Den 2008-08-18 18:49:36 skrev J.D. Walker :


True, the Coordinator piece is fascinating. I have implemented George
Dekle Sr's Coordinator Chess he
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/coordinatorchess.htm

What I had in mind was that chess needs to go two different ways,
professional chess needs a game of somewhat higher complexity, whereas
amateur chess would benefit from a more leisurely game. My Chess256
randomizes the pawns on the 2nd and 3rd rank, but I don't know how
serious this is. But I don't like Fischer Random at all.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/randompawn.htm

An obvious disadvantage in Seirawan Chess is that the bishops tend to
disappear from the board too fast. For instance, The bishop fianchetto
is seldom effective because the opponent can move his bishop from the
initial position, and offer an exchange while simultaneously guarding
the bishop by inserting the Hawk. Moreover, these extra super-knights
are horribly hard to control. There are knight-forks and
double-threaths everywhere.

In my Accessory Chess and in Alternative Chess the rules are the same
as in orthodox chess, except that one extra piece per player (or two)
is placed in the reserve. Standard chess is included as an option,
thereby maintaining the historical connection. In a tournament, by way
of the initial voting procedure, players can decide to play a
traditional game. There is a multitude of optional extra pieces.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/accessorychess.htm
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/alternativechess.htm


Mats




CHESS REDESIGN

Mats raises issues that have concerned me for some time. I came back to
chess after a 25 year layoff. I left the game as a NM 2235 USCF. When
I came back to chess, it had radically changed. I spent about six
months exploring the new chess world in a process of deciding if chess
had anything worthwhile for me today.

As a result, I decided to formally retire from over-the-board play and
from online play. I did check out my local club scene, ICC, and
playchess.com. I also have been following the scandal ridden USCF, but
I cannot bring myself to join such an organization. I still enjoy being
an online spectator at major events and have been following the games of
players like Magnus Carlsen, Radjabov, and Anand.

I believe that Fischer, Nakamura and others were right when they stated
that "classical chess is dead." Mats explores a number of aspects of
this crisis for chess in his post. What can be done?

I originally thought that a closer marriage between computer technology
and chess might be an answer. The board, pieces, clock, game scoring
and rules could all be integrated into computerized console that both
players sat on opposite sides to play. Aside from the technological
difficulties of such a solution, it also fails to remain simple and
economically feasible for worldwide acceptance.

I looked seriously at Chess960, AKA Fischer Random chess. It does
succeed at largely removing the tremendous obstacle of opening theory
from the game -- at least temporarily. I decided not to pursue it. It
does not have the feel of a long term solution to me. Computers will
only get faster and more powerful. Opening theory may become just as
large an obstacle in Chess960 in due course.

I next looked briefly at Seirawan chess. I appreciate the spirit behind
it. Still, it strikes me as being too limited to be a lasting solution.

I remember in the old days at the Shalom games club in Seattle when
Duncan Suttles would come down from British Columbia to join with local
masters and experts in some of the wildest coffee house gaming that I
have ever known. We played chess, bridge, go, checkers, shogi, and many
types of fantasy chess. I remember Duncan introducing me to the
coordinator piece... These sessions, which could go on into the deep
wee hours, and similar ones at the old Last Exit coffee house were the
most fun I have ever had playing chess.

It strikes me that the major goal of any redesign of chess ought to be
to reinvigorate the spontaneous fun that one can have playing it. I
believe if this is achieved, it would attract and retain both young and
old players.

Now, I do not claim to be an expert at games design, or a "competent
analyst." However, I do have an idea to share, and perhaps kick around
in discussion, if it strikes anyone's fancy.

I like the idea of random starting positions from Chess960. I also like
the idea that classical chess is a subset of Chess960. I would like to
retain both of these features in a newer redesign. From Seirawan Chess,
I do like the idea of some new pieces. However I do not care for the
fact that classical chess is not a subset of this variant.

An additional consideration: most variants of solutions that I am aware
of have a static nature. Can this be avoided? Is it desirable to avoid
it? Consider the following idea.

You arrive at your favorite chess hangout and see someone new sitting in
a corner. He appears to be an out-of-towner. You go over and invite
him to play. He counters your proposal with an offer to play a new type
of chess. Somewhat puzzled, you agree. You ask him to explain what he
has in mind.

He unrolls a standard cloth chess board on the table. Nothing new
there. Next he turns to a small bag he is carrying and says the words
"pawn prototypes" with a twinkle in his eyes. "Pick one," he says. You
reach in and pull out a pawn-like object and turn it over in your hand.
"Ah, the serf! It only moves forward one square at a time and
captures sideways," he says.

Then he turns to another small bag and says "piece prototypes." You
reach in and begin choosing the types of pieces you will play with. Two
of your pieces are a familiar bishop and a knight, which come in pairs.
You pick two more exotic pieces which you have to have explained to you.

He adds a king to complete the forces that each side will use.

With the armies determined they are put into yet another bag where they
will be withdrawn one at a time to set up the start position, much like
chess960. Pawn types will still start on the second/seventh rank.

Now you begin playing an unusual game...

Out of curiosity you ask him how many types of pieces he has in the
prototype bags. He says that it depends on what prizes FIDE has awarded
for piece design that year. Some old pieces get retired, and new ones
come on board. The old classical pieces always stay as a stable subset.
{This is a way to avoid a static solution...}

. . .

This kind of solution is economical, and could be adopted worldwide. It
avoids the glut of computer analysis and monolithic opening theory. It
even largely avoids endgame table-bases. It adds a new creative element
to chess in piece design. And, replacing huge amounts of opening theory
with exotic new types of endgame studies suits my personal preferences
fine.

One downside: the folks that designed PGN/algebraic notation would have
some serious work to do. The notation would have to capture how new
pieces move and how to name them as well.

Well, there you have it. A brief sketch of an idea. Tear it apart,
ignore it, or cheer. It is your move.

"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Aug 18, 8:14 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
SBD wrote:
On Aug 17, 3:33 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
HAND HELD DEVICES

As quoted by Mr. Parr, Grandmaster Evans in several pieces of popular
writing, in broad brush strokes, discusses the impact of mobile
computing power on the chess world. One may criticize his writing
style, but the topic is quite interesting and the writing is engaging.

The writing is engaging only if you don't try to engage the topic too
deeply.

Why should the topic be engaged deeply in a collection of wide-ranging
newspaper chess articles? This is not intended to be a scholarly work.
I think a better measure for success, in this case, is how well the
book is selling relative to other chess books. This I do not know. Mr.
Parr probably does know.

I always had a dim view of the idea that large sales have much to do
with the quality of a book. As one of my editors told me once, " I
don't care if the book is good. I care that it sells."

Scholarly? No. No one expects it to be, although Evans certainly wrote
chess works early in his career that could be close, and were amongst
the best I have seen. But a book is not scholarly simply because it is
accurate. If you can't even take the time to get a date correct, what
sort of care are you assigning this topic???

But we already have several topics here. One is the importance to chess
playing whether a tournament took place in November 84 or February 85 -
which is likely nothing at all.

Secondly, given that the average player is 1500 - and the distribution of
adults lies in the 90th percentile between 1200-1800, at what level does
'scholarly' enter into things?

If I find a book I am interested to see if it says 'tournament' eg, a
synonym for 1800+, then that seems worth the effort of studying, since
otherwise might I not just gloss the thing in the bookstore and work the
rest out myself?

Thirdly, to say average 1500 official rating does not describe thge scene
very well. 75% of those people with current USCF memberships do not play
beyond provisional rating basis - hardly a hot market for the sale of chess
books. And to consider the 7,500 people who do play more than 10 games year,
they are also distributed mostly in the 1200-1800 range.

Of course, I still have trouble believing Evans writes such drivel; I
still think it is Parr who writes this trash under Evans' name. That

It is always difficult to negotiate these jumps in a text, especially when
people do not name their nouns, yet talk about 'drivel.' If such vacuity is
an indication of care, are they not requesting something they do not achieve
themselves?

Clearly there are 2 main types of chess titles: those instructional ones to
do with aspects of play, and those to do with biography and history. I am
uncertain which is currently being addressed here, but I do know that they
would each need be assessed by distinct criteria - lest we fall into the
trap of asking for what we do not do ourselves, and have to consider that it
is our own level of discrimination which is at fault.

is perhaps a silly notion, but it allows me to keep some respect for
one of the greatest American GMs ever. The day I believe Evans is
turning out this kind of trash will be sad for me.

Then the mind police may well dress
themselves up in the garb of "competent analysts."

They may well, or they may wear green overalls. What does that have to
do with the topic, which is underdiscussed - in my opinion of course -
in the book?

And of course people may well discuss these things without competent
analysts. But why pay for a book in which the topic is discussed on a
level below that of a junior high student? Sure, discuss it here for
free - you can even make up goofy stories about pooping dolls that
analyze the Cochrane Countergambit in detail. And paranoid drivel
about "mind police" and their attire.....

One can certainly mention them. But that is elective for each poster. Shall
we therefore pass over mentioning those things if we find them of little
value?

Phil Innes

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:55:58 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:


Hmm, It seems that there is plenty of room in chess for new pieces that
are weaker in nature. One example is a pawn type piece named the
"lineman" that moves like a regular pawn but has the option of charging
forward one square and pushing back an enemy piece one square provided
it starts on the 2nd through 6th rank, and the target has room behind
it. Heh, imagine the fellow that gets stuck with two bad bishops of the
same color...

As I think about it, your variants could co-exist with trad chess
quite nicely, and might serve to identify the players with more
natural ability. This is also true of 960 and Seirawan Chess, maybe
to a lesser degree.

The problem with far out variants is that they lose the
connection to existing chess. Are there really a bunch of
abstract, analytical games bursting on the market and
surpassing the popularity of chess? I don't see it that way.

A simpler way to address the opening theory problem
is to follow checkers' lead. Instead of starting with 960
different starting positions as in FischerRandom, why
not select 960 (or more) positions that have been reached
from chess' conventional starting position? (These could
even change with time, and we could use computer analysis
to make sure that the positions are fair.) That would make
designing an opening repertoire a far different problem
than it is today, yet lead to chess that is normal in every
other way.

And the other thing that can be done is alternate
scoring that devalues draws. That will push players
into being creative and taking risks.

The problem with trying to improve chess is that it
*isn't* in crisis. It's all too easy to take a short-sighted
"chess is just fine" approach, which squelches any
interest in experimentation.

Jürgen R. wrote:


Of course, I still have trouble believing Evans writes such drivel; I
still think it is Parr who writes this trash under Evans' name.

This has occurred to me also. This would explain Parr's
absurd habit of quoting Evans in response to postings he dislikes.


But it fails to explain a lot of other things.

For instance, the numerous spelling
errors would have to have been deliberately
planted by LP, which is really reaching.

Another problem is that LP would have to
have crafted the arrogant, huffy style in
which LE is seen to respond to every
constructive criticism-- another reach.

Far simpler would be that Mr. Evans did
in fact write it, and the lack of proofreading
explains the spelling errors, while the lack
of intelligence explains LE's grave
difficulties with facts and reason. Mr. Parr
may still have helped in some way or other,
much as a toad-eater helps his master by
pretending to eat poisonous toads.


-- help bot

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:15:14 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

[[At length I should like to ask Mr. Walker something about his original
post - since he seems to have been a strong player - is his inclination to
change things based on ennui, or insufficient challenge to himself. I am
maybe a bit better than he was, but approx the same bracket,

Very modest of you, Phil (rated 2034), to admit you're only a "maybe a
bit better" than Walker (rated 2235), since he outranks you by a full
rating class.

Now, as I remember from an earlier post, his peak was something like
2330, so your 2450 peak rating was higher. Of course, his rating was
earned in tournament play while you pulled yours out of your ass.

But your claim above evidently matches your *current* strength to his
*prior* strength, which complicates the issue.

What's that algorithm for mapping from real to imaginary ratings
again?

Mike Murray wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:15:14 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

[[At length I should like to ask Mr. Walker something about his original
post - since he seems to have been a strong player - is his inclination to
change things based on ennui, or insufficient challenge to himself. I am
maybe a bit better than he was, but approx the same bracket,

Very modest of you, Phil (rated 2034), to admit you're only a "maybe a
bit better" than Walker (rated 2235), since he outranks you by a full
rating class.

Now, as I remember from an earlier post, his peak was something like
2330, so your 2450 peak rating was higher. Of course, his rating was
earned in tournament play while you pulled yours out of your ass.

But your claim above evidently matches your *current* strength to his
*prior* strength, which complicates the issue.

What's that algorithm for mapping from real to imaginary ratings
again?

I am stepping away from this. Phil is an active player, I am not. It
is fine with me if he is a stronger player.

I actually think that the rating system as a symbolic pecking order is
one of the downsides of chess.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

On Aug 19, 8:59*pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

I actually think that the rating system as a symbolic pecking order is
one of the downsides of chess.

Absolutely it is.

Not because of the system itself, but because of how some rather
unimpressive woodpushers seem to get an exaggerated notion of their
own importance based on a number assigned to them by a non-profit
organization.

Some of the more pathetic specimens actually brag about a rating that
was earned a while back when they played their last rated game --
sometimes more than a decade ago. I know of a few players who hit a
plateau and when they figured out they were either too old or didn't
have the apititude to improve, quit the game to be able to brag about
being rated....whatever their magic number was. Some even boast about
PEAK ratings, as if that should knock anyone's socks off with awe.
Those morons need to be sedated.

Ratings may give one a semi-accurate estimate of future performance
over the chessboard, but in my experience I've noticed that, more
often than not, ratings and likeability seem to compare inversely.

Regards,

Matt

Matt Nemmers wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
I actually think that the rating system as a symbolic pecking order is
one of the downsides of chess.

Absolutely it is.

Not because of the system itself, but because of how some rather
unimpressive woodpushers seem to get an exaggerated notion of their
own importance based on a number assigned to them by a non-profit
organization.

Some of the more pathetic specimens actually brag about a rating that
was earned a while back when they played their last rated game --
sometimes more than a decade ago. I know of a few players who hit a
plateau and when they figured out they were either too old or didn't
have the apititude to improve, quit the game to be able to brag about
being rated....whatever their magic number was. Some even boast about
PEAK ratings, as if that should knock anyone's socks off with awe.
Those morons need to be sedated.

Ratings may give one a semi-accurate estimate of future performance
over the chessboard, but in my experience I've noticed that, more
often than not, ratings and likeability seem to compare inversely.

Regards,

Matt

Judging from your message you are angry. What's wrong Matt?

You have not mentioned a major reason that many leave the recreational
pastime of chess behind in the US. Many of us turn to careers, raising
a family and being a productive member of society.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

Matt Nemmers wrote:

I actually think that the rating system as a symbolic pecking order is
one of the downsides of chess.

Absolutely it is.

Not because of the system itself, but because of how some rather
unimpressive woodpushers seem to get an exaggerated notion of their
own importance based on a number assigned to them by a non-profit
organization.


If you think ratings can lead to such trouble,
you ain't seen nothing 'till you look at how
*titles* can affect some people's egos. At
least with ratings, you have something that
can self-correct, provided a player remains
active.


Ratings may give one a semi-accurate estimate of future performance
over the chessboard, but in my experience I've noticed that, more
often than not, ratings and likeability seem to compare inversely.


I don't play much anymore, but in my
recent experience I've noticed that some
of the people who get very upset after
losing are in the middle range; this, despite
their greater familiarity with losing due to
having it happen abut half the time. Those
who very rarely lose, like say nearly-IMnes,
may be understood as a man who has hit
his own thumb with a hammer while aiming
at something else.

Some of the more pleasant chaps I've had
the pleasure of knowing through chess just
happened to be in the middle ranges,
ratings-wise. But a few were nearer the top;
they just didn't connect their egos to such
things as ratings and titles, using one or
the other as a sort of air-pump or inflation
device.

However, once a professional chess
player gets to or near the very pinnacle of
chess, something often snaps; we've seen
plenty of validation of Mr. Nemmers' idea
in the not-so-distant past. But I wonder if
at the very, very rock-bottom, there might
not be something similar? Who even
knows the identities of the very worst
chess players in the world, or anything
about how they behave? Maybe what we
need is just one issue of /Chess Life/ in
which the very worst games of chess
ever played are given their due attention.


-- help bot

Den 2008-08-18 20:45:07 skrev Quadibloc :

...

And then there's Zillions of Games. Its engine is *way* behind that of
a commercial chess program, but what happens when it is improved, and
when chips get faster?

.....

Yes, but Zillions, on a modern computer, and provided that it has been
tweaked to play better in the openings (like my variant), plays at around
Elo 2200. It plays fn chess, too. It advances with the pawns on the flanks
and does not just sit still.

Mats