My first attempt was not as
clear as I would have liked. Hopefully, this does a better job.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

A couple of points. The new Chess 960 clock by DGT is a small
inexpensive clock that has the ability to select and setup a 960 board
on the fly. It isn't as lo-tech as cards, but it may very well be
liked by the majority.

But ultimately, I don't think the coffee shop is the problem is it? I
know you are a very highly skilled player who may be running into
problems with other highly ranked players that are more "prepared" than
you, and maybe that seems unfair.

But for a lot of us, many of our only skills are booklearned. Maybe we
have learned a few traps along the way and bought that smith-morra book.
But we are by no means complete players. We enjoy pulling out our
pre-preps when we can, and responding to theirs when we can. When we
play at a coffee-shop we don't think that computer-analysis is going to
make the difference between us winning of losing.

I too relish the days of the Last Exit, having gone to Garfield just on
the tail end of the Sierwan days. There was nothing like having a giant
PB&J and going over correspondence lines with your friends. But I am
just don't believe that computers are what killed that. I don't think
so. I like the computers, I like exploring the game with computers and
playing my son, and getting better.

I don't understand the crisis. I look to Magnus and am amazed at his
ability to beat the top players. And then he gets his hat handed to him
by Anand just to bring home the point he is not the best, yet. All
this going on, while computers are arguably better players. This
doesn't mean that they yet represent the truth, and it does nothing to
take away my appreciation of the game.

I don't know the latest and newest line in the schvenigan, but it
doesn't matter, I probably can't even give a good game to the guy who
did. Maybe there is a crisis for 2400 players, who knows, but I am
certainly not missing anything.

johnny_t wrote:
A couple of points. The new Chess 960 clock by DGT is a small
inexpensive clock that has the ability to select and setup a 960 board
on the fly. It isn't as lo-tech as cards, but it may very well be
liked by the majority.

Good suggestion. I am not aware of all the new chess hardware.
However, I was looking low-tech so that folks of slender means could
play as well. Maybe ten-sided dice would work better than cards.

But ultimately, I don't think the coffee shop is the problem is it? I
know you are a very highly skilled player who may be running into
problems with other highly ranked players that are more "prepared" than
you, and maybe that seems unfair.

Phil asked earlier what my motivation might be for suggesting these
changes. It is not lack of challenge, nor boredom. I did not like
opening theory back in the eighties. It has only become much more
offensive to me now. I see it as a very large impediment to enjoying
the game. Almost like the game is lethally constipated with it.

But for a lot of us, many of our only skills are booklearned. Maybe we
have learned a few traps along the way and bought that smith-morra book.
But we are by no means complete players. We enjoy pulling out our
pre-preps when we can, and responding to theirs when we can. When we
play at a coffee-shop we don't think that computer-analysis is going to
make the difference between us winning of losing.

I too relish the days of the Last Exit, having gone to Garfield just on
the tail end of the Sierwan days. There was nothing like having a giant
PB&J and going over correspondence lines with your friends. But I am
just don't believe that computers are what killed that. I don't think
so. I like the computers, I like exploring the game with computers and
playing my son, and getting better.

I don't understand the crisis. I look to Magnus and am amazed at his
ability to beat the top players. And then he gets his hat handed to him
by Anand just to bring home the point he is not the best, yet. All
this going on, while computers are arguably better players. This
doesn't mean that they yet represent the truth, and it does nothing to
take away my appreciation of the game.

I don't know the latest and newest line in the schvenigan, but it
doesn't matter, I probably can't even give a good game to the guy who
did. Maybe there is a crisis for 2400 players, who knows, but I am
certainly not missing anything.

You may be right that there is not a crisis when considered from more
casual players points of view. I really do not know. Perhaps at best
my feelings about this are only shared by a small minority. Perhaps my
position is somewhat like a canary in a mineshaft.

One thing positive for casual players in this proposal is that they
would not have to spend as much money buying opening books that quickly
become out of date.

If, the idea is no good, then it should be dumped. shrugs But, I
will be curious to see if it finds supporters.

Thanks for the ideas.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

On Aug 20, 6:27 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Now he pulls out a small deck of cards, holding them concealed, face
down, and asks you to pick one. You do this three times and each card
turns out to be a number.

And then exclaims, "Look! You've got half a fizbin already!"

Sigh.

On Aug 20, 8:27 am, johnny_t wrote:

But ultimately, I don't think the coffee shop is the problem is it? I
know you are a very highly skilled player who may be running into
problems with other highly ranked players that are more "prepared" than
you, and maybe that seems unfair.

Yes, you know, I always hated it in school when people who studied
more than I did got better grades. Seemed unfair to me that they were
better prepared.

On Aug 20, 10:49*am, SBD wrote:
On Aug 20, 6:27 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Now he pulls out a small deck of cards, holding them concealed, face
down, and asks you to pick one. *You do this three times and each card
turns out to be a number.

And then exclaims, "Look! You've got half a fizbin already!"

Sigh.

I understand what JD is saying. But I agree with Stephen on this one.
In my youth I studied much more at chess than I do now. If I were
motivated enough by my desire to have a high score , I could improve
through more dilligent study. The more I play the more I rediscover
things I had long forgotten about openings.

I suppose alot comes down to your motivation for playing. I really
could care less about winning or losing a game, so long as the play
challenged me. It's the struggle to improve and grow that makes it
fun. Losing isn't fun but if you learn from the loss then the game was
fufilling.
Rob

Rob's post is revealing.

Too many people think, just because a few stars have been charted,
that the entire chess universe is known, so we need to build a new
one.

If you don't like studying openings, study middlegames. Or endgames.
Become proficient at one stage; the others will follow.

You could study endgames to the point where you could make your own
contribution to chess's universe through a well-played game, the
analysis of a game, or a study.

You could categorize sacrifices, trying to build on Spielmann's
methods much as Tim Taylor claims he did in his new book. Or take a
book like LeMoir's, which focuses on sacrifices on certain squares,
and try to find more examples for a pgn file for enthusiasts.

In all of the above cases, your knowledge, and probably your play,
will improve.

Or take up little-known openings, trying to find best play. The
Perenyi gambit alone could take a lifetime of study.

Unfortunately, for those who cry about chess being solved, it involves
work, the one thing they want to avoid. They picked up the game
quickly, but now the chinks in their armor are apparent, and they want
them gone. Let's not fix up the old suit of armor, let's get a new
one.

And if you don't want to do the work, like Rob, just play and enjoy
it. If you don't, quit.

And yes, those who willy-nilly propose variants without even taking a
day to consult the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants or other sources to
look at what ideas have been tried, they want us to accept their lazy
thinking as brilliant. Sorry no. Do your homework in any case. Has the
proposer of this fizzbin-like chess variant even played chess variants
to the extent that we would consider his proposal? Say a thousand or
so games on brainking or another variant server and a few articles on
chess variants? Illustrative games that show the potential of
variants? A good review of Chess Variant magazine? Corresponded for a
few years with an expert on variants?

Or is it just more "A Stoned Guy on the Couch, explaining to us the
nature of the Universe"?

One's motivation is also important. Rob addresses this well. Play
chess because you love it, not because you want it to love you.

I suspect many who now lobby for chess variants used to turn their
noses up at "fairy chess problems" or "variants" do so because they
can't smash their opponents in the opening like they used to. Too bad,
so sad.

All of a sudden chess variants are the hybrid cars, the latest
stopgap. They will solve the problem. (Well, actually, MY variant will
solve the problem)

So now we change the rules to fit the losers? Yes, we need
"Equalizers" so that JD can go back to rubbing out those he used to.
Learning? Pah! He wants to win.

I say no, and if he doesn't like chess the way it is, that is one less
whiner. Chess is not a religion, but it is bigger than you or I, if
you don't like it, a new videogame pops up every 15 seconds, there you
go.

Wow. First thank you, you have refreshed my memories of the day. And
now I remember/know where you are coming from.

I was on of Garfield's class of '80 and had about a 2 year run in the
tail of the Yaz days. The Last Exit was still going good, there were
still meetings at the Pizza Haven, and I remember that first game where
I beat Victor at speed chess. I was not of the lucky few that were
directly in Yaz's circle and shared in the magic of the moment. But I
now remember the touch.

The local school of thought at the time was you should just be a better
chess player. It was OK to know the names and principles of opening on
shape and concept, but that was enough. Mostly it was how to recognize
and press home points that got the win. It was an extremely principled
view of chess, and those that played the best principles first, those
that were not at a loss for an idea were the winners, and the good
players were these even if they lost.

Opening theory was laughed at. Why buy books? Books were wrong almost
by definition. If chess wasn't solved, then the book MUST be wrong, and
good principled play would win. This was known by test. At least
locally, the best players were book eschewer's.

There was one major local exception. He is still involved with chess
and is well respected, but at the time he was mocked within this group,
because it was believed that his strength came merely from line
memorization, which had NOTHING to do with chess, and all you had to do
was take him out of line and it was obvious that he didn't (or so it was
claimed).

I remember that Yaz was a major proponent of the English 1.C4 systems,
not because it was better per se, but that there was so few literature,
and traps documented here. You just played better chess than your
opponent and you won.

I was there, I was ensconced in this viewpoint at the time (thanks I had
forgotten this key principle), but I was a young chess ne'er-do-well and
had to drop out of the scene for what was in retrospect stupid reasons,
I came back and played a little bit in the late 80's, and essentially
dropped out until my son picked up chess.

I moved to bridge and poker as my main games of late, but with the
prosperity of middle age I have my DGT board, and my Rybka, and am
exploring the game again. But you know, even though I have now
purchased books of openings, I mostly learn and just try to play better.
Most of the opening theory I have learned, is not for myself, but to
help my son deal with those that beat HIM with opening theory.

So I remember those days of hating Opening Theory, and I actually sort
of feel for the concept that conceptually this has flourished rather
than diminished over time. And that games should be just played better
rather than trick lines with no understanding. When I came back I sort
of forgot that.

That said, I am not sure that the game is in crisis. While it may no
longer be possible to be world champion just on being a better chess
player, I think there is a lot to be said for most people up to most
levels to find more joy by just playing better chess, and knowing at
least one crazy line in the Fried Liver Attack.

SBD wrote:
Rob's post is revealing.

Too many people think, just because a few stars have been charted,
that the entire chess universe is known, so we need to build a new
one.

If you don't like studying openings, study middlegames. Or endgames.
Become proficient at one stage; the others will follow.

You could study endgames to the point where you could make your own
contribution to chess's universe through a well-played game, the
analysis of a game, or a study.

You could categorize sacrifices, trying to build on Spielmann's
methods much as Tim Taylor claims he did in his new book. Or take a
book like LeMoir's, which focuses on sacrifices on certain squares,
and try to find more examples for a pgn file for enthusiasts.

In all of the above cases, your knowledge, and probably your play,
will improve.

Or take up little-known openings, trying to find best play. The
Perenyi gambit alone could take a lifetime of study.

Unfortunately, for those who cry about chess being solved, it involves
work, the one thing they want to avoid. They picked up the game
quickly, but now the chinks in their armor are apparent, and they want
them gone. Let's not fix up the old suit of armor, let's get a new
one.

And if you don't want to do the work, like Rob, just play and enjoy
it. If you don't, quit.

And yes, those who willy-nilly propose variants without even taking a
day to consult the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants or other sources to
look at what ideas have been tried, they want us to accept their lazy
thinking as brilliant. Sorry no. Do your homework in any case. Has the
proposer of this fizzbin-like chess variant even played chess variants
to the extent that we would consider his proposal? Say a thousand or
so games on brainking or another variant server and a few articles on
chess variants? Illustrative games that show the potential of
variants? A good review of Chess Variant magazine? Corresponded for a
few years with an expert on variants?

Or is it just more "A Stoned Guy on the Couch, explaining to us the
nature of the Universe"?

One's motivation is also important. Rob addresses this well. Play
chess because you love it, not because you want it to love you.

I suspect many who now lobby for chess variants used to turn their
noses up at "fairy chess problems" or "variants" do so because they
can't smash their opponents in the opening like they used to. Too bad,
so sad.

All of a sudden chess variants are the hybrid cars, the latest
stopgap. They will solve the problem. (Well, actually, MY variant will
solve the problem)

So now we change the rules to fit the losers? Yes, we need
"Equalizers" so that JD can go back to rubbing out those he used to.
Learning? Pah! He wants to win.

I say no, and if he doesn't like chess the way it is, that is one less
whiner. Chess is not a religion, but it is bigger than you or I, if
you don't like it, a new videogame pops up every 15 seconds, there you
go.

I am not prescribing a solution, or presenting a researched work on the
topic. I am sketching out an idea and inviting collaborative
discussion. I understand that you may not like an idea which
effectively attacks both opening theory and computer chess when you have
invested yourself in reviewing works on those subjects. But, you could
at least be honest and identify your bias.

With USCF adult membership declining, chess organizations collapsing
around us, and lawsuits flying every which way, we need some civil
discussion of alternatives whether they be of governance, of game design
or of other possibilities that might improve the situation. The folks
with the vested interests may want to stick to the status quo like
barnacles on a rotting pier, but I doubt that events are going to allow
them that privilege.

You talk about losers. In my opinion, those that spend hundreds to
thousands of hours on studying theoretical aspects of chess are losers.
Losers in life. Let's look at it another way.

If you can play a game that will cost you one dollar a month and will
also provide you with just as much fun and satisfaction as a game that
will cost you a thousand dollars a month -- what do you choose? It is
not hard to convert the units from dollars to hours with the same logic
applying. Or consider that the expense is both in dollars and in lost time.

Some solution that reduces those costs in money and time and retains or
enhances the playability of the game may have a lot going for it. If
the issues of lost time and money are addressed, then the game becomes
more appealing and accessible to casual players. Why can't we discuss
it Dr. Dowd?
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

In article ,
J.D. Walker wrote:
They say that the game of Go is much more complex than classical chess.

Urgh. Look, basically there are only two sorts of game:
those that are simple enough for you to understand them completely,
and those that are too complicated for that. Go and chess are both
clearly [in general] in the second category, meaning that numerical
measures of complexity are irrelevant. In typical positions, you
cannot tell for sure what will happen, you analyse to the limits of
your capability, applying your knowledge of tactical and positional
play, your remembered patterns, your experience, and so on; and
when you reach your limit [subject to time constraints], you move.
If a game is numerically simpler, or has simpler ideas, that just
means that you get to analyse deeper.

Games are not "good" because they are [by any measure] simple
or complex. They are good because people find them interesting. You
may very well find some games interesting that I find boring, and vv.
There's no accounting for taste. But, generally, it's good if a game
has simple underlying rules and structures, but allows deep strategies
and tactics, poses sub-problems, follows a meaningful [in some sense]
course, etc.; and bad if these features are lacking. Go and chess
score well by these measures; and that's about all you can say.

I have not heard a similar comparison for Go and Chess960. With this
new variant, Chess960 is a subset of the game. Just as classical chess
is a subset of Chess960. The addition of all the variant piece designs
would make this game have a truly immense number of possibilities.

You say this as though it's a Good Thing. I don't think it is.
It means that every new game is, though related to chess, a different
game, previously unknown to the players, unknown to the literature, and
with its own [unknown] collection of opening traps, of combinations, of
endgame ploys, and so on. This would make little difference to the
computers [which already spend most of the classical games in uncharted
territory], but much to the humans, who would be on a steep learning
curve each game on how *this* sort of queen interacts with *that* sort
of pawn. The world championship would go to the players who [luckily
or otherwise] spotted the new patterns quickly; their games would be
meaningless [and uninteresting] to ordinary players.

I
would love to hear what a mathematician would have to say about
complexity here.

I would say it just isn't an interesting concept. But, as above,
"de gustibus ...".

Note that if you merely want to avoid arid opening preparation,
then a simple idea is to run "theme" tournaments [of which the Rice
Gambit tournament was a famous example]. You could, for example,
mandate in your tournament that the first moves had to be 1 c3 Nh6,
to give an unknown but not too one-sided a position, after which the
game proceeds as usual but from a position not in any book. *I* don't
think you'd get many takers; BICBW.

There are, of course, plenty of interesting chess variants --
losing chess, progressive chess, pocket-knight chess, kriegspiel, and
so on --; but AFAIK all the *successful* ones are single games, that
is games that could, in principle, have a world championship, have
books written about the strategies and tactics, have game collections
or endgame studies, and so on, not ones that are simply generic names
for a huge variety of sub-games.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham