wrote:

A chess variant is still chess:

chess

n. A board game for two players, each beginning with 16 pieces of
six kinds that are moved according to individual rules, with the
objective of checkmating the opposing king.

[Middle English ches, short for Old French esches, pl. of eschec, check
in chess. See check.]

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition

I am sure you realize that, for many hobbyists
who view themselves as "serious" or, even, "pro-
fessional" chess players, adherence to FIDE ortho-
doxy is not just a good idea, it is the _only_
way to think about chess and play it... To this
effect, I bet you that if, say, "rec.games.chess.960"
truly existed, it would be virtually empty. The
folks who take the time and post on chess topics
on USENET appear to be decidedly a "FIDE crowd"! 8)

Major Cat

Major Cat wrote:

I bet you

for the amount of $10,000, I assume...


Oh, let us be reasonable here. How about
100 Euros? 8)

I thought, this was the regular amount for bets in this group.

Chess960 is of course still not as popular as regular chess. But it's
gaining momentum. The first big tournaments are taking place, the first
well known chess programs (Fritz and Shredder) include it. Chess960 is
the first variant of chess getting this kind of attention.

[...]
In this regard, it appears that machines
are more accommodating...

Well, casual players don't see a need in 960, because they are not
bothered with endless opening lines. The little bit more serious players
are uneasy because they leave common ground. Only those who already know
a lot about chess and on the other hand have to face the diminishing
importance of what actually happens at the board, replaced by lengthy
elaborations of opening variations, see an advantage. It think, it is
not a coinsidence that the first tournaments I heard about are not
played by ordinary players, but by first class grandmasters.

I have tried to coax chess players in cafes

There are chess cafes around, where you living? May I ask, where you are
from?


That said, I am
_still_ waiting for Mr. Fischer
to tell us which 20 or so Chess960
start-up positions he considers to
be appropriate for playing! 8)

Why should there be only 20? Besides that, experience will tell us if
there is a limitation of start up positions appropriate for playing. Not
Fischer or any other single person.


Because of its inherent minimalism
in targetting a _particular_ feature
of FIDE Chess, yes, I would say that
it is.

Please, don't call it FIDE chess. Besides that I don't give a damn about
this organization, chess as we play it today is much older than the FIDE.

Greetings,
Ralf

Ralf Callenberg wrote:

Major Cat wrote:
I bet you

for the amount of $10,000, I assume...

Oh, let us be reasonable here. How about
100 Euros? 8)


that if, say, "rec.games.chess.960"
truly existed, it would be virtually empty.

Chess960 is of course still not as popular as regular chess. But it's
gaining momentum. The first big tournaments are taking place, the first
well known chess programs (Fritz and Shredder) include it. Chess960 is
the first variant of chess getting this kind of attention.

I think this is great news. I play quite
a bit OTB against the computer using a
small subset of start-up positions. I
have tried to coax chess players in cafes
to try it but, so far, I have had no luck.
In this regard, it appears that machines
are more accommodating...


And still I would say, you are right, a group rec.games.ches.960 would
never be so popular - for the simple reason: once you leave the opening
phase, it is absolutely the same as regular chess. Middle game and
certainly end game - no difference to regular chess. This was the basis
of Fischer's idea, the way he ruled the setup of the pieces. He didn't
want a new game, he just wanted to get rid of an aspect he regarded as
unfortunate.

Yes, it is the minimalism of a
_mature_ Mr. Fischer that is the
key observation. If I remember
correctly, a younger Mr. Fischer
did not think very highly of face
to face symmetry in the startup
position, being fascinated by
the possibilities inherent in the
maximalist implementation of
"pre-chess"... That said, I am
_still_ waiting for Mr. Fischer
to tell us which 20 or so Chess960
start-up positions he considers to
be appropriate for playing! 8)

Other variants stay different from chess the whole time.
They are indeed different games. Chess960 is still chess.

Because of its inherent minimalism
in targetting a _particular_ feature
of FIDE Chess, yes, I would say that
it is. Now, if only I could convince
those people frequenting cafes and
talking politics, well, I may be get-
ting off topic here... 8)


Greetings,
ralf

Regards,

Major Cat

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

Major Cat wrote:

snippage

I am sure you realize that, for many hobbyists who view themselves as
"serious" or, even, "pro- fessional" chess players, adherence to FIDE
ortho- doxy is not just a good idea, it is the _only_ way to think about

This debate is completely irrelevant. The group rec.games.chess.misc was
chartered as an unmoderated group to be a "catch all" for topics not
covered in other groups in the rec.games.chess.* hierarchy. Since there's
no rec.games.chess.variants (that I'm aware of anyway) the subject *is*
topical here.

--------cut--------
From Mon Jun 12 11:40:59 1995
Path: uunet!tale
From: (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: newgroup rec.games.chess.misc
Control: newgroup rec.games.chess.misc
Approved:
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 15:35:38 GMT
Lines: 11
Xref: uunet control:2136295

rec.games.chess.misc is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed its vote for
creation by 344:91 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 6 Jun 1995.
This group supersedes rec.games.chess, which will be removed on 14 Aug 1995.

For your newsgroups file:
rec.games.chess.misc Forum for news/discussion related to chess.

The charter, culled from the call for votes:

Various topics in chess not covered by other groups in the
rec.games.chess.* hierarchy.
--------cut--------

I would imagine that, if "chess" has not
been explicitly defined as "FIDE Chess",
chess variants are on topic.


chess and play it... To this effect, I bet you that if, say,
"rec.games.chess.960" truly existed, it would be virtually empty. The
folks who take the time and post on chess topics on USENET appear to be
decidedly a "FIDE crowd"! 8)

That's fine. But theirs is not the only, nor the only acceptable opinion.
This group is for discussing subjects RELATED TO CHESS. Not for
"discarding things that are related to chess but not lock step with the
FIDE mind set". As we can all plainly see from the above charter.

You will get no argument from someone
who plays a lot of Chess18 against the
computer... 8)

Regards,

Major Cat

Ralf Callenberg wrote:

Major Cat wrote:

I bet you

for the amount of $10,000, I assume...


Oh, let us be reasonable here. How about
100 Euros? 8)

I thought, this was the regular amount for bets in this group.

Well, now I know. I wonder if they play
poker _that_ seriously as well...


Chess960 is of course still not as popular as regular chess. But it's
gaining momentum. The first big tournaments are taking place, the first
well known chess programs (Fritz and Shredder) include it. Chess960 is
the first variant of chess getting this kind of attention.

[...]
In this regard, it appears that machines
are more accommodating...

Well, casual players don't see a need in 960, because they are not
bothered with endless opening lines. The little bit more serious players
are uneasy because they leave common ground. Only those who already know
a lot about chess and on the other hand have to face the diminishing
importance of what actually happens at the board, replaced by lengthy
elaborations of opening variations, see an advantage.

I do not know if it is just me but I
find my games tactically as well as
positionally much more exciting right
from the very start. For comparison,
I have played "orthodox chess" (see
below) games against the computer where
I have disabled its opening book and
have not gotten nearly as exciting play...

I think, it is
not a coinsidence that the first tournaments I heard about are not
played by ordinary players, but by first class grandmasters.

I wish those GMs would talk more about
this or, in any case, be quoted by those
who cover such things for the chess
enthusiasts. But, then again, I wish
to see more discussions regarding the
"surprises" yielded by the ending table-
base projects as opposed to, say, what
is happening around the 20th move in
this or that time-honored opening
variation! 8) Needless to say, dif-
ferent strokes...


I have tried to coax chess players in cafes

There are chess cafes around, where you living? May I ask, where you are
from?

An astute and rather painful observation
regarding contemporary western civilization,
I should say. Montreal, Canada _still_ has
some cafes where politics and philosophy are
being discussed and chess is being played.
It is a New World city that, ironically, seems
to be much more into the past than many
modern European (Union?) cities, their
glorious architecture notwithstanding...


That said, I am
_still_ waiting for Mr. Fischer
to tell us which 20 or so Chess960
start-up positions he considers to
be appropriate for playing! 8)

Why should there be only 20? Besides that, experience will tell us if
there is a limitation of start up positions appropriate for playing. Not
Fischer or any other single person.

Oh, I am the last person on this
earth to iconize GMs. This is a
matter of curiosity on my part.
Since Chess960 has been associated
with Mr. Fischer and since some
(confirmed?) sources have suggested
that he feels that the overwhelming
majority of the 960 possible startup
positions is not that suitable for
play, well, I would like to know why.



Because of its inherent minimalism
in targetting a _particular_ feature
of FIDE Chess, yes, I would say that
it is.

Please, don't call it FIDE chess.

How about "orthodox chess" then? 8)

Besides that I don't give a damn about
this organization, chess as we play it today is much older than the FIDE.

A good point. I kind of like it when
modern institutionalism is resisted
by the organic forces of historical
tradition. It is just too bad that
GMs need FIDE to persuade the rest
of the world that they _are_ GMs. But
this is an entirely different matter...


Greetings,
Ralf

Auf wiederschreiben

Major Katter

Major Cat wrote:

I do not know if it is just me but I
find my games tactically as well as
positionally much more exciting right
from the very start. For comparison,
I have played "orthodox chess" (see
below) games against the computer where
I have disabled its opening book and
have not gotten nearly as exciting play...


Maybe in 960 it is easyer to leave behind more traditional and careful
ways of thinking. The position is already strange - so why not playing a
bit strange?

There are chess cafes around, where you living? May I ask, where you are
from?


An astute and rather painful observation
regarding contemporary western civilization,
I should say.

Well all hope is not lost - there are still chess cafes in Vienna.

Montreal, Canada _still_ has
some cafes where politics and philosophy are
being discussed and chess is being played.
It is a New World city that, ironically, seems
to be much more into the past than many
modern European (Union?) cities, their
glorious architecture notwithstanding...

Sounds interesting. Well, maybe one day I should pay a visit to Montreal.


Please, don't call it FIDE chess.


How about "orthodox chess" then? 8)

D'accord.


Besides that I don't give a damn about
this organization, chess as we play it today is much older than the FIDE.


A good point. I kind of like it when
modern institutionalism is resisted
by the organic forces of historical
tradition.

Well as German I am - of course - fascinated by organizations of all
kind. The thing is: FIDE is badly organized.


It is just too bad that
GMs need FIDE to persuade the rest
of the world that they _are_ GMs. But
this is an entirely different matter...

If it were only because of GM's, I wouldn't care much. The problem is,
FIDE takes more and more influence on chess of lower ranks as well. With
the lowering of the ELO-entry, more and more tournaments are ELO-rated
and therefore have to follow the FIDE-rules (Of course the basic rules
are followed anyway, but there are a lot of non-essential details, where
local rules are different from FIDE). But those rules are aimed at
professional, single player tournaments. And some of those rules are
simply impractical on amateur level, and they tend to rule much more
than just the pure game. Additionally, ELO is becoming much more
important on all levels. But whereas the german chess federation has a
very elaborate and well functioning system for the national rating
numbers, the FIDE-ratings are not very trustworthy. They simply don't
have the infrastructure to keep track of so many tournaments in a
reliable way.

Greetings,
Ralf

wrote:
A chess variant is still chess:

chess
n. A board game for two players, each beginning with 16 pieces of
six kinds that are moved according to individual rules, with the
objective of checkmating the opposing king.

I think it's clear that this definition is intended to be read as, ``chess
is a specific board game'' rather than ``any board game that satisfies
these minimal properties is chess.''

However, it's equally clear that chess variants are on-topic here.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Fluorescent Incredible Cheese (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a brick of cheese but it'll
blow your mind and hurt your eyes!

wrote:
I'd appreciate any constructive feedback about this variant on which I
am working. You can email me comments directly via edwardibrown AT
gmail D0T com. Thanks for taking a look!

[Note: "ShuffleChess" is only a temporary label until we think of a
name.]

You need to think of one urgently: shuffle chess already exists.

Your rule set defines not one game but a whole class of games. For
example, do the two players choose their initial setups independently or
does one know what the other's setup is before he chooses his own?


Why is pawn movement changed?

Pawns may advance one or two squares at any time during their lives.
This change removes the inconsistent exception in OC that pawns may
move two squares only on their first move.

If you want to do that, you're welcome to. The history of the initial
double pawn move was to speed up the opening of the game and, originally,
pawns were only allowed to move one square. To my mind, it would be more
consistent to ban double pawn moves rather than allow them at any stage.


How is pawn promotion different from orthodox chess?

To simplify the rule set, a pawn may only promote to a queen.
Circumstances in which promoting to a piece other than a queen would be
useful are extremely rare.

Rare but not nonexistent. Is it really all that much simpler to say
``queen only''?


Is compensation for white's first-move advantage truly necessary?

Analysis over half a million OC games stored in the Fritz database, and
you'll find that white has more than a 4:3 advantage through moving
first. White won approximately 178,400 games while black won only
132,000 games (196,000 games were drawn). As such, in drawn games,
black receives 5/8 points and white receives 3/8 points.

This, on the other hand, does seem like needless complication.


Which inconsistent moves and rules have been removed?

Castling rules for shuffled back-rank piece variants, like Fischer
Random Chess, are too complex, confusing, and have failed to achieve
standardization in the chess community. Therefore, castling was
removed.

Fair enough.


The idea of "check" has also been removed to streamline the game.
Special notation, in-game announcements, and movement rules involving
checking a king are unnecessary.

By the time you're writing the moves down (so that notation becomes an
issue), I think it's fair to say that you're familiar enough with the
rules that rules involving check aren't too much of a complication. Note
that in-game announcement of check is not required in standard chess.
Indeed, in tournament play, it could be considered a breach of the rules,
being a distraction to the opponent and the other players.


Kings may move into check or decide to stay in check, though such moves
are suicide.

This is a dramatic change to the rules: it means that positions that are
stalemate in standard chess are losses in your chess because the
`stalemated' player is forced to make a move that exposes his king to
capture. This is not just a minor technicality: in ordinary chess, a lone
king can often successfully defend against king and pawn because the
defender can force a stalemate if the attacker tries to promote. In your
chess, the defender doesn't have this option so will lose. Since White
seems to have an advantage in standard chess, it seems most likely that it
will be White who benefits from this change. This will probably make a
significant difference to the ratio of White wins to Black, which will
break your draw-compensation.


The rarely used, unintuitive en passant move was dropped from the rule
set to remove unnecessary complexity.

En passant is perfectly intuitive if you understand why the rule was
made. However, your changes to pawn moves, making the double move a
`natural pawn move', if you will, rather than an exception, en passant
becomes redundant.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Perforated Surprise Umbrella (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an umbrella but not like
you'd expect and it's full of holes!

wrote:
more clearly: if promoting the pawn to something else than a queen or
capturing en passant is too complicated for someone, chess might not the
right game for this person.

Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. I don't mean that the game is
complex in the sense that it is hard to understand, but that it has too
many exceptions and its rules aren't "beautiful" like, say, the rules
of Go.

But promotion is already a dramatic exception. Suddenly a piece turns
into a completely different kind of piece. You seem to be arguing that
pawn promotion to a queen has some intrinsic `normality' independent from
its being the most common case. This I do not agree with.

I won't comment your rule about King in check, because I don't see any
reason behind this change anyway and therefore don't regard it as worth

It's a small change, essentially showing that the explicit mentioning
of check in a game's notation is useless.

No, it's a major change, as I've explained in another post. (After you
wrote this, of course.) The notation is irrelevant but the concept of
check is fundamental. But we know that the notation is irrelevant because
you can play chess without writing the moves down!


Dave.

--
David Richerby Frozen Spoon (TM): it's like a piece
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of cutlery but it's frozen in a block
of ice!

wrote in message
oups.com...
A chess variant is still chess:


chess

n. A board game for two players, each beginning with 16 pieces of
six kinds that are moved according to individual rules, with the
objective of checkmating the opposing king.

[Middle English ches, short for Old French esches, pl. of eschec, check
in chess. See check.]

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition

Dictionary definitions are absurd in this case.

As I've noted in the past: "Chess is to Random Chess as gold is to
goldfish." The same is true for other chess variants.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)