This post is prompted by encountering posts in a newsgroup on Chess
discussing the question of somehow revitalizing Chess.

A lot of Chess games are draws, and quite a bit of book knowledge of
openings is needed to play Chess competitively. These things can be
perceived as problems.

If Capablanca Chess is not the answer, why not something inspired by
Pocket Knight Chess?

I've been thinking of these issues myself, and on my web site I've
tried to put forwards solutions that might be more palatable than
those previously advanced. I've been examining how _komidashi_ was
successful in addressing a draw problem in Go, and I've been looking
at the history of the two-move and three-move restrictions in Checkers
for parallels.

In one thread in which I was a participant, someone posed the question
of why Checkers players in the English-speaking world hadn't adopted
the _obvious_ remedy of abandoning their antiquated and insular form
of Checkers for the modern international standard, played on the 10 by
10 board with different capturing rules - which has had no need of
even a two-move restriction?

Well, upon reflection, I've come up with the obvious answer.

Why would people who have spent a lot of time and effort learning how
to play Checkers as it is simply abandon that investment to move to a
different pond in which they would be the new frogs on the block?

This is why, when a problem with Checkers became inescapably manifest
after the Wyllie-Martins match of 1863, the remedy that was chosen was
not switching to Polish Checkers. Instead, the remedy that was chosen
was the one that involved the *least change* to the game, to maximize
the relevance of the skills of those who were at the top of the
existing Checkers world. This even explains why the switch to eleven-
man ballot, which involves a slightly larger change, is being
resisted.

And that made perfect sense, since they were the only ones with a
problem. Ordinary duffers could still play Checkers the old way
without fear of it being a futile pursuit in the sense of tic-tac-toe.
And, for a while, there was the option of learning to play Camelot
well instead of learning to play Checkers well, although its inventor,
George Swinnerton Parker, was not born until 1867, four years after
the Wyllie-Martins match.

That option could be said to have ended in 1986, when Inside Moves
went off the market... but there are still those who suggest the
possibility of a revival.

If switching from Checkers to Chess is a big jump, switching from
Chess to Go is a bigger one still that hardly bears considering, even
if Go seems to be thriving.

In any case, the case of Checkers confirms strongly my intuition that:

- For a new game to get recognition enough so that people pay
attention to who its world champion might be is extremely difficult;
and

- A reform to an old game to reduce draws and make its upper-level
competitive activity more exciting should be one which involves the
minimum of change, maximizing the relevancy of the existing skills of
the game's current masters.

John Savard

On May 17, 11:58 am, Quadibloc wrote:
This post is prompted by encountering posts in a newsgroup on Chess
discussing the question of somehow revitalizing Chess.

A lot of Chess games are draws, and quite a bit of book knowledge of
openings is needed to play Chess competitively. These things can be
perceived as problems.

If Capablanca Chess is not the answer, why not something inspired by
Pocket Knight Chess?

That is what Seirawan Chess goes for. You use reserves you bring into
the game. IAGO Chess (the game) is a mix of Seirawan and pocket. You
can do drops or gating, unlike Seirawan that uses just gating. The
idea of reserves is a good way to handicap also.

*SNIP*

Well, upon reflection, I've come up with the obvious answer.

Why would people who have spent a lot of time and effort learning how
to play Checkers as it is simply abandon that investment to move to a
different pond in which they would be the new frogs on the block?

This is why, when a problem with Checkers became inescapably manifest
after the Wyllie-Martins match of 1863, the remedy that was chosen was
not switching to Polish Checkers. Instead, the remedy that was chosen
was the one that involved the *least change* to the game, to maximize
the relevance of the skills of those who were at the top of the
existing Checkers world. This even explains why the switch to eleven-
man ballot, which involves a slightly larger change, is being
resisted.

There is equipment issues which is why they go with the 3 move
opening. The analogy of the 3-move opening in Chess is Chess960.
Checkers is also experimenting with 11 man aside checkers.

And that made perfect sense, since they were the only ones with a
problem. Ordinary duffers could still play Checkers the old way
without fear of it being a futile pursuit in the sense of tic-tac-toe.
And, for a while, there was the option of learning to play Camelot
well instead of learning to play Checkers well, although its inventor,
George Swinnerton Parker, was not born until 1867, four years after
the Wyllie-Martins match.

That option could be said to have ended in 1986, when Inside Moves
went off the market... but there are still those who suggest the
possibility of a revival.

The World Camelot Federation (Inside Moves) is still around. It is
hardly the successor to checkers, but a good game in its own right.

If switching from Checkers to Chess is a big jump, switching from
Chess to Go is a bigger one still that hardly bears considering, even
if Go seems to be thriving.

They aren't even the same type of game. Checkers is multi-
elimination, and Chess is royal elimination.

In any case, the case of Checkers confirms strongly my intuition that:

- For a new game to get recognition enough so that people pay
attention to who its world champion might be is extremely difficult;
and

- A reform to an old game to reduce draws and make its upper-level
competitive activity more exciting should be one which involves the
minimum of change, maximizing the relevancy of the existing skills of
the game's current masters.

All the world of abstract strategy games is facing same issues,
although each game has its own angle on it. What you describe is an
ideal. You can't underestimate the need for easy access to equipment
(this is one reason for Camelot not being adopted).

And recognition is in spades with chess, but doesn't mean that people
pay attention. Chess is recognized, and there was a $1.5 million
tournament in Mexico last year. Who cared about it? The World Mind
Sports Games is going on in China this year, and know many that care?
It is discussed in passing.

What needs to happen is the games in question need to get an improved
spectator sports angle to them, and justify sufficiently good enough
ratings on TV, they stick around. A lot can be done here, and must,
but that is what you are looking at.

On the chess front, a simplified chess game would help out some, count
it either Near or Simplified Chess. Even go with Simpleton's Chess.
Consider teaching people something that is easy for them to get into
as a starting point.

I also believe you need a bridge between the chess world and the
variant world. I will post my thoughts here on this. if it merits
such.

- Rich

On May 17, 5:02 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:

On the chess front, a simplified chess game would help out some, count
it either Near or Simplified Chess. Even go with Simpleton's Chess.
Consider teaching people something that is easy for them to get into
as a starting point.

As it happens, during my web researches on Chivalry and associated
games, I found, to my surprise, that - not counting All the King's Men/
Smess - Parker Brothers actually once published a game, Citadel, that
could be considered to be a form of simplified Chess.

I describe it on my web page at

http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo0104.htm

at the bottom (the web page is about Chivalry and Camelot, but also
includes diagrams of the boards for Chinese Checkers and Halma).

The main point of my post was to express a conclusion I'd reached from
considering the various things done with Checkers - including the
eleven-man ballot - that by looking at the _nature_ of the things done
to resolve the (inescapable!) problems with Checkers, we can see why
changes to Chess are resisted, and why a change to a different game,
by means of a Chess variant, is the most difficult of changes to get
accepted.

If Chess can be revitalized _without_ invalidating what the experts in
Chess have already learned, because the change is a very slight one,
that would be a direction more likely to be accepted.

John Savard

On May 17, 5:02 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:

I also believe you need a bridge between the chess world and the
variant world. I will post my thoughts here on this. if it merits
such.

Although my post was somewhat aimed at noting that variants have dim
prospects of being "the way" to revitalize Chess, I agree with this
thought about a bridge.

And I have come to a thought on this through my cynicism.

The Ford Trimotor airplane.

Parker Brothers and the Monopoly Playmaster.

IBM and the System/7 minicomputer.

IBM and the IBM Personal Computer.

Microsoft and Internet Explorer.

Microsoft and MSN Search.

Darmok and Jalad, down at the schoolyard. Oops, sorry, wrong
newsgroup.

Let us suppose that young people playing Checkers who like it enough
not to turn to Chess, hearing of the dreaded three-move restriction
decide they do not wish to put up with such toils, and turn to the 10
by 10 board and Continental Checkers.

It would seem to me that this would be the reason for the Checkers
governing body to start supporting the new game - so that if it did
supplant conventional Checkers in popularity, their organization would
continue to survive and prosper, instead of becoming irrelevant, and
replaced by another organization for people playing the new game.

As with Checkers, so with Chess. If Glinski Hexagonal Chess, or
Seirawan Chess, or Capablanca Chess, or anything else like that were,
on its own account, without any help from the USCF, to become so
popular as to be seen to be... an eventual *threat*... _then_ there
would be a good reason for the USCF to support the upstart, so that if
the new game took over, the organization would still survive and not
be supplanted.

As long as a variant is insignificant, though, giving it any
encouragement would only create a threat where none exists.

So the people interested in a new game, a variant, have to do the hard
work of getting enough people interested on their own, without help
from the established structures for the old game. After one particular
variant stands head and shoulders above the rest, and is on the radar
screen, *then* it has a chance of being accepted into the fold.

John Savard

On May 17, 7:45 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On May 17, 5:02 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:

I also believe you need a bridge between the chess world and the
variant world. I will post my thoughts here on this. if it merits
such.

Although my post was somewhat aimed at noting that variants have dim
prospects of being "the way" to revitalize Chess, I agree with this
thought about a bridge.

Let us suppose that young people playing Checkers who like it enough
not to turn to Chess, hearing of the dreaded three-move restriction
decide they do not wish to put up with such toils, and turn to the 10
by 10 board and Continental Checkers.

The issues faced by this is that people can't buy 10x10 boards
anywhere. Until there is mass adoption, it is hard to get that. The
Chess variant community would like it a lot. We just aren't there
yet.

It would seem to me that this would be the reason for the Checkers
governing body to start supporting the new game - so that if it did
supplant conventional Checkers in popularity, their organization would
continue to survive and prosper, instead of becoming irrelevant, and
replaced by another organization for people playing the new game.

They will support anything that the players will go for. I am working
with checkers now, and can tell you that is how they operate (at least
in North America).

As with Checkers, so with Chess. If Glinski Hexagonal Chess, or
Seirawan Chess, or Capablanca Chess, or anything else like that were,
on its own account, without any help from the USCF, to become so
popular as to be seen to be... an eventual *threat*... _then_ there
would be a good reason for the USCF to support the upstart, so that if
the new game took over, the organization would still survive and not
be supplanted.

My hope is that I can work with these organizations and get something
going. Considering IAGO, which I am involved with, supports ALL
abstract strategy games, if USCF or others won't support them, IAGO
will. What USCF would need to do is learn from the American Chess
Federation in how they have multiple games they support. They support
play as you choose and the 3 move restriction. Chess, however, has
greater issues that have been touched on here.

The issues with all these games is that they require new equipment.
Without this, you don't get it to go well. This is why Chess960 has
gotten some traction, as has Bughouse. Other games are in a Catch-22.

As long as a variant is insignificant, though, giving it any
encouragement would only create a threat where none exists.

So the people interested in a new game, a variant, have to do the hard
work of getting enough people interested on their own, without help
from the established structures for the old game. After one particular
variant stands head and shoulders above the rest, and is on the radar
screen, *then* it has a chance of being accepted into the fold.

What I suggest is a "roll your own" variant, where rules are treated
as mutators and let the best be selected. I am also an advocate of a
general Chess variants champion, treating variants as a unified
category unto itself.

- Rich

On May 17, 5:58*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
- A reform to an old game to reduce draws and make its upper-level
competitive activity more exciting should be one which involves the
minimum of change, maximizing the relevancy of the existing skills of
the game's current masters.

I have an idea for a very careful addition to chess which keeps the
masters' skills relevant, but which could give it a much-deserved
boost among new players. A handicap system based on set openings. I
imagine a system based on a deck of cards, where the aces represent
the most equal openings, and the kings the most biased. Since there
are four suits, there are four possible starting positions for any
handicap level, giving some variation (ensuring that handicap 4 level
games will not always lead to open positions etc.). To make it extra
neat, spades and clubs could be openings where black has the
advantage, and hearts and diamonds could favour white.

To play a game, just sort out the four cards of the appropriate
handicap level, make the weaker player draw one, and play through the
moves written on the card. If unsure of the handicap level, draw from
a range of levels instead.

While you would need a special kind of deck that has the openings
printed on them, an expert would just memorize them, and thus be able
to improvise a handicap game with only a regular deck of cards (or
anything, really). This would make it much easier for the expert to
bring new people into the game, and make chess culture less
intimidating to outsiders. Chess purists probably won't mind; they can
just abstain from playing handicap games.

This a much better way of handicapping than the traditional way of
playing with a piece less: Card handicap positions are positions which
could have (theoretically, maybe) arisen in regular play, and so it
becomes the same game to a larger degree.

The big problem is deciding how big the handicap levels should be, and
finding a set of 52 openings that fits them. To some degree we could
use computer analysis, especially for the second step, but it would be
much better and reliable with input from a couple of strong chess
players.

On May 18, 3:36 am, Harald Korneliussen wrote:

The big problem is deciding how big the handicap levels should be, and
finding a set of 52 openings that fits them.

This is certainly an interesting idea. And it certainly is true that
there are many Chess openings, and some are known to favor one side or
the other, so it would be workable.

Of course, I know why no one has thought of it before - for one thing,
the advantages from normal openings are relatively slight, and for
another, constraints on openings tend to be unpopular. This is true
even for Checkers, where they were unavoidable.

John Savard

On May 19, 5:47*am, Quadibloc wrote:
Of course, I know why no one has thought of it before - for one thing,
the advantages from normal openings are relatively slight,

Yes, I imagine that by far the most of these openings will be not
normal. In other words, openings the stronger player would never, ever
make. Then the challenge for the stronger player will be to make the
best of it, incorporating small or large mistakes the weaker player
will make.

and for another, constraints on openings tend to be unpopular.

That may be. I hope people will handle feeling a little "cramped" in
return for bringing in new players.

Rich Hutnik wrote:

The issues faced by this is that people can't buy 10x10 boards
anywhere.

For some values of "anywhere". They're standard in continental Europe
AFAICT. My Dutch wife's chess/checkers board has 8x8 on one side and
10x10 on the other. She expressed surprise that I expressed surprise,
she not having realised checkers was played on anything other than 10x10
and me not realising it wasn't always played on a chess board.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In message , Peter Clinch
writes
Rich Hutnik wrote:

The issues faced by this is that people can't buy 10x10 boards
anywhere.

For some values of "anywhere". They're standard in continental Europe
AFAICT. My Dutch wife's chess/checkers board has 8x8 on one side and
10x10 on the other. She expressed surprise that I expressed surprise,
she not having realised checkers was played on anything other than 10x10
and me not realising it wasn't always played on a chess board.

A British friend was very keen on 10x10 checkers. But she had
difficulty finding information about it on the web. A Google search
using its French name "dames" yielded many hits, none of them at all
relevant.

Nick
--
Nick Wedd