[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GaryK.Gifford
Castling in Chess 960. New castling rules for Fischer Random Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]We already see Chess Masters playing Omega Chess, Thailand Chess, Glinski Hexagonal, Shogi, Go, etc. So, while some chess masters may not want to play games other than chess, many are certainly willing to do so. Great Chess Masters are not simply memory banks of opening books, as some would have you think.
Mats, you overlooked the games I mentioned and brought up backgammon, not sure why. But I did mention Omega Chess. GM Michael Rohde (about 2695 rated)in regard to Omega Chess excitedly stated '. . . all the elements of chess are preserved' and he stated that'. . .new tactical twists are created by the extra pieces, larger board and extra corner squares.' He went on to say, 'The Wizard and the Champion complement very well and quite entertainingly the different strengths of the Knight, Bishop, Rook and Queen.' He pointed out that Omega Chess groups have shown up in Toronto, New York, Budapest, and on the internet. Susan Polgar (a high level chess master) also likes Omega Chess. Former World Chess Champion Kramnik played Makruk (Thailand Chess). He played a match of Makruk against German journalist Dr. René Gralla (May 1st, 2004). Kramnik likes Makruk. But for now, there is really no reason to replace chess. It is an excellent game... there is no reason we can't continue to play and enjoy chess along with other games like Shogi, Xianqi, and many of our little-known inventions here. Players will play what they like.... in time something may come along to replace chess... but I think we'll both be pushing up daisies long before that happens.
Mats: You wrote, in part 'Truth is that hardly anybody knows what Omega Chess is.' Response: Okay. I can help remedy that. Those who want to read more about it can go to this informative site: www.omegachess.com Mats also wrote, in part: 'And this is what we are trying to remedy here by discussing which type of chess variant could appeal to the average player.' Response: Chess already appeals to the average player. Mats wrote: 'Fide-chess is approaching a crisis. The game is becoming too well-researched.' Response: I disagree. Sure, if we take the sum of man's knowledge it is well researched. But when we play the great game of chess we are dealing with a single human mind. It cannot possibly retain all that well-researched material. One player may know the Halloween Gambit... it is likely that most players will not. Even when someone plays a Sicilian Defense... will the Smith-Morra Gambit take him by surprize? What about the Grand-Prix Attack? Because we have human mind vs. human mind, chess is very exciting. Strategic and Tactical abilities outweight opening knowledge. Opening knowledge won't help you in an endgame. It won't help you find a clever mate-in-three. There are over a billion possible positions after just the first few moves in a game of chess... it is hardly played out. I've been reading some long lost chess documentation from the year 1590... guess what, it is exciting stuff that can be used again today over 400 years later. People that want to play something besides chess can. I see no need to cure the non-existent illness. Mats wrote: In my country 50% of the players have been lost in 20 years, for a number of reasons. And they don't turn to Makruk or Omega Chess. My response: That is their perogative. If they want to abandon chess, fine by me. But I'll keep playing it, and Shogi, and Xianqi, and Navia Dratp, and Kamikaze Mortal Shogi, etc. I don't need the rest of the world to join in. Just one opponent per game is fine.
So, what were we to think when Kramnik played the 'dead' Berlin Defense against Garry Kasparov's Ruy Lopez, and won? You have convinced me of nothing really, other than you seem to dislike backgammon and want to say goodbye to chess... which is fine. Just play the games you want. And us non-masters (and World Champions like Kramnik) can continue to play 'dead' openings. P.S. Funny that my use of a 'Dead' Grand Prix attack got me a draw with a Master last fall (in an over-the-board tournament).
Mats: You wrote: 'An average player can study the Berlin defense and become practically invincible.' If there was such a thing as stand-up comedy for chess, that would be a great line. It certainly is not even the least bit true. Such a premise is non-sense. If it were true we'd be seeing plenty of Berlin Chess Defenses being played. But we are not seeing that. And, even if it was true White could play a first move of one of these: f4, c4, d4, Nf3, or Nc3.... and then the Berlin cannot even be played. So, what keeps black 'practically invincible' in these instances? You seem to overlook that there is more to chess than understanding an opening. Tactics and Strategy are crucial. Can you solve mate-in-3 and mate-in-4 problems rapidly in your mind? I doubt it. And knowing the Berlin Opening (or another opening) well will not help you to these ends. I look forward to seeing your games published in Chess Life where you can demonstrate that you are nearly invincible with the black pieces.
Mats: I shall offer no more comments regarding your issues with chess. But I will conclude with these observations: I find many of your statements to be misleading and some simply not true. And to me, it seems that many of your statements contradict other statements of yours. But no need for me to point these out, afterall, you state that I am a 'nitpicker.' However, the contradictions are easy enough to find, should anyone want to look for them. So, I shall now bow out of this debate and allow you to remain in the ring, so to speak. Best regards, Gary
Mastadon Chess - I just played this 10 x 10 variant of Mats and am pleased to say that I found it to be a very good and quite challenging variant. It is nice to see a large variant that has open free space and is free of Cardinals, Marshalls, and Amazons.... those games are fine too, but there are lots of them and this is a refreshing change of pace. Well done!
Shanghai Palace Chess. A blend of Chinese, Japanese, and Western Chess. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Each of the 3 presets for this game has a serious problem. The first two have incorret setups - for example, Lances where pawns should be. This was not the case when the presets first appeared; Refer to the rules or the Zillions ZRF file for correct setups. The last preset has missing pawns for one side.
Antoine: Many thanks for correcting the piece setups. It is much appreciated.
I doubt that there is much value in discussing GO in relation to chess variants large or small. There are many large chess variants with a variety of 'moving pieces' and Kings. GO is simply not a chess variant. But, perhaps Joe is being sarcastic? In regard to his statement that 'the general trend is the larger the board, the fewer the pieces, and the ranges in 'linear' distance often decrease' ... that certainly seems opposite of what I've seen. But, subtle jokes and sarcasm are plenty in the comments these days, so, perhaps Joe is just having some fun here.
Joe: Thanks for the elaboration. It clarifies things quite a bit. As for GO, I am familiar with it and am currently playing a game of it over the internet. But still, I would not consider the GO stones as chess pieces any more than I would consider the 'X' and 'O' of tic-tac-toe to be pieces. The fact that GO pieces work well on a 19 x 19 board has no signifigance to chess pieces. I am inclined to agree with the opinion that larger boards can more easily accomodate pieces with greater mobility... and that multi-move turns are more at home on such boards... as are larger numbers of different piece types.
Jeremy: Thanks for the game compliments for Joe and me. Much appreciated. On your other note: I looked briefly at Gess, and noticed that those stones move and that I will need to revisit the rules to get a better feel for that game. In regard to the other conversation (with Joe), Joe stated, 'I look at a game as (almost always) having 3 components, pieces, rules and board. Go stones, X's and O's, chessmen, they're all the same in this view, the game pieces. The difference is in the rules: the 1st two games' play involves placing the pieces on the board in an advantageous way; chess already has the pieces on the board, play involves moving the pieces advantageously.' Response: But GO stones, X's, and O's, unlike chess pieces, lack mobility once placed... it is the 'zero-mobility' that is of interest here. My point was simply that large boards are a good home for long-range pieces and more types of pieces. Saying that this is not the case by using GO for comparision is where I disagree, simply because GO (as it has existed for 4,000 years) is simply not a Chess-like game. The fact that pieces do not move is very important here. So I am more inclined to look at Turkish Great Chess from the 1700's, Freeling's Grand Chess, Trice's Gothic Chess, etc. when discussing Big Board CVs. And though GO uses a big board, it still is not a CV. On a related note, I am playing a game of Duke of Rutland. It is a large variant with conventional pieces and one excpetion piece (moves like a Rook or King) ... to me that board's size is almost crying for more mowerful pieces and a few different piece types. To replace existing pieces with shorter range ones, or to reduce the exisiting (limited variety) would make that game worse.
I had figured I'd comment no further on this subject.... but, I can't resist on a few points. Joe stated: '...And 10x10, or 20x20, is not 'large' - for square, even-numbered boards, 8x8 is about the smallest size that gives a decent game -' Response: Board size is relative. Most chess players would consider a 10 x 10 variant (100 squares vs 64) to be large. 20 x 20 also is large, relative to an 8x8 board (which appears to be the 'standard' of measure since we are talking about chess variants. Joe continues: '.... clearly 2x2 and 4x4 are useless,' Response: I'll not argue that. Joe continues, ' and 6x6 is 'the easy game for the ladies and children' Response: Ouch! If the Polgar sisters could hear that, and Maria Ivanka (9 times Hungarian Woman's Champion. And if the young child prodigies could see that statement...' So, I disaprove of that statement. Many women and children do quite well, very well, on the 8x8 board. I am confident that gender and age do not limit ones performance to certain small games. Joe continued: For odd numbered boards, 5x5 is useless, and 7x7 is Navia Dratp. Response: Navia Dratp makes use of a 7x7 battlefield. But there is a 1 x 7 Keep behind the north and south edge... as well as a 'graveyard' and 2 economic crystal-regions per side. So a mere 7x7 board is a little misleading. Joe also writes: 'Please, define your terms. ;-)' Response: I mainly wanted to defend the honor of ladies and children in this comment, following the 6x6 remark. I have no terms to define. Best regards to all.
Joe, when you tell a joke, remember to keep the humor density above 50%, otherwise you have a JV (Joke Variant) which is hard to laugh at and can offend. Of course, when this happens the JV inventor usually comes back and says something like, 'Wake up, I was joking.' Or, 'You took me seriously?' So, how are we to know that the GO comparison to large CVs is not a joke? In fact, that is more humorus to me than is the ladies/kid comment. As for your statement: '... after the 2 extremely bitter and hard-fought draws I've played against zcherryz, if you think I'd seriously maintain men are innately better than women at chess, you're crazier than I am.' Response: I think you implied that particular conclusion with your computer, kids, ladies 6x6 statement. Interesting that your Zcherryz draw is only mentioned after-the-fact.
The Duke of Rutland's Chess. Large variant from 18th century England. (14x10, Cells: 140) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Claudio Martins Jaguaribe recently described an alternate piece setup for Duke of Rutland's Chess. I agree wih him. I currently am playing a game of DoR and I find that using conventional pieces (including 4 Knights and 4 Bishops per side) on such a large board is not very exciting Chess. I think the Duke might not have been aware of Chancellors and Marshalls and so that he stuck to essentially doubling chess - but where did he get the idea for the Concubine piece? Playing this game one is reminded of the earlier debate regarding using more powerful pieces for larger boards. Duke of Rutland Chess could certainly make use of more powerful pieces.
Scorpion movement is very much like that of the 'KOMA' piece # M-014 from the game Nacvia Dratp. But the Koma can capture or move to any of the indicated 5 squares.
The Duke of Rutland's Chess. Large variant from 18th century England. (14x10, Cells: 140) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I thought it possible that the Duke witnessed a game of Shogi at some point and therefore saw a Dragon King and added it as a Concubine to his game. But then, why not also add a Dragon Horse? If the Duke did witness Shogi,and it is purley conjecture, then he still likely would not think of those other pieces (Marshall, Chancellors, Amazons etc.)... if he had thought of them, surely he would have added them? Of course, he might not have wanted to bother with extra piece styles... but then the question remains, why 2 Concubines instead of 2 more Rooks? Even 2 more Queens would have been an improvement. The mystery remains.
I do believe Joe is on the right track now regarding GO and Chess Variants. Changing GO pieces to Wazirs and Ferz would make it a Chess and GO Variant at the same time. But that is not a game for me. GO has been played as it is for about 4000 years, and I still enjoy playing GO by its intended ancient rules. To get Chess, I simply play 'Chess.' But Go variants are out there. Games like Pente, Go-Moku, Orthello, etc. There is certainly room for Joe's new GO-Variant idea.
Joe: I do not mind play testing your GoChess on a 9x9 board. My statement regarding that this type of game was not for me was in reference to a 19 x 19 standard Go Board with future Wazirs and Ferzs dropped onto the board... to play test such a game on a 9 x 9 grid is fine with me... However, should there be others who want to play test the game,by all means give them preference over me. I wish you well with this game.
The Duke of Rutland's Chess. Large variant from 18th century England. (14x10, Cells: 140) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Great job on the 'Logical Follow Up to the Duke of Rutland's Chess.' I think the Duke himself would have been very pleased with this very logical improvement. Well done.
Feedback to the Chess Variant Pages - How to contactus. Including information on editors and associate authors of the website.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The 50 move rule is a bit more than what was recently stated regarding pawn movement. The rule makes the game drawn, if the last 50 consecutive moves have been made without the movement of any pawn AND without the capture of any piece (or pawn). Thus,when a piece is captured (or a pawn) the 50 move count must start all over again.
50 Move Rule - I was reffering to USCF and FIDE rules for standard Chess. There is no 'official' 25-move rule. A player can claim a draw when there is 'insufficient mating material.' When that is the case the game ends at that point, as a draw -- no continued playing for 25 or 50 moves... not even for 1 more move.
Cannons of Chesstonia. Cannons launch a Pawn, Wazir, Ferz and Stone to increase strategical and tactical play. (12x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jeremy: Many thanks for the quick posting and quick pre-set creation. It is much appreciated. I do have 2 simple change requests. 1) change the 'a' through 'l' coordinates to: x z a b c d e f g h i j This syncronizes the 8x8 coordinates to FIDE boards and so is nicer for game notation. 2) Make 2 more squares, some light color ... For example: one at the current 'A8' (which would be new 'x8' and one at current 'L1' (which would be new 'i1') These 2 new squares would show what each Cannon was loaded with. When a player of black loads a Cannon he (or she) could now play x6-x8 (for example). A player of white could play something like i3-i1 to load a Cannon. Again, many thanks.
Jeremy: Thanks a lot - this will work quite well. Many Thanks - Gary
Royal Magician's Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jeremy: Thanks for the comment and for making the nice pre-set. As for the game, I'm glad to see you appear intrigued. In this game there is actually motivation to move one's King toward the enemy camp. Such movement can earn you an extra Bishop, Knight, and a Rook... of course, there is some risk involved. And, if you decide to play it safe, yet your opponent takes the risk and is successful, then you can find yourself be behind in material. So, there is sort of a struggle in this one between King safety and added material.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.