Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:

On Apr 8, 6:40 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:
On Apr 7, 7:55 am, wrote:



So the basic framework for the ultimate chess variant would be: Can
you have a framework for chess and variants that would enable a person
to NEVER play chess the same way twice (by the exact same set of
rules)?

It's only to easy.

... too easy.

Furthermore, for a greater variety, I have 255
of such different sequences [...]

I was very conservative. In fact, I have many more
of them, and each sequence consists of astronomically
many variants. (Variants from different sequences
are always different, and so are any two from any
given sequence).

Wlod

You still are - "conservative" Wlod. You will _never_ free yourself from
the stultifing 'milieu' into which you were born. It is your destiny, to
forever long & linger over what might have been had you had the fortune
to be born in Britain. Just think of it. You could of had a first class
education & with your natural Polska brilliance conquering all won an
oxbridge scholarship! Then, after the Tripos they might even have
crowned you 'wrangler' (google it if you're not sure) @ which point _it
is_ -behoven- [now that's a word] upon you to announce the variegated
peregrinations of the 'optimes'. The juniors & seniors, the wooden spoon
etc. But no! You chose instead the saturated pastures of Amerika just
like Innes & look @ 'im if you can - a bloated fish awash with his kids
hanging on to a wifes bloody rag. Ptew! What disgustment, what lack of
freedom. Huge, large Maori people - doing 'hakus' & eating ionised fish,
scare the **** out of the Parr/Innes & by proxy Evans gambit. Won't do.
Huge dislike of these bone-marrow sucking vampires. These vile human
entities who are @ the fore everytime & all the time - sucking vampires.
Righto, I'm awaiting your opinion regarding the Karpov..

It's only to easy.

... too easy.

Furthermore, for a greater variety, I have 255
of such different sequences [...]

I was very conservative. In fact, I have many more
of them, and each sequence consists of astronomically
many variants. (Variants from different sequences
are always different, and so are any two from any
given sequence).

Wlod

Wlod,

New person to Amerika, you have 255 different sequences - uh? I wouldn't
have passed you Wlodi if I was big bambino immigration masta. The big IM
in effect Wlodi. I'd have said to your face Wlod - youse is a big
economic refugee & you can't come here to 'ol yella country & think it's
okay when you ****s are eating dawg @ night. I said that to them Wlod &
you know one of them, a female, thrust herself forward & said 'it tastes
real good with a bit of cumin..

On Apr 7, 9:41 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:02 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

wrote:
I want to thank George Macon in he future of Chess thread for bringing
up Calvinball, and bringing attention one website that offered one
spin on it,

My name is Guy Macon. Not George.

I was wondering if this was a Freudian slip... perhaps he was imputing
the "we will adopt no chess variant before its time" viewpoint to you.

John Savard

There is someone on the chessvariants site named George I discuss and
debate with. Even after checking that, I likely had his name on mind.

- Rich

On Apr 9, 9:30*am, wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:41 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:02 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

My name is Guy Macon. *Not George.

I was wondering if this was a Freudian slip... perhaps he was imputing
the "we will adopt no chess variant before its time" viewpoint to you.

There is someone on the chessvariants site named George I discuss and
debate with. *Even after checking that, I likely had his name on mind.

Ah. Not the George Masson wineries. Ah, my memory was faulty. That was
the Paul Masson wineries.

John Savard

On Apr 7, 8:40 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

But my version, on the 12 by 8 board, offers up to 16,200 variants -
all tidy and symmetrical like normal Chess, so it might meet this
particular goal.

I kept the original set of versions of Random Variant Chess, and the
10 by 8 version I added at the last, but I've replaced the other
recently added versions (Historical Random Variant Chess and Mutable
Random Variant Chess) by something which has included their best
features, but made more organized and rationalized, which I call
Progressive Random Variant Chess (the Progressive part has to do with
the placement of the Camel and the Giraffe on the board if they are
used) and which offers more possibilities - up to 172,620 possible
variants of Chess on the 12 by 8 board.

Perhaps this might be Heraclitean enough...

John Savard

On Apr 9, 8:52 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 7, 8:40 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

But my version, on the 12 by 8 board, offers up to 16,200 variants -
all tidy and symmetrical like normal Chess, so it might meet this
particular goal.

I kept the original set of versions of Random Variant Chess, and the
10 by 8 version I added at the last, but I've replaced the other
recently added versions (Historical Random Variant Chess and Mutable
Random Variant Chess) by something which has included their best
features, but made more organized and rationalized, which I call
Progressive Random Variant Chess (the Progressive part has to do with
the placement of the Camel and the Giraffe on the board if they are
used) and which offers more possibilities - up to 172,620 possible
variants of Chess on the 12 by 8 board.

Perhaps this might be Heraclitean enough...

I have now added notes to my page on Spectral Realm Chess to cover how
the various Fairy Pieces in Random Variant Chess would be modified in
respect of the possibility of half-step diagonal moves, and I have
added a page on what I call "Half-Shogi Chess" to reduce draws, with
inspiration from Shogi, but without having full unrestricted drops in
the manner of Shogi, which has already been proposed (Neo-C from 3M/
Mad Mate/Chessgi) by others.

John Savard

On Apr 9, 1:48 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 9, 9:30 am, wrote:

On Apr 7, 9:41 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:02 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
My name is Guy Macon. Not George.

I was wondering if this was a Freudian slip... perhaps he was imputing
the "we will adopt no chess variant before its time" viewpoint to you.
There is someone on the chessvariants site named George I discuss and
debate with. Even after checking that, I likely had his name on mind.

Ah. Not the George Masson wineries. Ah, my memory was faulty. That was
the Paul Masson wineries.

John Savard

The Masson masonries have to deal with chess variants? :-)

- Rich

On Apr 9, 10:52 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 7, 8:40 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

But my version, on the 12 by 8 board, offers up to 16,200 variants -
all tidy and symmetrical like normal Chess, so it might meet this
particular goal.

I kept the original set of versions of Random Variant Chess, and the
10 by 8 version I added at the last, but I've replaced the other
recently added versions (Historical Random Variant Chess and Mutable
Random Variant Chess) by something which has included their best
features, but made more organized and rationalized, which I call
Progressive Random Variant Chess (the Progressive part has to do with
the placement of the Camel and the Giraffe on the board if they are
used) and which offers more possibilities - up to 172,620 possible
variants of Chess on the 12 by 8 board.

Perhaps this might be Heraclitean enough...

John Savard

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. If one wants to argue whether a game itself is Heraclitean
in the possible number of moves it could have (aka unbounded or
infinite), then perhaps one wouldn't need to have an infinite number
of rules or staring configurations to reach a Heraclitean game state.
Also, another question is whether or not a game that is Heraclitean in
number of game states could ever be solved, or that there is always a
counter strategy or line to the one that is developed. Heraclitean
game rules, not just a Heraclitean GAME, would end up being infinite.

- Rich

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.

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.

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

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 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.

John Savard

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