On my web page, at

http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/chess/cheint.htm

I discuss the fact that people have, particularly in recent times,
proposed variants of chess in order to remedy perceived defects in the
game.

I note three things about the game of chess that could be considered
as problematic.

The first is that playing chess reasonably well - that is, with a
reasonable expectation of winning once in a while against the
opponents one is likely to meet at the local chess club - involves, at
too early a stage as to be appropriate for the beginning learner, a
need to commit to memory a considerable amount of opening theory.

Most variants of chess that have been proposed, whether an enlarged
version, or a randomized version, have been proposed to address this.
On my page, I offer my own attempt to address this more effectively,
by randomizing the type of pieces used, while maintaining the symmetry
of the layout.

The second is that chess competitions involve quite a number of draws.

I propose a slight change in the scoring of chess matches to address
this. Sometimes it is felt, or claimed, that some chess variants will
help with this as well to some extent.

The third is that appreciating a chess game played at a high level
requires understanding chess well, while appreciating an athletic
competition does not require one to have abilities even approaching
the rare abilities of the competitors.

Although there is the Sherlock Holmes effect - the right move becomes
obvious after it is played - that mitigates this, I admit that I am at
a loss to see how this can be remedied.


In a newsgroup about the television show "Enterprise", which is the
latest successor to the mantle of Star Trek, following "Star Trek: The
Next Generation", "Deep Space Nine", and "Voyager", it happened that
someone mentioned that he made use of descriptive notation in a
discussion and many readers did not even recognize it, and some
discussion about chess and chess variants ensued.

As the creative team behind "Enterprise", Rick Berman and Brannon
Braga, have sometimes been remarked as having made use of the element
of glamor to improve ratings, this led me to realize that I had not
recognized a *fourth* defect of the game of Chess that may forever
doom it to being unable to realize the sort of corporate sponsorship
that is bestowed upon, for example, the Super Bowl.


You will, no doubt, recall the furor that accompanied the recent
remarks of a Brazilian soccer official on ways to improve the
popularity of women's soccer. And it was reasonable that his comments
would be subject to denunciation.

For women soccer players to switch to skimpier outfits merely to
titillate the spectators would be to place the sport open to ridicule
and to insult their status as athletes.

Thus, gratuitous skimpiness in athletic costume is out.

But it certainly is true that many athletic activities cause athletes
to break out into sweat, or require athletes to have freedom of
motion. Thus, in the natural course of events, some athletic costume
is briefer than regular wear, and this does add to the appeal of
sports such as swimming, diving, surfing, tennis, or soccer.

Here, then, is the fourth incurable problem of Chess. Because chess is
played sitting down, and is not a physical activity, it offers no
legitimate excuse for revealing costume on the part of its female
players!

With such a disadvantage, how can it possibly achieve true popularity
among mass audiences of the common people?

I suppose that one could consider a shift of emphasis. While having
women - and doubtless the men too - customarily play chess
competitively in bathing costume would be merely ridiculous, one could
seek after a more appropriate form of glamor. For the high-level
televised events, whose players would be less impecunious than the
common run of rated chess players, one could insist on a high standard
of formal dress.

After all, a beautiful woman, elaborately coiffed, wearing expensive
jewellery, and a long black gown of timeless elegance... can offer a
tasteful visual appeal...

without having to show a whole lot of skin!


It should be clear, though, that I am not proposing even *that*
seriously. Chess is what chess is, and tacking on anything after the
fact - why not play chess in venues with psychedelic wallpaper designs
to improve its visual appeal - is hardly going to be an enduring way
of increasing its appeal. Chess is not football (which is well known
for remedying the fact that it is mainly played by men, and men who
are fully covered by elaborate protective gear, by adding
*cheerleaders*... but yet it is usually watched for the football
itself) and it can hardly attempt to get anywhere by pretending
otherwise.

Neither having chess players arrive in formal dress, nor providing
other appropriate sensory delights (say by having them play using
well-crafted chessmen on boards and tables of the finest wood) is
bad... although it is true the endangered status of African elephants
certainly makes it harder to find a *really* high-quality material for
the white pieces... but the window-dressing is not the game.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

Subject: The Fourth Defect of Chess
From: lid (John Savard)
Date: 1/30/04 6:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On my web page, at

http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/chess/cheint.htm

I discuss the fact that people have, particularly in recent times,
proposed variants of chess in order to remedy perceived defects in the
game.

I note three things about the game of chess that could be considered
as problematic.

The first is that playing chess reasonably well - that is, with a
reasonable expectation of winning once in a while against the
opponents one is likely to meet at the local chess club - involves, at
too early a stage as to be appropriate for the beginning learner, a
need to commit to memory a considerable amount of opening theory.

Most variants of chess that have been proposed

I would like 2 C a varient that includes
Archbishops(pieces that can move like a knight and a bishop, combining the
powers of both)
Cardinals w/same power as todays queens
a Empress w/ the power of the Knight + the queen combined, also anoher piece
that combines the power of the Knight + Rook
I realized that a lone queen w/out her king
cannot by herself checkmate a enemy king
but I figured out that a lone Empress(piece that combines power of queen +
knight)
can in fact checkmate a enemy king
all by herself , by driving it in a corner
a queen has power over a solid wall of 1 square in any direction around
herself
a Empress because it also has the power of the Knight w/the queen has a
double solid wall of power 2 squares thick, its a far more powerful piece then
a queen

, whether an enlarged
version,

Which is what I want
that will in addition 2 all the current pieces
include 2 archbishops(bishop + knight combined) 2 cardinals(move like queens)
1 empress(knight + queen combined) , and 2 dukes(move like rook + knight
combined)
I want lots of super-powerful pieces on the board
As 4 chess varients working
1 has worked real well and thats Xiang li
which has been played longer then western chess

or a randomized version, have been proposed to address this.
On my page, I offer my own attempt to address this more effectively,
by randomizing the type of pieces used, while maintaining the symmetry
of the layout.

The second is that chess competitions involve quite a number of draws.

I propose a slight change in the scoring of chess matches to address
this. Sometimes it is felt, or claimed, that some chess variants will
help with this as well to some extent.

The third is that appreciating a chess game played at a high level
requires understanding chess well, while appreciating an athletic
competition does not require one to have abilities even approaching
the rare abilities of the competitors.

Although there is the Sherlock Holmes effect - the right move becomes
obvious after it is played - that mitigates this, I admit that I am at
a loss to see how this can be remedied.


In a newsgroup about the television show "Enterprise", which is the
latest successor to the mantle of Star Trek, following "Star Trek: The
Next Generation", "Deep Space Nine", and "Voyager", it happened that
someone mentioned that he made use of descriptive notation in a
discussion and many readers did not even recognize it, and some
discussion about chess and chess variants ensued.

As the creative team behind "Enterprise", Rick Berman and Brannon
Braga, have sometimes been remarked as having made use of the element
of glamor to improve ratings, this led me to realize that I had not
recognized a *fourth* defect of the game of Chess that may forever
doom it to being unable to realize the sort of corporate sponsorship
that is bestowed upon, for example, the Super Bowl.


You will, no doubt, recall the furor that accompanied the recent
remarks of a Brazilian soccer official on ways to improve the
popularity of women's soccer. And it was reasonable that his comments
would be subject to denunciation.

For women soccer players to switch to skimpier outfits merely to
titillate the spectators would be to place the sport open to ridicule
and to insult their status as athletes.

Thus, gratuitous skimpiness in athletic costume is out.

But it certainly is true that many athletic activities cause athletes
to break out into sweat, or require athletes to have freedom of
motion. Thus, in the natural course of events, some athletic costume
is briefer than regular wear, and this does add to the appeal of
sports such as swimming, diving, surfing, tennis, or soccer.

Here, then, is the fourth incurable problem of Chess. Because chess is
played sitting down, and is not a physical activity, it offers no
legitimate excuse for revealing costume on the part of its female
players!

With such a disadvantage, how can it possibly achieve true popularity
among mass audiences of the common people?

I suppose that one could consider a shift of emphasis. While having
women - and doubtless the men too - customarily play chess
competitively in bathing costume would be merely ridiculous, one could
seek after a more appropriate form of glamor. For the high-level
televised events, whose players would be less impecunious than the
common run of rated chess players, one could insist on a high standard
of formal dress.

After all, a beautiful woman, elaborately coiffed, wearing expensive
jewellery, and a long black gown of timeless elegance... can offer a
tasteful visual appeal...

without having to show a whole lot of skin!


It should be clear, though, that I am not proposing even *that*
seriously. Chess is what chess is, and tacking on anything after the
fact - why not play chess in venues with psychedelic wallpaper designs
to improve its visual appeal - is hardly going to be an enduring way
of increasing its appeal. Chess is not football (which is well known
for remedying the fact that it is mainly played by men, and men who
are fully covered by elaborate protective gear, by adding
*cheerleaders*... but yet it is usually watched for the football
itself) and it can hardly attempt to get anywhere by pretending
otherwise.

Neither having chess players arrive in formal dress, nor providing
other appropriate sensory delights (say by having them play using
well-crafted chessmen on boards and tables of the finest wood) is
bad... although it is true the endangered status of African elephants
certainly makes it harder to find a *really* high-quality material for
the white pieces... but the window-dressing is not the game.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

(Seeker3333361465) writes:

Subject: The Fourth Defect of Chess
From: lid (John Savard)
Date: 1/30/04 6:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On my web page, at

http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/chess/cheint.htm

I discuss the fact that people have, particularly in recent times,
proposed variants of chess in order to remedy perceived defects in the
game.

I note three things about the game of chess that could be considered
as problematic.

The first is that playing chess reasonably well - that is, with a
reasonable expectation of winning once in a while against the
opponents one is likely to meet at the local chess club - involves, at
too early a stage as to be appropriate for the beginning learner, a
need to commit to memory a considerable amount of opening theory.

Most variants of chess that have been proposed

I would like 2 C a varient that includes
Archbishops(pieces that can move like a knight and a bishop, combining the
powers of both)
Cardinals w/same power as todays queens
a Empress w/ the power of the Knight + the queen combined, also anoher piece
that combines the power of the Knight + Rook

It's not quite what you are looking for, but there is a
commercial variant like this in Omega Chess. I've only
played one game, but found it interesting. The new pieces
are quite new, not combinations of the older pieces.

http://www.omegachess.com/

A couple of games (one Sherzer-Polgar) will give you
an idea of how the play can go.



I realized that a lone queen w/out her king
cannot by herself checkmate a enemy king

Because of the change in shape of the board, she can
in Omega chess. On the other hand K+R cannot force
mate.


William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

John Savard wrote:


It should be clear, though, that I am not proposing even *that*
seriously.

A pity ... this could, with a little bit of work, be turned into
rather nice satire, I think.

--
Anders Thulin http://www.algonet.se/~ath

•In article , John Savard wrote:

On my web page, at

http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/chess/cheint.htm

I discuss the fact that people have, particularly in recent times,
proposed variants of chess in order to remedy perceived defects in
the game.

I note three things about the game of chess that could be considered
as problematic.

I see the same problem with performing music.

The first is that playing chess reasonably well - that is, with
a reasonable expectation of winning once in a while against the
opponents one is likely to meet at the local chess club - involves,
at too early a stage as to be appropriate for the beginning learner,
a need to commit to memory a considerable amount of opening theory.

The beginning musician also has far to many obstacles to overcome
before they can compete in eisteddfod's or perform with an orchestra,
this must be stopped!

And so I propose that music should be simplified by dictating all
instruments be diatonic, produced only in one key, and be capable of
playing only in a pentatonic scale.

This would remove the need to learn dozens of scales, arpeggios key
signatures, and reduce the number of note the player has to learn
to five, this would allow even the rawest beginner to perform to
the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra.

Of course some might argue that the beauty of music comes from this
complexity but those thoughts must be swept aside in order to allow
the masses to participate without discriminating against those without
the dedication to practise and memorise all those unneeded notes.

--
| Joel Mayes | /~\ ASCII Ribbon campaign
| Accordionist | \_/ stop HTML mail and news
| Musician | / \
| Music Teacher |

..
An accordian player posted a somewhat flawed analogy, for in music, one plays
essentially predetermined notes from beginning to end; whereas in chess, one
*chooses* which "notes" to play, and only at the beginning is it necessary (or
at least prudent) to follow any preset pattern with total accuracy. And in
the middlegame, one can sometimes play any tune one wishes, so long as the
notes are on-key, and the musician knows his scales and his arpeggios.




Of course some might argue that the beauty of music comes from this
complexity but those thoughts must be swept aside in order to allow
the masses to participate without discriminating against those without
the dedication to practise and memorise all those unneeded notes.



I think the point has been missed. To wit: a significant portion of nearly
every chessgame consists in memorized-by-rote moves, which are often mindlessly
regurgitated by two patzers, who, upon eventually finding themselves in terra
incognita, stumble about like blind squirrels until one of them gets lucky
enough to recognize a familiar endgame, or a hackneyed mating-attack. :-)



Of course, the point -- that the beauty lies (in part) in its complexity --
is spot-on. Yet chess would retain that same complexity, even if it were
somehow stripped of the rote memorization of heavily-studied openings.
For example, shuffle-chess or random-chess is no less complex than standard
chess. If anything, it becomes even *more* complex.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:26:56 GMT, Anders Thulin
wrote, in part:

John Savard wrote:


It should be clear, though, that I am not proposing even *that*
seriously.

A pity ... this could, with a little bit of work, be turned into
rather nice satire, I think.

It was intended as satire - in a sense. Very low key and dry satire,
to be sure, and not including anything not meant seriously.

But upon reflection, I realized that there might be one plausible way
to connect chess to scantily-clad women after all. (As my original
post noted, it isn't enough to tack them on, one has to sneak them in
with a good excuse, so that it provides an additional opportunity to
sneak out to watch them that existing opportunities do not provide.)

Occasionally, there are held demonstration games of chess with living
pieces - that is, with people standing in squares of a landscaped
garden, dressed as chess pieces.

If, instead of standard Chess, a variant was played that is associated
with a particular nation or culture, naturally the costume of the
pieces would be that associated with that culture, for legitimate
reasons of authenticity.

It is now obvious how to proceed.

A variant of Chess exists, played on a 10 by 10 board, customarily
chequered into orange and green squares, in which the pieces all have
short-range moves, that is associated with an advanced culture which,
none the less, eschews clothing as thoroughly as only a very few of
the most isolated and primitive tribes on Earth do at the present
time.

It's true that the Dwar, the Odwar, the Panthans, and so on, would
usually all be represented by men, only the Princess being a piece
with a female identity.

Of course, the fact that this chess variant has its origin in a fairly
recent work of fiction, whose author passed away in 1965, rather less
than seventy-five years ago, would be a major obstacle to proceeding
in this fashion...

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

"John Savard" wrote in message
...
On my web page, at

http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/chess/cheint.htm

I discuss the fact that people have, particularly in recent times,
proposed variants of chess in order to remedy perceived defects in the
game.

I note three things about the game of chess that could be considered
as problematic.

The first is that playing chess reasonably well - that is, with a
reasonable expectation of winning once in a while against the
opponents one is likely to meet at the local chess club - involves, at
too early a stage as to be appropriate for the beginning learner, a
need to commit to memory a considerable amount of opening theory.

John Savard

I read your post, all quite interesting/amusing However, I strongly
disagree with the above statement about opening theory. I think many
players become strong (or stronger) when they come to the realisation
that rote memorisation of opening theory is far less important than other
things, e.g. tactical ability, endgame skills, understanding of opening
set-ups
and related pawn structures, etc. I would go as far as to say that a
talented
beginner who doesn't waste time studying opening theory won't be a beginner
for very long. I know a certain IM who claimed he studied nothing but
tactics until around 1800.
Obviously at some point, theory becomes important but mostly it is learnt
through understanding positions, not rote memorisation. Just my opinion,
cheers
Iain