Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Oh sure, I am not claiming that this change is bad. On the contrary. The original Shatranj is an excessively boring game. In self-play ShaMax draws more than 70% of the games (for FIDE this is ~32%, for Spartan Chess ~20% and for Capablanca Chess ~16%). On top of that it is slow (the draws take about twice as many moves as in FIDE).

Making promotion decisive greatly reduces the drawishness, which is good. I am not sure what you mean by the 'mere speed bumps' remark. It is generally agreed that in FIDE Pawns are 'the soul of the game'. The basic dynamics of orthodox Chess games is:

gain Pawn -> trade Pawns to create a passer -> push passer -> passer binds one of opponent's pieces -> use your piece majority to gain more Pawns -> etc.

In Shatranj there is very little to worry if you are two pawns behind, especially if they all promote to the wrong color. Pawns basically only have value in the King-Safety evaluation. This does affect strategy from the beginning.

Grin, and here I thought all this time you were trying to get me to design back towards the ancient game! ;)

The "speed bump" comment is merely meant to illustrate the difference I've seen between pawns in shatranj and FIDE. In the short-range games, pawns are actually fighting pieces, whereas, in the modern games, they act as a structure, a scaffolding to build your attacks and defenses around - essentially terrain.

I think you are greatly underestimating the role of Pawns in the FIDE game. What you say would be true if Pawns could not promote, or only promote to a rather worthless piece like Ferz or Reverse Pawn. But the fact that they promote to a decisive piece changes everything. The whole game revolves around positioning the Pawns such that you are left with a won end-game when the dust settles down.

Grin, allow me a little poetic license, HG. I will point out that my shatranj variants allow promotion to effective pieces, so promotion is important in them, also, and can easily be just as decisive, if not more. Further, especially in the D versions of MS and GtS, the pawns prove to be rather useful little fighting units in their own right. At least in my experience. 

I agree with you that pawns are the heart and soul of FIDE, but that is more true the better the player. And you see far more pawn moves in the openings of shatranj than you do in the modern game, from what I remember. Grin, could be wrong, as personally, I play way too many pawn moves in the beginning. Still, from the games I played, pawns could restrict the mobility of the enemy power pieces, and lock up anything moving diagonally. Further, with pieces that move only 2 squares a turn, a pawn that moves 1 and is backed up is a strong threat. Overall, pawns may not make more moves or many more, in the shatranj variants, but the moves are more effective, because the pieces are weaker, or certainly give that feeling.

Joe,

I find this Shatranj variant very interesting.

I created  preset which enforces the rules:

http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/play.php?game%3DModern+Shatranj%26settings%3Dcarrillo

The only difference in my implementation of the rules is that Pawns can only promote to Generals (to keep more of a 'shatranj-ness' flavour).

Thank you, Jose, for the comment, rating, and especially the preset. Modern Shatranj is my simplest and in many ways most successful design. Grin, there's probably a lesson there. As for the shift in promotion rules, I consider games to be a collaboration between at least 2 people, the designer and the player(s), so "adjusting" a rule to suit the player(s) is okay with me. Just means someone is interested enough to try a game. Thanks again.

A promising game that might be worthy of upgrade to Excellent pending play-testing, which I will now try with Jose's new preset.

Reading through the comments, the promotion rules seem to provoke the most disagreement.  I must admit that I don't like the promotion rules as written.  I can see both promotion only to general, or promotion to general or to any lost piece as reasonable options, both leading to good although different games.  For myself, the part I find troubling is this:

At most, only 3 lost pieces may be regained: 1 rook, 1 knight, and 1 elephant, even if the player has lost both of any type.

The problem with this is that it is no longer possible to look at a board and know what moves are legal. You'd have to also know about all past promotions.  This makes the game much more difficult to program.  Chess has this issue too with castling - you have to know which rooks/kings have moved, although when the game has progressed enough that these pieces are no longer on their original squares it becomes a non-issue.  Also, Chess has established standards for how the castling information is preserved in the FEN game notation.  If we wanted to notate positions of Modern Shatranj with FEN notation, (certainly a worthy goal), new notation standards would need to be invented.  I would question whether the value of this particular rule justifies the significant added complexity.

Hi, Greg, thanks for the comment and rating. And it's nice to see some of the old gang around. To fully answer your comment, I think we'd need the 3rd shatranjeer, David P. He was the one who said it was a variant if I added promotion rules!

I've always considered games to be a collaboration between at least 2 people, the designer and the player(s). While I designed it to be a bridge between shatranj and modern chess, and so split the difference between no promo to lost pieces and unlimited pieces of any non-royal type, I certainly have no objections if people play it with promotions only to general. The only real effect it would have on the games is to extend the games with promotions a bit, because the generals are slow compared to the other pieces. 

Finally, grin, how do you tell from the current state of the board if a pawn can be captured en passant? ;)

Promotion to General already solves the problem with promotion in Shatranj, namely that the promotion piece would be virtually worthless, especially if you get them on the same square shade as wehere you already have some of them. The General in Modern Shatanj is a Commoner, which does have mating potential.

Promoting to stronger pieces is actually of little help only, as almost always the opponent can sacrifice one of his minors to prevent such a promotion. So in practice a promotion gains you a minor.

I therefore agree that there is little need to sacrifice the simplicity and elegance of the game by introducing complex promotion rules.

Thank you for the comment, HG. It seems to be unanimous that promotion should only be to general. Vox populi, vox Dei! It is changed. ;)

If you don't mind modern shatranj is an inspiration allong with shatraj kamil for my own 15x10 I shall complete and publish in a few months or so, actually I'm thinking on the name great modern shatranj. Are you ok with that, Joe?

Aurelian Florea wrote on 2016-09-11 None

If you don't mind modern shatranj is an inspiration allong with shatraj kamil for my own 15x10 I shall complete and publish in a few months or so, actually I'm thinking on the name great modern shatranj. Are you ok with that, Joe?

Full circle! A decade ago, I emailed Christian Freeling 2 game write-ups, asking if I could use the name "Grand Shatranj" and copy his setup, as his variant Grand Chess had inspired me to create 2 games where I'd only seen one muddled game before. He was very courteous and friendly, and thus Great and Grand Shatranj were posted together here, direct outgrowths of Modern Shatranj. Grin, so if Christian Freeling approves of your game, I'd be happy to have it named great modern shatranj. ;)

Seriously, thank you for the compliment. I certainly have no objections to your use of the name with the caveats that your game should bear some resemblance to mine and further not be significantly offensive to the social mores. Without actually seeing what you're going to post first, that's about as close as I can come to saying I'd be honored. It's always nice to hear that someone appreciates your efforts. And I wish you the best in yours.

I see a game design that's intended to be played as a collaboration between the designer and the player(s). I've been lucky enough to see a couple of my games become what passes for moderately popular on this site. That people modify the games to suit themselves is a good sign, in my opinion, that the games have some merit. But the games I post here are public property. Anybody may do whatever they want with them. So I truly appreciate, in more than one way, that you asked. Take your ideas and run with them. Enjoy!

I'd tentatively estimate the relative piece values in Modern Shatranj (current version) as: Pawn=1, Knight=3.5, Rook=5.5, King's fighting value (noting it cannot be traded)=4, General=4 (noting it can be traded or put what be 'in check', unlike a K, but I've judged their value in action to be similar enough), with the Elephant=3.125.

Thank you for the comment and rating, Kevin. Regardless of the exact value of the "minor" pieces, they are all within a point of each other, allowing fairly free exchanges among the pieces, and sometimes giving the end of the game a "different armies" feel, where a pair of elephants face a knight and general, for example.

In shatranj, there are 3 "levels" of even exchange, between pawns, between minor pieces, and between rooks. Modern chess adds the queen exchange for a 4th level. There are several "queen-level" pieces, from the R+N minister to the B+K dragon bishop of shogi. What are decent rook-level pieces? DO they need to be short range, more "area-effect" pieces to keep them rook level?

Hi Joe.

My own calculations for my invented game of Sac Chess place a 'Missionary' (aka a promoted bishop, in Shogi) as very close to a rook on that game's 10x10 board. On the other hand, what I called a 'Judge' (aka a Centaur, i.e. a piece that's a Knight+General compound, in wikipedia's & many other people's usage) I rate as being worth a pawn better than a rook, in that game's fairly large 10x10 board. So, I'd say either long- or short- range pieces can be roughly in rook class as far as value goes. However, I don't know enough fairy chess piece types yet by heart, in order to name several already invented rook class pieces. Regarding the values of the knight & elephant in Modern Shatranj, for a knight I used the value that the late Dutch player Euwe (former chess world champion) gave (i.e. 3.5 pawns), on chess' 8x8 board (to try to be consistent with my placing a knight at 3 pawns on a 10x10 board). Using his value proved to be a good thing since I believe like you, at least for now, that an elephant is worth a shade less than a knight in Modern Shatranj, and by my own rough methods of calculating estimated piece values for chess-like games, if I set a knight to 3 pawns on an 8x8 board, an Elephant I would work out to then be worth a knight exactly. :)

P.S.: Fwiw, for those interested, on chess' 8x8 board, I'm agreeing with Euwe's having a Rook=5.5 pawns, too, which I also gave it for on Sac Chess' 10x10 board, since for that game I have the short-ranged piece (knight) reduced to 3 pawns in value (in my estimation), at least as a way to take into account that game's slightly bigger board.

[comment edited to include diagram] I have a question about the rules of this game, based on an unlikely situation. If a player A's king has just been bared, but the following move he stalemates his opponent (Player B) by using his own king to do so, what should the result of the game be? Below is an example, i.e. if 1...Pb3xa2 (baring White's king) 2.Kc3-c2 (stalemating Black immediately after White's king was bared), what is the result of the game?

P.S.: To write again of examples of what a rook level fairy chess piece may be, I seem to recall others before me have valued a nightrider as worth about 5 pawn units. That's besides the superbishop (aka promoted bishop in Shogi), which also happens to be placed in the same piece type class as a rook by the inventor of the popular 8x8 variant Pocket Mutation Chess.

[edit: Note to editors of CVP: I have a submission I gave to CVP last week that's to be reviewed.]

Good question, Kevin, and as far as I can see or find (so far), the answer is undetermined. There was little standardization of stalemate rules until a couple hundred years ago. Different areas did different things, and I suspect that in the situation diagrammed, all 3 possible outcomes were, at some place and time, accepted.

With rook-level pieces, in the spirit of shatranj, I find the knightrider stylistically wrong. Of course, I find the NN an awkward piece, and I am terrible with awkward pieces. To me, ches should be fighting with your opponent, not fighting with your own pieces. That being said, the NN is a limited piece, far more in keeping with the limited pieces of ancient chess than the modern versions of strong pieces. I see it as a sort of limited missile, able to strike across the board, but with restricted targeting. It seems like a piece for a very large board with lots of pieces worth a range of values.

At this point, the hero ands shaman pieces (D+W) & (A+F), or the bent versions (D+/-W) & (A+/-F), while more powerful, or possibly the Oliphaunt (AF+AF) or Lightningwarmachine (DW+DW) seem to me to be the best fits, being very roughly worth around 5 or so pawns and short ranged. Pieces like the half duck (HFD) or scout or other such pieces seem more awkward, to me. ... Hm, I guess there's a giant shatranj variant lurking somewhere in my head.

My own suggestion would be that for the diagrammed example, for Modern Shatranj, let the stalemate=win rule override the bare king consideration - the 'logic' being that the stalemated king will perish if the stalemated side attempts to move, whereas the bare king has freedom still. In any case, I don't know how Jose's rules enforcing preset for Modern Shatranj currently would handle the diagrammed example, after the final move is made. [edit: the preset's rules say a lone bare king is an Automatic Loss (if the other side's king isn't immediately bared), so I think I ought to take that at face value, even for the example situation I gave.]

P.S.: Alert again to CVP editors: I have an aging CVP submission awaiting review.

I've edited my previous post.

I, too, have a CVP reference page submission awaiting clearance.

Since stalemate was sometimes a win for the stalemated side, and "bare king" is immediately obvious to everyone, I lean strongly toward the bare king rule winning out. Your argument, Kevin, cements my position.

Now, who's got stuff hanging? Contact me.

I've noticed that in Game Courier play of the reputedly drawish Shatranj there's been 2 draws in 55 games thus far, while there's been 7 draws in 33 games of Modern Shatranj so far, if I've counted correctly. It's possible the opponents were more evenly matched in more of the Modern Shatranj games, but I'm wondering if the Generals in the setup position for Modern Shatranj might make for even greater defensive resources than may be available in the game of Shatranj. A case where more test playing of Modern Shatranj is needed to reach a firm conclusion? In my case, I take a variant that may be tougher to avoid drawing (i.e. win) at as something of a challenge, if I'm not so happy with the idea of drawing before a game begins. Fwiw, chess played at a high level still has a far greater drawing rate on average than 7 out of 33 games.

>>Kevin Pacey wrote on 2017-01-25 EST
>> My own suggestion would be that for the diagrammed example, for Modern Shatranj, let the stalemate=win rule
>> override the bare king consideration - the 'logic' being that the stalemated king will perish if the stalemated side
>> attempts to move, whereas the bare king has freedom still.
>> In any case, I don't know how Jose's rules enforcing preset for Modern Shatranj currently would handle the
>> diagrammed example, after the final move is made. [edit: the preset's rules say a lone bare king is an Automatic
>> Loss (if the other side's king isn't immediately bared), so I think I ought to take that at face value, even for the
>> example situation I gave.]

Forgive me for my late response... Better late than never! At least I'm still responding in the same year as the question! :-)

As currently programmed, for the given (unlikely) position, the result of my preset would be a win for the bare King.

I need to check the logic to account for this strange position.

I agree with Joe, it should be an automatic win for Player B, as Player A was bared prior to the stalemate, and the rules only allow for the disadvantaged bared King to play, if he would bare the other king in the next move. Nothing is provided for the case where the bare King could stalemate the opponent on his next move.

I guess this position must have had a lot to do with both stalemate and bare kings (by insuficient material) being draws in modern Chess, to avoid this dilema.

Agreed.  The Bare King rule is clear and it only permits another move if the opponent can bare the other's king on the next move.  Stalemating would require allowing another move where there is no indication it should be allowed.  This is how ChessV is coded and I've confirmed that when 1...Pb3xa2 is played it immediately decalres black the winner.  So all is good :)