New chess variant. Looking for players to play with.
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
BattleChessGN18 wrote:
Welll, isn't long-post taggin that has happened for months in a row FUN? ^-^
Um fun.....not sure. Interesting at the least. I really just want to play....I play 3 times a day, every day, to every other day. For a year.(prior to the latest mods) Now I can't find a single person to play with ever... I've been at this for over a year. So it looks like I'm not going to give up. Just need a few people to like it. From there it will at least grow to a piont I can play regularly. At least those are my hopes and plans...
[COMMENT DELETED]
Ace569er írta:
GnrfFrtzl My issuse with 960 is it is to much like orthadox chess. It does fix some of the issuses people agree chess has. Just it is more or less the same game in my opinion. I have never liked the basicness of chess.
Plus watch some grandmasters play. They all tend to do more or less the same things. There may be thousands of openings. Yet grandmasters will only use a handful if even that many vs anouther grandmaster. Not saying that they don't use hundreds of different openings. I'm saying that all in all about 3 are used over 60% of the time. Mainly depending on who they are playing. Also most grand master games end in draws. Because of this. They know what is best. The most logical counter to all the logical moves. This is why a novice has the best chance to beat a grandmaster, without a draw. This has been proven, it is not opinion. Because they make stupid moves and grandmasters had no reason to memerize a counter to a bad play. So they must think. Instead of planing based on memory. There may be options, yet the game is sooo old and played out. Every last one is know to man. We used computers to find the last of them. Little to nothing new has been discovered in chess that I know of in a long time. To a retarded point. Hence also why grandmasters make most of all the variants out there. That did not evolve, from old time, based on regions. I could be wrong on that point. I'd love for you to find some new discovery that was made, that many players agree is worth a damn. I just think there is not one worth listing, but hey prove me wrong...I love learning new things.
All you do is prove your own ignorance, mate.
Take a look at Kingscrusher's YouTube channel, he has over 6000 videos, now, and no games are identical.
In fact, he a database, and as early as move 6-7, he points out that the players are already out of book moves.
Opening theory is not over, and chess is not solved by computers.
New branches of opening theory are spawn every single day, every single game. This is why chess is so beautiful, it's nearly endless. You can't and will never play the same game as long as you live. No one will.
Take a look at a book from the 90's of any opening you'd like.
Now let's get a book from the 2000's of the same opening.
Do that now.
They'll all be different, listing different variations that players tried out in order to see where it's going and if it's worth playing.
New lines are introduced, old lines get left behind.
Chess changes every single day, thousands of articles and blogs arre written about a single opening, people play millions of games each day.
How on Earth can't you see that?
How do you not realise this?
Also, a proven fact that a novice can beat a grandmaster?
A link to this study? A link to actual games where novices beat grandmasters? Or was that something that you just pulled out from the top of your head?
Do you seriously think that grandmasters are only good because they memorized 3 openings that they use 60% of the time?
That's a quite popular point of view of ignorant non chess players, but it's just ridiculous coming from an actual player.
You'd give them 3 minutes to learn the rules and they'd crush you in your own game.
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
That still doesn't answer your problem with 960.
As someone well-acquainted with dozens of different Chess variants, I can say that Chess960 is one of the ugliest and most unimaginative I ever encountered. For one,it is not really a variant, but just Chess starting from a different position, which might or might not be reachable from the standard FIDE opening position. I consider it ugly that in many of the initial positions pieces are in awkward locations, severely hindering smooth development.
Although it is true that the mechanism of shuffling can stave off over-analysis of opening moves perhaps somewhat longer, even replacing a single piece in the FIDE setup by one that moves differently would have the same effect for dozens of years to come. So the price just doesn't seem worth it.
Orthodox Chess is a good game, due to the many improvements it has seen in its long history since the Indian Chaturanga game from which it derives. But it is by no means the best game of its type. For one it is rather drawish. I know many variants that are much more exciting to watch. Some people shrug this off as a matter of taste, but I don't think it is; there are objective methods for determining how much action is going on, and in, say, Capablanca Chess it takes far fewer moves to completely alter the situation than in orthodox Chess, which often moves at a tediously slow pace. (In particular after Queens have been traded.) In general a slow pace is seen as a drawback, which is the main factor that has driven the evolution of Chess from the utterly boring game of Shatranj to the modern game. I remember the experience where, after having watched 30-min games of Capablanca Chess for an afternoon, I started watching an orthodox-Chess 5-min blitz tournament, and after some games really felt "Wow, this is boring... Hardly any action!".
It is an interesting psychologic phenomenon that many players of orthodox Chess get aggressive when confronted with Chess variants. One presumes that this is because they feel threatened, in particular that the large investment they made by memorizing book-loads of opening theory will become worthless in a single blow. And fear breeds aggression. So they strike out against any person that even dares to mention a variant like it is a personal insult to them, even though the logical thing to do when they are not interested is just stay away from it.
HGMuller írta:
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
That still doesn't answer your problem with 960.
As someone well-acquainted with dozens of different Chess variants, I can say that Chess960 is one of the ugliest and most unimaginative I ever encountered. For one,it is not really a variant, but just Chess starting from a different position, which might or might not be reachable from the standard FIDE opening position. I consider it ugly that in many of the initial positions pieces are in awkward locations, severely hindering smooth development.
Although it is true that the mechanism of shuffling can stave off over-analysis of opening moves perhaps somewhat longer, even replacing a single piece in the FIDE setup by one that moves differently would have the same effect for dozens of years to come. So the price just doesn't seem worth it.
Orthodox Chess is a good game, due to the many improvements it has seen in its long history since the Indian Chaturanga game from which it derives. But it is by no means the best game of its type. For one it is rather drawish. I know many variants that are much more exciting to watch. Some people shrug this off as a matter of taste, but I don't think it is; there are objective methods for determining how much action is going on, and in, say, Capablanca Chess it takes far fewer moves to completely alter the situation than in orthodox Chess, which often moves at a tediously slow pace. (In particular after Queens have been traded.) In general a slow pace is seen as a drawback, which is the main factor that has driven the evolution of Chess from the utterly boring game of Shatranj to the modern game. I remember the experience where, after having watched 30-min games of Capablanca Chess for an afternoon, I started watching an orthodox-Chess 5-min blitz tournament, and after some games really felt "Wow, this is boring... Hardly any action!".
It is an interesting psychologic phenomenon that many players of orthodox Chess get aggressive when confronted with Chess variants. One presumes that this is because they feel threatened, in particular that the large investment they made by memorizing book-loads of opening theory will become worthless in a single blow. And fear breeds aggression. So they strike out against any person that even dares to mention a variant like it is a personal insult to them, even though the logical thing to do when they are not interested is just stay away from it.
I believe that my rating alone is enought to realise that I'm not the type that memorises openings or lines.
I only play chess as a hobby, and I also play 960 (recently, even more that regular), xianqui, go, and several other boardgames (none seriously).
What I'm mad about is people acting like chess is solved and boring, but if you just take a few minutes to go through, for example, Wei Yi's games, you can see brilliancies from Tal's times.
Exciting chess is still played.
Grandmasters still go out of book, sacrifice pieces for no compensation, and mate in 20 moves.
It was exactly like this in the romantic era of chess.
Even two hundred years ago, most of the games were drawn as well, we just don't analyse those games nowadays.
A hundred years from now, people won't analyse draws, but will remember the shocking exchange sacs of Nakamura and Wei Yi that resulted in quick mates and forcing kingwalks.
Orthodox chess will never be solved.
You can play variants (so do I), but acting like orthodox chess is over and boring is just really ridiculous.
There is a russian saying, something like:
"If it's boring, you're playing it wrong."
But we can also say:
"Don't hate the game, hate the players."
Oct 27, 2015
0
#88
@ HGMuller
"It is an interesting psychologic phenomenon that many players of orthodox Chess get aggressive when confronted with Chess variants."
That entire last comment by you was well said, all the paragraphs.
I played Fischer Random recently on Lichess just to keep in shape.
Its been a long time since I played it. I stopped after about a week, it just feels really awkward to me now.
@Ace569er
I am sorry, there are a few things...
I think there are too many different types of pieces and rules for those pieces, it will be an uphill battle, people are lazy and do not like change.
I think that the board is too narrow and that the game will be cramped.
I think that the ratio of Pawns to Pieces is very low and there is too much distance for the Pawns to cover.
Please do not be offended it is just my opinion, I know what it feels like when you put a lot of effort into something and that people say things without considering that.
Regards
Warlord
Hola, thanks muller. I can see your points. Manyly on the being cramped & peple are too lazy. The rules I agree are a bit much. They can be dropped completly. Not sure if I like how the wizard was not normal. I do like the amount of pieces. At least the amount of types. That is the most important part for me. I have grow to like the 12x12 I made, for what battle chess was trying to get.(I think it is close anyways) That board gets rid of extra copies of pieces. Makes the board seem wider. Though I still prefer the original I made. I can see the 12x12 getting more favor. For the reasons you stated.
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
You can play variants (so do I), but acting like orthodox chess is over and boring is just really ridiculous.
Well, for one it would be perfectly allright to design new variants without there being anything wrong with orthodox Chess. There is a Dutch saying "variation of the food encourages the eating". And as to boringness, Chess variants can be rated by somewhat objective criteria, and some can definitely be classified as more boring than others. Which doesn't necessary imply either of them is very boring on an absolute scale. Shatranj by modern standards is an excruciatingly boring game, but for hundreds of years it was the most exciting game around, enough to have books written about it beforeprinting was invented. Orthodox Chess is far more exciting than Shatranj (even after the Queens are traded!), but Capablanca Chess is markedly more exciting still. (And I am not claiming the latter would be the ultimate in this respect.)
The problem I see with Chess 960 is that it solves a problem (the 'draw death') with orthodox Chess that many even deny exists, without adding anything really new that could improve the game (same board, same pieces in the same numbers), and definitely make it take a hit in terms of good and coherent initial positioning of the pieces, and aesthetics (lack of symmetry). So it seems a step back from orthodox Chess. If you would design a new Chess variant for which no opening theory exists at all yet, you would almost always prefer to have a well-crafted fixed initial setup over a random jumble of the same pieces on the back rank. And there are better ways to enlarge the opening tree than random shuffling, for instance placement of pieces out of the hand, so that you can avoid clumsy positions.
I must admit the variant proposed by the OP is a bit too complex for my taste, but that is just a matter of taste. Some people would like this kind of complexity, which one cannot find in orthodox Chess, and that is perfectly OK. (But they could try their hand at Chu Shogi, another time-tested game, which also has 2x46 pieces on a 12x12 board.)
I have designed a handful of Chess variants as well, based on other themes than complexity. Either to highlight a single uncommon idea (such as a 'contageous' piece in Werewolf Chess, or having many different 3-vs-1 end-games similar to KBNK in Team-Mate Chess), or to simplify some existing but impractically large games (like a 13x13 version of Maka Dai Dai Shogi). And I like Spartan Chess because it cannot have any end-games that are dead draws because both sides have equal material, so that the end-gameis always an interesting battle. All properties that do not necessarily make these games better than orthodox Chess, but just significantly different, and therefore interesting in their own right.
weird
[COMMENT DELETED]
Ace569er írta:
So all the input has inspred me to refine my game. There are no specail rules outside how pieces move. And how the lion works. Plus I simplyfied the board some. It a mix of what I did form Battlechess's imput on a board & mine. Hope this has more favor.
Can you make an actual game and post it?
I'd also like to see the notation.
There are little books that can describe hundreds of games in simple algebraic notation (1.e4 e5, etc.), and they're only 30-40 pages long, if even.
I'm curious to see how you'd describe a game without having to include a diagram on each page.
That should not be any problem, as it is one of the things the WinBoard GUI supports. You can save any game you played (by moving the pieces with the mouse, where WinBoard will only accept them when they are legal according to the move definitions) in PGN format on a file, or copy it directly to the clipboard. As the PGN standard requires it uses SAN for the notation.
HGMuller írta:
That should not be any problem, as it is one of the things the WinBoard GUI supports. You can save any game you played (by moving the piece with the mouse, where WinBoard will only accept them when they are legal according to the move definitions) in PGN format on a file, or copy it directly to the clipboard. As the PGN standard requires it uses SAN for the notation.
I was actually talking about real printing.
I have a few small books titled like "500 brilliancies", "100 quick mates", and the sort, and none of them have any diagrams in them, only plain text.
I was just wondering if,
1. if it's possible to present and publish games of this variation in an easy to understand and convenient way
2. make it possible to publish games without the need of including diagrams every so often.
Also, how long does an average game takes? 40-50 moves?
To me, it seems like, that if we follow "the common chess sense" (developing pieces, controlling important squares, connecting pawns, etc.), openings would take an insanely long time.
I don't see quick moving, I don't see fast play, I don't see energy.
How do I put it?
It doesn't seem that accessible.
I can't see myself or anyone just sitting down to play a few games.
I don't see that a single move can change the whole board, which happens oftenly in orthodox chess.
Well, real printing requires paper and a printer, and none of us can do that for you. The best we can do is show you stuff on a computer display. You do realize PGN is a text format? For Chu Shogi,which is comparable in complexity, a typical game lasts for about 200 moves,which is about 3 times as long as a typical Chess game. An example of a game is this:
[Event "Computer Chess Game"]
[Site "ONTWIKKELLAPTOP"]
[Date "2015.10.27"]
[Round "-"]
[White "HaChu 0.19"]
[Black "HaChu 0.19"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "40/60"]
[Variant "chu"]
1. Ne5 Nf8 2. Ph5 Pc8 3. Sd2 Ph8 4. Si2 Hf7 5. Hf6 Sd11 6. Pc5 Pe8 7. Fb2
Si11 8. Pa5 Nh7 9. Hxf7 Bxf7 10. Nf6 Bg8 11. Pj5 Nj7 12. Nh4 Si10 13. Ma4
Sh9 14. Nj4 Fj11 15. Nk5 Ni7 16. Pe5 Ci11 17. Bg5 Nk8 18. Fj2 Fi10 19. Si3
Hg7 20. Ci2 Sd10 21. Sh4 Cd11 22. Ci3 Se9 23. Cj4 Pj8 24. Fi3 Cd10 25. Bh6
Hf7 26. He4 Sf8 27. Pf5 Ce9 28. Sd3 Fb11 29. Sc4 Sg7 30. Bf4 Rd10 31. Cd2
Fj9 32. Cd3 Fc10 33. Sb5 Fc9 34. Sc6 Fb8 35. Cc4 Pc7 36. Sb5 Vb11 37. Sb6
Ci10 38. Va3 Pj7 39. Fb3 Fj8 40. Pl5 Pl8 41. Ml4 Ml9 42. Id6 Nk7 43. Df3
Cj9 44. Sb7 Fc9 45. Cd5 Pb8 46. Cc6 Pxb7 47. Cxc7 Pa8 48. Bd3 Hf8 49. Pd5
Ba9 50. Pc6 Di11 51. Fc4 Ii7 52. Fc5 Si8 53. Pb5 Bh9 54. Vb3 Sg6 55. Pf6
Sih7 56. Pb6 Pxb6 57. Vxb6 Vxb6 58. Fxb6 Rd11 59. He3 Pi8 60. Hc5 Ni9 61.
Nk6 Ng7 62. Nxj7,j6 Nxf6 63. Bh6 Sf5 64. Bxf8 Pxf8 65. Pg5 Nxe5,f6 66. Hd4
Ne7 67. Nxi7,h8 Rh10 68. Nxh7,g7 Nxd6,e6 69. De3 Se4+ 70. Bxe4 Nd7 71. Bf5
Be6 72. Bxe6 Nxe6,d7 73. Cxd8 Nxd8 74. Qf3 Pg8 75. Nxg8,g7 Qg9 76. Ne6 Df9
77. Qf6 Nc8 78. Qf5 Pd8 79. Pk5 Pk8 80. Hc5 Qg8 81. Nf6 Pd7 82. Qg6 Qg9 83.
Tg3 Cd8 84. Qg7 Pk7 85. Of4 Ck8 86. Ef2 Rb11 87. Rb3 Ne9 88. Qxg9= Dxg9 89.
Ne6 Fc8 90. Nxd7,e6 Of10 91. Xe4 Eg11 92. Xe5 Of12 93. Tg2 Xd9 94. Of6 Ng8
95. Dhf3 Fc9 96. Df5 Tf11 97. Dg6 Ne9 98. Dxg9+ Nxg9 99. De4 Fc8 100. Xg7
Nh8 101. Nxe8 Nxg7,h7 102. Nxd9,d8 Nf7 103. Od6 Rd10 104. Nxc8 Re10 105.
Rf3 Nh7 106. Dxe10+ Mxe10 107. Ne7 Nj7 108. Nxf8,f7 Bxd6 109. Pxd6 Dh10
110. Ng7 Mee9 111. Rj2 Ma9 112. Pd7 Db10 113. Rb3 Re11 114. Nf7 Df10 115.
Hf8 Re5 116. Rf3 Re11 117. Fb7 Db10 118. Rb3 Gi12 119. Pg6 Of10 120. Hg8
Rc11 121. Nh7 Rxc6 122. Nxi8,h7 Rc2+ 123. Rb5 +Rc3 124. Nf7 Oh10 125. Pa6
Ni7 126. Ne7 Dg10 127. Pg7 Oh8 128. Rg5 Df10 129. Rg3 +Rxg3 130. Sxg3 Nxh5
131. Mf4 Oh6 132. Hf8 Nxi4,i3 133. Rk2 Nxj4,i5 134. Rh2 Nxk3= 135. Rxh6
Nxl4,k5 136. Hb12+ Ni7 137. Rf6 Ng9 138. Re6 Nh8 139. Fb8 Mag9 140. Pa7
Pxa7 141. Rf6 Di10 142. Nf8 Ni7 143. Nf7 Dc10 144. Pg8 Me9 145. Re6 Dc3+
146. +Hb10 Nh8 147. Rf6 Ni8 148. Re6 Fi7 149. Rxe9+ Mxe9 150. Nxe9= Nh6
151. +Hxk10 +De5 152. Nd9= +Dxf4,e5 153. Fb9+ +Dh8 154. Nb7= Nxj5 155. Sg4
Nk3= 156. Nd6 Nxl2,l1 157. +Fxe12 Nk3= 158. +Fc10 Ni5= 159. +Hg6 +Dh6 160.
Nf7 +Dxg6 161. Nxg6,f7 Nk6 162. Nd9= Ni6 163. Nb11= Aa8 164. Nxa12,b11 Pa6
165. +Fxa8 Nxg8 166. Nd9= Ne6 167. Pd8 Fh6 168. +Fb7 Kh12 169. Nf9= Fi5
170. +Fxf11 Fi4+ 171. Pd9+ Nxg4= 172. Axa6 Ni3= 173. Gg1 +Fj5 174. Nh9=
Gi11 175. Aa11+ Ng4= 176. +Fe10 +Fxe10 177. +Pxe10 Ni4= 178. +Pf10 Ef12
179. Ng7= Nk6= 180. La9+ Eg12 181. +La5 Ki12 182. Ni9= Eg11 183. Nk11= Kh12
184. +Pf11 Ti12 185. +Pxg11
{resign} 1-0
The inital position there is
which I would consider comparable to the proposed variant. The games in Chu Shogi are on the average weaker than those described here, so I expect the proposed variant to require fewer moves. A problem specific to Chu Shogi is that in the initial setup the weak stepper pieces (sub-King) all start on the back rank, and the strong sliders directly behind the Pawns, so that you have to make the steppers 'percolate' through your lines to the front to provide your sliders some shelter and make it save for them to come out. That greatly lengthens the opening phase. I don't think the propsed variant has that problem.
But just 3 times longer than an orthodox Chess game isn't really a problem. I used to play blitz all afternoon when I was a student, and we would easily do 25 games. If this game lasts 5 times longer, you can still do 5 games on an afternoon at the same move rate.
As far as single moves changing the game: I have seen that frequently happen in Chu Shogi. A player makes a wrong move, it gets refuted, and he resigns because the game is lost. The difference between a Lion entering your camp, and being able to keep it out usually means the game. The tactics for this is usually quite local, so it is not really different from Chess in this respect. There is a focus where things happen (usually around the Lions), and there is a long line along which there is a stand-off and things remain static. By manoeuvring one or two sliders to the other side of the board in two or three moves you can tip the balance in a static area, and create a break-through there to invade his territory.
Why would I post a whole bunch of code over a picture. Are you for real? A picture can say more is less time. As well as prefered by most on the eyes, I would think. There is no way having to repicture something in your head is easier to understand than a diagram. I can see how you might like to see a game played out in notation. To see how things work. Yet still, I would be better off, just making a video of a game and post it. This is 2015, I not going to use the old ways of notation, when I have a cam. I'm not in the stone age. I can add the notations after. Yet it would hold less value if you can just watch a vid. Your right on one bad move is not as game breaking as in normal chess. I'm not upset about that.
As for "To me, it seems like, that if we follow "the common chess sense" (developing pieces, controlling important squares, connecting pawns, etc.), openings would take an insanely long time."
Yes longer than chess. By about 7-8 moves. Thats not very long. Hardly insanly long. Openings can be stopped or messed with, within that time. Plus I would prefer to play a game that one must think for themself. Instead of memerizing someone elses thoery and playing off of that.
Any game that focuses on protecting with placing pieces can achive developing pieces, controlling important squares, connecting pawns, ect. That really just takes paying attention to it when setting piece placement(plus you wanted to play 960, so it is really not too important to you. If a game has it done well, but my game you which didn't even look at you are assuming, is worse, lmao.......bias much, lol)
Other things you might not see. If you pay attention to the jacks they can gaurd every pawn in the lower diagonal row. By placing a jack diagonaly above it. Makes you not have to focus on which piece, worth something is guarding the back pawn/s. Jack and pawns can protect each other all on their own. You can in a few moves checkmate with a snake or wizard. (no I'm not writing out the notations. Far easier to look at the pic and see it in your head) Which doing so, can make your opponet not be able to open the way he wanted to.
There is a ton of stuff you will see as soon as you play any variant. You are not going to get to know some things without just sitting down and playing them or watching them being played.
The core basics will most likely be in most variants, unless they were changed to not have something on purpose. More or less any game set up decent with extra pieces is going to have more dynamic to it, not less. Not saying one is better then the other.
Ether way every post you make is off topic for the thread, or just on enough so you can talk about something in a different game, instead of saying anything constructive about Alpha Ormega Chess. If you can't stay on the topic of my game. Then post elsewhere. All you do is try to compair it to other factors of chess. Without even trying to look, to see if your answewr is right infront of you. If you must compair it. Then play it while doing it. Do not ask or assume things. When you would see how they work, by just opening your eyes and looking, or at least asking to get the info. Instead of just assuming what ever you please. Providing it can make a negative point. Which seems to be your only goal, negativity. The topic is Alpha Ormega Chess. Not how bias GnrfFrtz compairs AOC to other chess games, while not even looking at the AOC game to do a proper comprision. So he can write any negative non custructive post he can. Rather than try to lean about, what he cries about.
Dude, I'm just not convinced that your variation is a convenient one, is all.
I'm not against it, I just think it's too clumsy to be interesting.
I guess you will never know untill you play it.... That is on you, not me. I am sorry you feel that way. Tho the choice is yours to make. I was never trying to force the game on anyone. Just giving you the chance to see it and play it, if you wanted to do so. Mind you I do hope people want to play, so that I can play. It is not important to me if someone has no interest. As I said it is not custructive to improving my game or getting it played, unless giving better reasoning. Sort of like Muller did. I'm not against criticism, providing it is custructive.
Here is a quote "
Playing high-level chess is nowadays possible only with a thorough knowledge of the opening theory. Because of the rapid expansion of the modern opening theory its role becomes too large and sometimes even dominating according to more and more chess players, and grandmasters, including Garry Kasparov and Bobby Fischer - by many considered to be the best chess players in the world."
This objection is overcome by Variants