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.]


ShuffleChess
Created by Edward I. Brown & Daniel B. Cristofani
Document last revised on 24-Nov-2005

What is ShuffleChess, and how is it different from orthodox chess?

ShuffleChess is a variation based on orthodox chess (OC) that
simplifies and makes more logical the rules used in the game.
Additionally, ShuffleChess features an increased number of starting
positions. Completely new lines of opening play add richness to the
game while eliminating the need for memorization of long opening lines.

Where do players place the pieces on the back rank?

Pieces may be placed in any order, either randomly (coin flips, dice,
computer-generated, etc.) or by players' decision. The only exception
to random piece placement is that bishops must be on opposite colors.
If bishops were on the same color, it would be easy to avoid them by
staying off that color. Moreover, same-colored bishops make for games
with less variety. These conditions lead to 2880 initial positions,
though half of them are mirror images and thus computationally
identical. Therefore, 1440 unique starting positions are possible.

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. More importantly, pawns'
greater flexibility creates an opening phase of the game with more
possible strategies and provides for a faster end game. (The only
exception is that if a pawn is on its seventh rank, it may only move
one square.)

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.

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.

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. In addition, many ShuffleChess positions include an
already-castled king. 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. Kings may
move into check or decide to stay in check, though such moves are
suicide. The rarely used, unintuitive en passant move was dropped from
the rule set to remove unnecessary complexity.

wrote:
I'd appreciate any constructive feedback about this variant on which I
am working.

Two points.

First: Rules of chess are not too complex.

Take a current strategy board game from the shop, very likely its rules
are much more complicated than those of chess. Promotion to another
piece than queen is too complicated? Compare this to the complexity of
the knight's move, its jumping, zigzagging, mean forkings! Or to say it
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.

Second: chess rules are balanced over the centuries, they are not
arbritrary.

Take a look at pawn moving. Pawns were meant to be weak and slow. But it
was evident, that the opening phase took too long, whith pawns moving
only one square. Therefore the possibility of moving the pawns two
squares from the starting position was added. It's not arbritrary or
inconsistent, you just have to look behind the reason of it.

You say, allowing to always move a pawn two squares speeds up end games.
This is an understatement. It completely changes the end game and with
it the whole nature of chess. A free pawn which can move two squares can
not be stopped by a knight of bishop execpt by blocking it directly or
by securing the promotion field. This means, a single pawn can nearly
completely paralyze a piece. Even the rook is now limited in its
possibities to stop a free pawn. Then: take a white pawn on e4, black
pawns on e5 and d6. In chess, the single can stop those two, in your
variant, d6 can simply pass by (as there is no en passant). At last the
King. After queens have left the board in an endgame, the King becomes
about as powerful as a rook. But if he is slower than the pawn, he
becomes much weaker. This all together means the following: if you enter
an endgame, a pawn in advance is already a big advantage, I would say
it's nearly decisive. This of course has an influence on the middle
game. You are much more careful in sacrifying a pawn. And if you are a
pawn ahead, you will be much more eager to simplify the game and reach
an endgame. In chess, this strategy might not work out, because a simple
pawn ahead will still lead to a draw in many situations. Therefore this
should change the complete nature of the middle game. I don't say, that
every game will go this way, but it seems to be much more likely.

Then take a look at castling. In Chess960 it indeed adds some complexity
to the rules. But before getting rid of this rule, you should ask
yourself: what is the castling good for?

If the King is standing in the center, he is very vulnerable. That's why
you usually try to bring him to the flanks. He is vulnerable, because it
is very important to control the center; one mean to do so, is to
control it with pawns. So center pawns are very likely moved, which
removes the coverage for the King. The importance of the center does not
change in Chess960, so if the King is placed in the center, you also
will try to bring it to a safer position. If you cannot castle, this
takes time. So actually: castling was there to speed up the opening
phase (the same way, the added two ranks moving of the pawns from the
starting position, as described above). Removing castling will change
the game a lot, it's not a small change.

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
discussing.

So all in all: With Chess960 Fischer found a way to lesson the
importance of opening theory - without changing the nature of the game.
It shows that Chess960 games look a lot like conventional games after 15
or 20 moves, simply because the underlying principles are not touched.
Because of this, this variant is taken seriously even by grandmasters.

Your variant leads to a different game, although the changes seem small
at first sight. And because of what I have described above, I don't
think it is an improvement.

I may sound rude, but I think you regard the complexity of the chess
rules as superfluous, because you didn't understand their nature, what
they mean for the game. Of course you can invent any game you want. But
you should be aware, that this is a complete new game, not just chess
with some reduced overweight.

Greetings,
Ralf

wrote in message
oups.com...
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!

[Enormous clip]

This newsgroup is rec.games.chess.misc. Your post belongs on
rec.games.misc.misc. Please leave us chessplayers alone.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

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.

Second: chess rules are balanced over the centuries, they are not

But they're not balanced rules. White wins four times in seven games on
average.

squares from the starting position was added. It's not arbritrary or
inconsistent, you just have to look behind the reason of it.

It's arbitrary in the sense that pawns can only move two squares on
their first move. No other piece's movement depends on whether is has
already moved, except in the case of castling, which again is a messy
set of rules.

You say, allowing to always move a pawn two squares speeds up end games.
This is an understatement. It completely changes the end game and with
it the whole nature of chess. A free pawn which can move two squares can

Hmm... very good point. I will have to think about this some more. I've
thought about moving back rank pieces to the second rank and pawns to
the third rank as an alternate way to get rid of sloppy pawn rules.

If the King is standing in the center, he is very vulnerable. That's why

The king won't always be in the center. 3/4 of the time, he'll be to
one side or another. However, I understand your point, but I'm
reluctant to add a rule to my variant stating "king can't be on 'd' or
'e' files." I will have to think about this more.

takes time. So actually: castling was there to speed up the opening
phase (the same way, the added two ranks moving of the pawns from the

A better solution would have been to start the king in the corner in
the first place.

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.

Because of this, this variant is taken seriously even by grandmasters.

Grandmasters who've invested a lot of time into training under one
ancient rule set. They're hardly impartial judges.

rules as superfluous, because you didn't understand their nature, what

I already knew the origins of the rules.

Thanks for your comments. I will take them under consideration.

Regards,
Edward I. Brown

Ahem, this is a *chess* variant, in case you didn't notice. Sorry I
upset your little world.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Ahem, this is a *chess* variant, in case you didn't notice. Sorry I
upset your little world.

A "chess variant" is not chess, as I've stated numerous times in this
newsgroup with regard to Random Chess. It's an escape from chess.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

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

wrote:


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.

Sure, chess doesn't have the clearness and simplicity of Go. But this is
the nature of the game. You have different pieces with different
possibilities. Chess isn't as pure as Go just from the beginning, you
can't change it without switching to a different game. If you want to
have the clearness of Go - play Go. Why bother with some half hearted
compromise?


Second: chess rules are balanced over the centuries, they are not


But they're not balanced rules.

They are balanced in a way defining the character of the game. You have
a mixture of static elements (pawn structure) and dynamic elements. You
have situations where one aspect is more important in other situations
the other aspect. Once one side has a disadvantage, chess has enough
resources to reach a counter balance, up to stale mate as a last
resource in otherwise hopeless situations. All this increases the
possibilities and complexity of the game and maximizes the fight in a
game. This I meant with "balanced" - balanced in relation to each other.

White wins four times in seven games on
average.

Maybe, but your changes don't address this anyway, so this wouldn't be
an explanation for your variant.

squares from the starting position was added. It's not arbritrary or
inconsistent, you just have to look behind the reason of it.


It's arbitrary in the sense that pawns can only move two squares on
their first move.

Please, reread what I have written. They are not arbritrary. There is an
idea behind this. Arbritrary would be, if say, from third to fourth rank
they would be allowed to make two steps, or only in months with an 'r'
in it. In the evolution of the game, pawns could move only one square.
The two squares were added later, because the opening phase took too
long, made the game a bit tedious in the beginning. So, this was not an
arbritrary change.

No other piece's movement depends on whether is has
already moved, except in the case of castling, which again is a messy
set of rules.

But again - there is a reason for castling. You base your decision
solely on the appearance of the rules. I explain them based on games
actually taking place on the board. See the difference?

And then: only one piece is allowed to jump over others - an exception.
Only one piece can not go back and is additionally moves and captures
differently. Talk about exceptions! The whole game of chess lives by
those different characters of the participants. Taking away some
aspects, touting them "unnecessary" exceptions - well, that's what I
call arbritrary. (As a side remark: limiting the pawn's promotion to
just one piece, the queen: well that's an arbritrary decision made by
you, if you look at it. You just single out a piece.)

I've
thought about moving back rank pieces to the second rank and pawns to
the third rank as an alternate way to get rid of sloppy pawn rules.

Before castling and the two-rank movement of the pawns have been
introduced, people tried to circumvent the shortcomings by setting up
pieces in different ways, somewhere in the Middle Ages, similar to what
you are thinking about. It simply has shown to be not a satisfying
solution and inferior to the subtle changes of introducing the above
exceptions. As I said, chess is the product of centuries, it is not,
that somebody just sat down and came up with some rules. Rules have been
adapted constantly to give it the nature it has now, which in my opinion
makes it so fascinating.

The king won't always be in the center. 3/4 of the time, he'll be to
one side or another.

Maybe, but then the nature of the game depends too much on chance. And I
think you forgot the situations, where the king is on the flank, but the
rook can still not reach the center. How to develop him, without giving
away the pawn protection?

A better solution would have been to start the king in the corner in
the first place.

Definetely not. It removes possibilities. Sometimes you want to castle
to this side, sometimes to that - sometimes you even skip it. It depends
on your plans and what the other does, where he is castling, where he is
advancing his pawns, and so on. You are taking away a lot by this reduction.

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

The notation!? You care about the notation? Just don't notate it! In my
notations I do not note checks and capturings (I know it's against the
FIDE rules, I do it anyway)

As going for the King is the whole idea of the game, this change is
absolutely dramatic. And for what? I don't get it.

Because of this, this variant is taken seriously even by grandmasters.


Grandmasters who've invested a lot of time into training under one
ancient rule set. They're hardly impartial judges.

No, it shows, that Chess960 is still chess. Your variant is no chess any
more. It is based on chess, but not more. If you just want to invent
another game - go for it. But don't claim, you are going to improve
chess. This is simply not the case.

rules as superfluous, because you didn't understand their nature, what


I already knew the origins of the rules.

I have to admit, I doubt it. You are looking at the rules in a very
static way, you obviosly didn't consider the implications seriously, you
see them in isolation, not how they work together (their balancing, to
repeat this notion). You even didn't notice the dramatic changes in the
value of pawns by your new rules. It took me a minute's thought to
figure out, that their values have increased a lot by that, changing the
end game dramatically. That came up so fast, not because I am a genius
or extremely clever, but because I immediately looked at the change of
the game itself, not stopping at how the rules look like - because I am
a player, not a lawyer.

Just because some rules have some exceptions, you regard them as
arbritrary or superfluos. This is not the case. I made my point why. You
just seem to look at the rules, not so much at the game, which results
from these rules.

Fischer came up with his variant, because he wanted to improve the
experience of the game. Variants like Fairy Chess were invented, because
they added new characters into the play, but again, this was based on
changing the experience of playing the game. Nowhere in your
explanations I read, that you did it because this might be more
interesting or more this or that - when playing. Your whole motivation
is based on the rules, on some abstract ideas about how rules should
look like, not on the experience of the game itself. Sorry, but I think
your whole access to this is flawed.

Greetings,
Ralf

Major Cat wrote:
I bet you

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

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.

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

Greetings,
ralf

Ian Burton wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
Ahem, this is a *chess* variant, in case you didn't notice. Sorry I
upset your little world.

A "chess variant" is not chess, as I've stated numerous times in this
newsgroup with regard to Random Chess. It's an escape from chess.

Fair enough! However, a fixation on FIDE
chess may preclude the discussion of issues
which, although brought up in the context
of some chess variant or another, they may
have some relevance for FIDE chess as well.
For example, how well would top GMs fare if
pitted against, say, Hydra with its opening
book de-activated versus the same GMs playing
against the silicon beast with Chess960 or,
even, Chess18 setups? Such results/speculations
_may_ provide us with useful insights into the
solidity and limitations of hitherto accepted
opening theory.

On a more practical note, in _all_ the sister
newsgroups, non-FIDE chess topics show up very,
very infrequently. Why not consider them as a
harmless diversion?

--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

Major Cat