[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GeorgeDuke
Chaturanga. The first known variant of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I play Chaturanga again now in GC, but have not yet checked Murray's 'HOC' about this apparent ambiguity. 1000-1400 yrs. ago there were not so many programmers or lawyers to obsess every eventuality. Seriously, pieces are much more active than the one-step-only pawns, so it hardly comes up. I interpret that if you move Pawn to an 8th square, when ineligible to promote, it sits there and cannot move again.
Charles Gilman does not describe Chaturanga promotion as it was played from yr. 600 for many centuries. It looks like Chat. Pawns stop and cannot move from the last rank on any one of three conditions: (1) if at e1 or d8 (2) if at d1 or e8 and Ferse is still in play (3) if at any other square-8 and one's paired same-array-filed pieces are on board. Shatranj, overlapping historically by yr. 700, primarily changes the very promotion rule to Ferse-only (what it is eventually called), eliminating those no-promotion cases. Makruk (What's New last week) preserves to present day that 'weak-Queen' ferz promotion. To players, no promotion at times after 6 steps brings to bear strategic considerations. It can mean waiting at rank 2 or 7; or moving to 1 or 8 and not promoting, but blocking or abetting checks, or even winning by forcing stalemate.
Closing Time. During certain turns, you must move pieces out of a central area of the board (`the pub'). (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]No. No. e4-e5 is legal. Betza refers to a King checked in Pub moving to another of the eight Pub squares, when Pub closed, rather than having to move out of it; presumably others can (occasionally)move within the 8 squares too. Mostly they would be busy having to move out. Betza intends that e4-e5 become 'illegal' when another move is required, namely a pawn's or piece's moving out of the eight squares on Move 8-9-10, or the usual getting King out of check from any square. Betza could explain this better, but he always got carried by his ideas. Is it required? I don't think Betza intends e4-e5 followed by e5-e6 to be required even though this version has Pub closed for three moves in a row. Both questions point to lack of clarity in the description. Betza says here 'A Chess Variant Tournament played with randomly chosen games which are less often played would take away the advantage of specialists.' Interesting: there's more than one way to skin a cat, i.e. pick games for tournaments, than stuffing the ballot box.
Index page of The Chess Variant Pages. Our main index page.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Congratulations to CVP upon completing ten yrs. Carrying on Sam Trenholme's tradition, CVP's first post was Jetan probably 15.1.95, this week. CVP's first 5 yrs. tilted towards serious alterations of standard western Chess: Fischer Random, review of ancestral mainstays Chaturanga and Shatranj etc. However, countervailing trend, oblivious to the idea of perfectibility, was already apparent. For close-to-FIDE forms, 8x10 became the favourite board size. Piece mixes were often unchanged from 400-yr-old Carrera's, yet never was there discussion of Marshall's(Chancellor's) being inherently flawed piece, detracting from both R&N. Another missed opportunity was when Deep Blue beat Kasparov in 1997, but to this day orthodox world is also house divided about implications of computer dominance. The second 5 yrs. saw Ralph Betza defying the usual bell-shaped design trajectory in vanishing right upon completion of his 2-3 most prolific yrs. Since 2000 CVP games more often add bizarre rules hardly intended to be played, and blend Shogi-derived and Xiangqi-based pieces with western types, and thankfully(!?) no end in sight. So far nothing by Sam Loyd and very little T.R.Dawson or Martin Gardner, probably because David Pritchard in ECV overlooks them too. Almost all CVP-recognized games predate 1995, as do thousands of other curiosities not within its scope. Excluding those, the best form devised within CVP's domain during the ten yrs. 1995-2004? I vote Switching Chess and Rococo, appropriately one from each of the two schools, standard heterodox and free-form.
Anti-King Chess. Each player has both a King and an Anti-King to protect; Anti-Kings are in check when not attacked. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Though V.R.Parton is mentioned in 2002-2004 comments and the write-up, Anti-King is extreme form of his CONTRAMATIC Chess 1961, not yet cited: (Summarized from p.70 Pritchard's ECV) (1)One's own move, that puts or leaves enemy King in check, loses. (2)If opponent's King is in check, a player must move to remove that check. Of course Aronson's version has King too and required continual checks for A-K etc., but it looks like special case with new array from among Parton's Contramatic games.
Chaturanga. The first known variant of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In accompanying Comment under Chaturanga here 11.May.02(Scroll down), Ralph Betza says, 'The average of my chess skill and my variant skill is far higher than anybody else--and I am not ashamed to claim that my average of the two skills is higher than the divine Parton or the superman Fischer...' Interesting. All the more unfortunate no word from Betza since about August 2003 precisely when Game Courier was coming aboard. Imagine play of Chess-Different-Armies at some Fischer level a la Betza.
Anti-King Chess. Each player has both a King and an Anti-King to protect; Anti-Kings are in check when not attacked. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I guess the large bold-face type and spacing convey emotion...or power? Seriously, the 2x2 matrix of alternatives is logical and useful, Peter. Here is even simpler more chess-like logic: in 1961 Parton's Contramatic Chess invents the contrary-win condition, that if the player who has just moved gives check, he loses. Anti-King Chess sets up initial arrays in which both players have that very losing condition imposed at the start. So, inevitable logic (without adding new element beyond the specified array) is that the one who removes that condition for himself, wins. That is how Anti-King derives from and is special or extreme form of Contramatic Chess. Nothing wrong with that: for ex., en passant added to FIDE-like rules is special case or possible logical extension. Four-fold table of most interesting instances for win in this obscure chess byway is absolutely worthwhile.
Duke. Piece from RennChess that steps one orthogonally then slides diagonally, or slides diagonally then steps one orthogonally.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The 'transcendental prelate' of David Paulowich's forced mate example goes to 'any square of the opposite colour adjacent to any of the squares a normal bishop can go to'--Chess Cafe's Tim Harding Kibitzer #31, invented by George Botterill in 1960's. This is unique way to present a problem with up to three alternative pieces that work. I estimate Transcendental Prelate, new here in CVP, to be less than Queen value, 8 or 9 points depending on board size and piece mix.
Fischer Random Chess. Play from a random setup. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich mentions playing against '2100 level opponent', meaning FIDE Chess at expert level. How would typical FIDE player do at CVs? Ralph Betza says (under Chaturanga)his 'average of the two skills is far higher than anybody else' including Parton and Fischer. It would be expected a 2300 Master or even 2600 Grandmaster maintain the level in extensive play of Carrera's or Capablanca-Random, or Grand Chess, because of the familiar piece moves. On contrary, a Grandmaster forced to play a lot of Ultima, Maxima, Chess-Different-Armies may never rise above 'Class A 1999'[in CV rating] however calculated. As far as that goes, why conflate general chess skill and success at FIDE game?
Of course I mean a 2400 Senior Master would stay that within FIDE chess. Ralph Betza's idea is for a combined rating. Suppose 9 CVs are equally rated with FIDE Chess making 10 games. Playing at 2000 for the 9 would come in at 2040 for fully-combined rating in this hypothetical case. Obviously it can help performance to know a variety of mind sports, like cross-training in athletics. Betza spoke of his being Master, so say he has been FIDE-rated 2200. He may very well have reached some 2700 at CVs, having played them 30 or more yrs. His combined rating, 2600 or whatever depending on the system and weightings, would be hard to beat. (Such CV ratings do not exist, but are further suggested by Paulowich's Comment here about PBM and Orthodox Chess.)
Falcon Chess 100. Falcon Chess played on an expanded board of a 100 squares with special Pawn rules. (12x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is a good alternative I can endorse(US Patent 5690334). A Grand-Chess-like array works to keep Pawns fully engaged, and the promotion option is less radical for chess purists than original FC100. I prefer conversion to F and R both always being available because they are so equal in value, and that simple alternative is always a tough choice.
There is no promotion to Queen in standard 8x10 FC (USP5690334). There in actual play, promotion choices turn out roughly as follows: Rook 40% of the time, Falcon 40%, Knight 10%, Bishop 10%. So, unlike the old orthodox chess, a player really wants a N or B sometimes. Given the constraint of 100 squares, Aronson's version here is about as good as my FC100. Simply Aronson adds the empty back ranks to standard 8x10 FC and complexifies promotion rules, to distinguish a new version. That's fine:(FC patent claims cover all 453,600 initial positions including these two.) For serious chess, I don't like two promotion Zones as well, like in both of these 100-sq. FC forms. Thanks for the attention to my invention.
Chaturanga. The first known variant of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Yes, I should have noted Ralph Betza's CVP comments too are signed 'ghohmon', when quoting his (Chat. 11.May.02) statement 'the average of my chess skill and variant skill is far higher than...divine Parton or superhuman Fischer.' The very same Comment here begins, 'Chess variant people often like to make new rules more than they like to play the games; and often also they are less skillful at playing the games...' Lots more insight in just that one comment.
Falcon Chess 100. Falcon Chess played on an expanded board of a 100 squares with special Pawn rules. (12x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In USP5690334 Independent Claim One covers the one preferred embodiment 'Robert Fischer' refers to. The second independent claim 9 covers the 453,600 permutations I refer to. Having only skimmed 'Fischer's' comment, I shall now read it and respond more fully.
Who is Robert Fischer and what is his interest in Falcon Chess? Not a CVP member, his 'Poor' for Falcon Chess 100, the game under review, makes no chess insight; I think it is quite a nice game. Besides copyright, which Chess Variant Page always conscientiously respects, Falcon Chess is covered by USP5690334. Independent Claim 1 is for the one most preferred form as in drawings. Independent Claim 9 covers all the symmetrical permutations of initial arrays. Operable words in claim 9 (not in the CVP text) are 'all at predetermined locations.' True, I did my own legal work by way of undergraduate law courses I had at Harvard University toward my degree there and use of David Pressman's 'Patent It Yourself'. Go ahead and challenge it in court since you have the threatening tone; or pay the $9000(approx.)fee for re-examination. I believe I have correctly followed US Patent practice to the letter and USPTO allowed my amended claims, which include the multiple arrays. Sorry you resent our 100-year-old games-patent tradition, including such venerable stalwarts as Scrabble and Monopoly(They too were broadly claimed--why they did not have significant copycats). For Peter Aronson and other colleagues at CVP, I welcome Falcon variations that respect the Fischer-Random-Chess-like nature of its patent claims. Examples using Falcon already are Antoine Fourriere's Bifocal Chess and Aronson's and my Complete Permutation Chess.
Respecting copyright and for the record, FRNBKQBNRF, what Aronson is now calling 'Decimal', I name 'CHEOPS FALCON CHESS'in my 03.October.04 Comment under Falcon Chess Patent Excerpts here in CVP. For any historical interest,'FRNBKQBNRF' is first written down in 1994 in my Inventor's Notebook, with each page signed and periodically witnessed. At that time I wrote out all 120 'paired-piece-symmetrical' variations of the ten spaces (5x4x3x2x1) figuring K-Q as the fifth 'pair'. Of course, I did not attempt to list all 10,000 to 400,000 possibilities, virtually all of them being of no real chess interest. Even among the 120, there are only a handful that are important. FRNBKQBNRF is certainly one of them for 10x10 or 10x9; and it is called CHEOPS but DECIMAL is okay too.
Another peculiar assertion of 'Robert Fischer' begins 'If US Patent examiners were competent in the field of chess variants...' Well, USPTO Examiner William Stoll, who handles Falcon Chess, together with Benjamin Layno are highly competent, specializing in this class, the two having examined most of the games patents during 20+ yrs. I imagine they have knowledge commensurate with our CVP regulars and would even fit right in here. The decisions about Falcon Chess came in 1997, when USP5690334 issued, based on disclosure 11.January.95, coincidentally days before Chess Variant Page's first post, a time of course when Internet chess hardly started and this website's evolving culture did not exist. Think of Falcon Patent and Copyrights -- and other such CV material -- as pre-existing conditions for development of on-line chess play.
Bifocal Chess. A game without capture : win by checkmate with a neutral piece! (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bifocal and my Dice-Mate Chess were both invented under the constraint that Roberto Lavieri laid down last summer for no captures. This Bifocal implementation utilizes my two favourite chess pieces, Falcon and Cannon/Canon. I wonder whether Falcon could also be worked as a variation into Fourriere's two games I played in Game Courier, Jacks and Witches highly-recommended and Pocket-Polypiece43, the latter on a larger-than-43-square board that Fourriere once speculated about.
Capablanca's chess. An enlarged chess variant, proposed by Capablanca. (10x8, Cells: 80) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Carrera's, Bird's, Chancellor, Capablanca, Grand, Grotesque, Aberg's Capablanca, New Chancellor's, Cagliostro's, Gast's, General's, Arch-Chess, Grander -- [That's only thru 'G' so far.] -- each and all have the very same 8 types of pieces and relative merit. Each version argues for a particular initial position and somewhat trivial promotion or castling differences. Personally I rate Grand Chess in the lowest because of all the wasted space in 40% piece density: the Knights are just lost there. Capablanca 10x10 is cumbersome too and he knew it, so he went to 8x10. No one tries a 'Capablanca 10x12', presumably because Pawns nine-steps-apart fly in the face of some (instinctive?) unarticulated standard. It does not take much feel for the game, or sense of chess geometry, to reject some algorithms out of hand and even for sake of experimention, to rule out certain combinations, pieces and boards.
Big Battle. Large (10x10), commercial variant.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Never commented, Big Battle at least attempts to solve the spacing problem inherent in 10x10. Here Pawns always have 1, 2, or 3 option if not capturing. Prince is Amazon(Q+N). Queen is enhanced by ability to leap over adjacent piece. Knight may double hop from initial position. King becomes more elusive as 1- or 2-square leaper. Conservatively only seven piece-types: usually 8 or even 9 is ideal when a decimal variant is sought. The extreme power of the new piece-pair Prince is offset by powerful Pawns. Nice try.
Big Board Chess. On a 10 by 10 board with individual opening setup. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Big Board here has similarity to Quintanilla's Switching Ch., and to last week's Lizarzaburu's XYMYX (a version of earlier Synchronous), and to any 'Random Chess' for that matter, in the following respect. All of them can in turn be applied to any other CV. Schonfelder's idea is to have a placement phase instead of an initial array. That gets rid of opening theory right away. In Schonfelder's preferred embodiment, 25 pieces would take a long time to place (anywhere in own half of board). See the sample game of Schonfelder, Beyer and Buntz. Now we can also combine further. For ex., take Brown's Centennial Chess, a relatively unheralded game. Play it with Schonfelder's placement (for the first 26 'moves') and Quintanilla's Switching adjacently throughout: Big-Board-Switching-Centennial Chess, theoretically very playable.
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Described in third from last paragraph above, 'Generic-Advanced-Pawns' 10x10, with G = Generic piece: rank c xxxppppxxx, rank b pppGGGGppp, rank a RNBFQKFBNR. A second recommended array 'Falcon-Back': rank c pppppppppp, rank b RNBGKQGBNR, rank a xxFxxxxFxx, centering Falcon behind Bishop. I declare both are substantially like claims of USP#5690334 by the legal doctrine of equivalents. I recently requested Quintanilla to make pre-sets for some Falcon games for anyone to play, but with the string of 'F's for it since year 2000, I don't know what the issue is or that I seek attention for FC. Who saw this week's PBS Jack Johnson story? Methods Patents are not some latter-day Mann Act. Play Falcon Chess on your Gothic Chess board all you want, in order to condemn it.
Rolling Kings. Kings must move along a predetermined path. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is so suitable a fit for '32-Turn Contest', it's almost as if someone invented the game and then made up a contest to go with it. Not really how it happened to be designed, Rolling Kings' drawback is in being more like a study than a game to play, as paucity of Game Courier scores shows. Here you learn what 'bustrophaedonically' means, that 'oxlike' is not the same as 'bullheaded'.
Positional 3-D Chess. 3D games using position to determine how to move from board to board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks, Fergus. Yes, Tony Quintanilla said he would be busy until February. These three games in Positional 3D Chess Quintanilla said he has provisional presets and to cross-index as games. Otherwise I shall ask Roberto Lavieri if he can help make presets, since we agree to play 8x8x2 in current Kibitz.
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The Game Courier 'Open Kibitz' game of Rococo is apparently dropped after just a few moves. There had been a move a day extensively kibitzed last month. I don't think, upon write-up of a 'new' CV, we can sanctimoniously say 'Have you played it?' unless there is serious play at a variety of levels. Missing ingredients are game scores well-annotated and focus occasionally on a CV as actually played. The endless string of method-of-exhaustion 'What's-New' Game-Rules til kingdom come could lead to something more trenchant at times.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.