Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

'Looking at this list, the next three people who make a game courier preset enforcing the rules will get their game in this tournament.'

Ha-ha! :))) LOL!!!

Hey Sam, you said: '[I]f you want your variant in this tournament, you need to figure out how to program game courier to play the variant.' Lol, you're safe from my games, then. I'm lucky I can make basic, non-rules-checking presets. :)

Vitya - oops! Wondered about that. Anyhow, I thought Jose proposed Modern Chess a while ago.

Finally, Mats, for what it's worth, HyperModern Shatranj may not have been played as such yet at all. I honestly don't remember. So you may technically get your wish if it's played in the tourney. However, as George has just commented on another thread, it's more of a shuffling in and out of pieces and a rearrangement of the rules than an actual variant. The only reason I actually posted it as a separate game is that people kept coming up with it and saying 'put it in the shatranj games', so I did. And someone else posted a very similar game a week later. You'll see 4 names in my write-up.

George is very right about the minor fudging of pieces and/or places in the initial setup not being actual variants. They are 'merely' games, many quite good, of a variant or variant class. Of course, a good game is never 'mere', but changing one thing doesn't make for a new variant necessarily. A number of my games feature alternate piece sets, and some prefer different versions. HG Muller uses the DWAF instead of the WF as the default Great Shatranj game in his software. Christine Bagley-Jones did Capablanca Shatranj, which uses some long range pieces. 

Maybe it comes down to knowing how the game will play by reading the rules [because you've played so many similar games] before you ever need to push pieces. That's why they're called modest variants - they are close enough to the well-known that the quality of the game can be evaluated reasonably well without actually playing it.

'Vitya: Modern chess was suggested in this posting.'

It was said about Shatranj. Modern Shatranj.

'I think it’s perfectly fair to demand anyone who wants their variant played here to either make a full rules-enforcing game courier preset'

I'm not a programmer. It's not a big problem for Fergus, I hope.

'Anyhow, I thought Jose proposed Modern Chess a while ago.'

He proposed Ajax Chess or Ajax Random Chess.

Sam Trenholme wrote:

Balanced Capablanca Chess (a.k.a “Capablanca Chess, Aberg setup” or “Duniho’s Capablanca Variant”)

When I programmed Aberg's Capablanca Variation for Zillions in 1999, I understood that he put the Chancellor on the Queen's side and the Archbishop on the King's side, whereas my variant switched these two pieces around from Aberg's. Yet the page for Aberg's made in 2003 uses the setup for Duniho's Capablanca Variation. So I went to archive.org to see what information I was using on Aberg's back in 1999. Here is what Aberg wrote: 'I think that one should perhaps put the piece that can move both as a rook and a knight on the queen's side. The reason is that this piece will be weaker than the one that moves as a rook and a bishop, and the queen's side already has more material than the king's side. One might still call the queen's side piece the archbishop and the king's side piece the chancellor, though.' Aberg switched the meanings of Chancellor and Archbishop, and the diagram that follows uses these switched piece names. In the 2003 page, Aberg has switched the pieces around, so that his setup now matches the one from Duniho's Capablanca Variation, and he now states, in agreement with the reason I switched the position of the pieces for my variant, that the Chancellor is more powerful than the Archbishop.

Regarding the name of the game, I would favor using Carrera's name instead of Capablanca's, because the setup is mathematically equivalent (or even identical) to the one from his game, and he preceded Capablanca by centuries. It is the reverse of Carrera's setup if we take our own page on Carrera's Chess as the authority, but another page I've seen (http://www.worldchesslinks.net/ezi01.html) shows Carrera's setup to be the same as it is for what you're calling Balanced Capablanca Chess. So I suggest using the name Modern Carrera's Chess, since it is Carrera's setup played with Capablanca's more modern rules.

I am all for the inclusion of Circular Chess. I am curious about the British version. I made a Zillion program of it, which I believe, is quite strong:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/circularchess.htm

It should be implemented in Game Courier. Remember that rules do not include en-passant.
/Mats

On Circular Chess.

'Also, there is no en-passant capture. (This was because the inventor didn't like this rule.)' http://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/circular.html

Ha-ha! Lol! En-passant is a important thing in chess. In Circular Chess where row of pawn is 4 not eight it's more important thing against drawish wall of pawns.
There is no problem do you like it or not. It's an important rule.
So, I cannot agree with the inventor of Circular Chess.

But it's not a big problem. We can play it without en-passant or with it... It's playable.

Vitya, I have played against my Circular Chess program and I can tell you
that it seems to works fine without the 'en passant' rule. One cannot
easily create a pawn blockade anyway. In Circular Chess the pieces have
different values. Firstly, the rook is more valuable, probably it's worth
more than two light pieces. The light pieces seem to be worth less than
three pawns. Probably a light piece can, at times, be exchanged for two
pawns. This means that a pawn blockade can often be removed by exchanging 
a piece for two pawns. The situation on the circular board is more 
unstable than on the standard board, and there is no sufficient hideaway
for the king. I don't think you have to worry about cowardly drawish 
play, using pawn blockades. After all, reasonably strong players have
tested this variant in the yearly Lincoln tournament. It works.
/Mats

Fergus,

I sent you an email with the include file for Ajax Orthodox Chess. Can you please upload it so that I can start testing the preset?

Thanks.

'...and it should be programmed on Game Courier before the start of the tournament. I am able to program the rules for games you may not be able to, but if I can't do it, and no one else can, then the game won't make it.'

You need to read more attentive. Nobody told that we'll play presets without rules enforcement. Question is who will program the rules?! As I understand Fergus can do this.

Is there such a shortage of enforced presets? All my presets are rule-enforced, as Gustav III's Chess, Mastodon Chess, etc., etc., etc., etc...
/Mats

So far, Joe Joyce, Vitya Makov, Nicolas Wolff, Carlos Cetina, mirari, Jose Carillo, Sam Trenholme, and myself are the only ones to explicitly state our intention to sign up for the tournament. So the list of games to be played looks like this:

1. Eurasian Chess (Fergus Duniho)
2. Modern Carrera's Chess (Sam Trenholme)
3. HyperModern Shatranj (Joe Joyce)
4. Circular Chess (Vitya Makov)
5. Symmetric Chess (Carlos Cetina)
6. Ajax Orthodox Chess (Jose Carillo)

This changes three of the games from the previous list. Note that Symmetric Chess is also described in my Experiments in Symmetry article, where it gets called Bigamous Chess. Regarding Symmetric Chess, I am concerned about its similarity to a commercial game. So if someone will suggest another game, and either sign up or already be signed up for this tournament, I will consider it. Regarding other suggestions, Nicholas Wolff's multi-move suggestions were rejected, but he could get another suggestion in. Mirari's suggestion of Gustav III's Chess is rejected for including Amazons. If M. Winther cares to sign up, a variant featuring one of his original pieces might be worth including in the tournament.

OK, no problem; I change my choice for Euchess since it also can be useful as an introductory variant.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, I don't know how to do it. If you or any other could help me, receive thousand thanks beforhand.

The preset is here.

What I personally like about Euchess is that it is even closer to Gross Chess than Grand Chess is. Gross Chess is basically Euchess + Eurasian Chess + Omega Chess on a larger board.

Euchess is an easy game to program. It can be done easily enough by slightly modifying the code for Victorian Chess. All you have to do is copy the code for that game to a Euchess preset and modify the code in the Pre-Game section that identifies the locations of the Kings (used for spotting check) and the flags on the spaces for the Kings and Rooks (used for castling).

18 rounds is very ambitious. If it's an introductory tournament to chess variants then one should perhaps have fewer rounds. It's easier for people to sign up if it's not that time-demanding.
/Mats

'18 rounds is very ambitious. If it's an introductory tournament to chess variants
then one should perhaps have fewer rounds. It's easier for people to sign up if it's
not that time-demanding.'

Agree. 12 looks better.

'I change my choice for Euchess since it also can be useful as an introductory variant.'

Hm... What sense to play two variants with chancellors and cardinals only? (Capa variant and Euchess). Both are large variants. Yes, Euchess is larger, but main idea is the same.
Symmetric chess was interesting because of introducing bishop-conversion rule.