Chess vs Law

I am a game designer.

I have been working on a new chess game for years.

For me chess is not a single game, it is a very old group of games that has slowly evolved over the centuries.

I know that some people can be quite sensitive if anybody suggests or discusses possible changes.

It is not my intention to offend anybody, western chess (or international chess) is a version of chess in its own right, I am not suggesting any changes to western chess.

I am currently making the final version of the game with C/C++ code.

The original version of the game was made with C# code and the version after that was made with JavaScript code.

I am making the final version of the game with C/C++ so that I can run many engine games (machine vs. machine) to test the effect of the game rules before publication.

This leads on to the problem...

Intellectual property law is quite a pain, they could not make it more complicated if they tried.

Patent law protects an idea but only for 20 years and it is a complicated and expensive process.

Every attempt to make a new chess game during the past 500 years has failed and even if my game were ever successful it would take about 20 years before it went mainstream.

Things move very very slowly in the chess world

Copyright law does protect for a lot longer but it only protects the expression of the idea, not the actual idea itself.

The idea being that if somebody say writes a book about dragons then that specific book is protected but anybody else can also write a book about dragons just as long as they don't blatantly copy from another book.

There is hope however, my new chess rules are very specific, there are a limited number of ways to describe each new rule. I will however need lawyers to ensure that all bases are covered.

Such a pain, struggle for years to get the game right, struggle for years writing code, and now I have to deal with lawyers

I don't think that I will ever make money from the game, money is not the point, the point is to make a game that some people will enjoy playing over the course of several centuries.

I do not however think that it is fair for me to publish my game and certain people then exploit it for financial gain without even so much as saying thank you.

The other main consideration for me is the parallel evolution of computers and chess. It works both ways, chess has long been used to evolve computers and now computers are being used to evolve chess, this dual parallel process will continue in the future.

A little taste of the future...

I will now disclose a specific rule in my game.

Please note that there are quite a few changes in my game compared to chess.

Please note that when you see this rule that it will be out of context, in other words it will be viewed in isolation as I am not currently disclosing any of the other rules specific to my game.

When I play over chess games played between strong chess grandmasters I always view the game with the rule changes in mind.

Here we go...

There is no such thing as en passant in my game.

En passant is a complicated rule in chess for many reasons:

Non standard move (3 squares affected, source, target, ep square)

Affects 3 fold repetition rule

Affects FEN strings for storing chess positions

Affects code a lot, always have to maintain e.p state

My rule simply makes it a standard move, it blocks a pawn double jump if the square in front of the pawn is controlled by an opposing pawn.

I study many grandmaster games and was surprised to see the following:

Most pawn double steps in a game can not be captured e.p.

When ep is possible most grandmasters often just move the pawn one square forward to hold the tension in the position.

Of course there are situations when the pawn double jumps and can be captured ep but these are the exceptions and do not occur very often in practical games.

The point being why have a complicated rule for something that does not happen often.

The diagram below shows the rule in effect.

Black to move

Black can't play c5 or h5 as c6 and h6 are controlled by a white pawn

Black can however play c6 or h6 (a single step, not a double step) and then later play c5 or h5

Note that d5 is pinned, black can't play Kc6 (it is still check, the pawn still attacks c6 even when pinned) and for this reason playing c5 is still not allowed even when a blocking pawn is pinned.

Regards

Warlord

Final Wars

Copyright (c) 2017. Stephen P. Gallacher. All Rights Reserved.

You did not even mention the game rule.

No big surprise.

I was thinking about it. It just seems like a slight change to an admittedly sometimes annoying chess rule (en passant) that will not affect a lot of games. (The fact that your opponent can't bypass you with a pawn double when you are on the fifth rank but can do it when you are on the sixth.) I don't think most experienced players are bothered by the existing rule.

The only people the en passant rules really annoy now are the ones who experience it in a game for the first time and come here complaining about an illegal move.

I don't see your improvement creating exciting new possibilities for complications, puzzles, etc. - the things that attract people to the game.

Perhaps if you had an example where a new rule added something that would be interesting/ attractive to the game, we might get some idea of what you are so worried about.

May I ask the number of changes you propose to make in your new game? No specifics necessary. I don't see the benefit in this removal of en passent.

Every attempt to make a new chess game during the past 500 years has failed.

Regards

Warlord

Final Wars

Copyright (c) 2017. Stephen P. Gallacher. All Rights Reserved.

There are already several variants without the en passant rule. I doubt it is worth to change the rules for standard chess which has worked well for around 500 years now.  I think the rules has evolved to an optimal point now and a change will only be required they day that is it proved that white or black have an edge from the beginning of the game.

Um, I suspect these failures have less to do with intellectual property laws than with the fact that people don't want or need to play a variation of chess. I could be wrong but it sure looks that way. 

You say you want to invent a game that people will enjoy for centuries. Brother, I admire your ambition. But if it doesn't turn out that way, make sure you keep a grip.

I am a game designer.

Patent law protects an idea but only for 20 years and it is a complicated and expensive process.

Copyright law does protect for a lot longer but it only protects the expression of the idea, not the actual idea itself.

The logic being that if somebody say writes a book about dragons then that specific book is protected but anybody else can also write a book about dragons just as long as they don't blatantly copy from another book.

I don't think that I will ever make money from the game, money is not the point, the point is to make a game that some people will enjoy playing over the course of several centuries.

I do not however think that it is fair for me to publish my game and certain people then exploit it for financial gain without even so much as saying thank you.

Reads like someone who writes a book, but doesn't want people to read it... Yet the analogy is not entirely correct because it's simply not possible to "plagiarize" a game the same way you "plagiarize" literature.

Ideas cannot and shouldn't be copyrighted. Obviously, thought cannot be copyrighted. It's entirely natural and inevitable to reappropriate previous ideas, recycle and use them to create something else new and unique. In fact, that's exactly what you're doing with chess. It's odd that you aspire to create a long-lasting game, yet don't seem to accept the fact that ideas have a life of their own.

If you only care about glory, it can't be much beyond your grasp to launch your own online game server.

2 sections are in bold above

Section 1

Ever thought why Fischer Random is also called Chess960

Fischer invents a game and calls it Fischer Random, later he started calling it Fischer Random Chess

Then while he was still alive some guy starts saying that no game should be named after a grandmaster or person.

A group of "experts" are then formed and they come up with Chess960

Fischer dies in March 2008 and at the end of that year FIDE adds Fischer Random which they call Chess960 to the FIDE Laws Of Chess and this is published in January 2009.

1. What right did they have to change the name of the game.

2. Why did they also not do this with Capablanca Chess and many others.

3. Why did they wait until Fischer was dead.

Answer

It was an insurance policy in case Fischer Random ever became popular and FIDE did not have the balls to do anything while Fischer was still alive.

Section 2

Was going to, hence JavaScript, but as I read up on IP law the more I disliked what I was seeing. Sure make a website, then every other tom dick and harry jumps on the bandwagon.

No, I would rather take my game with me to the grave.

or

If all else fails, get the lawyers, seal the game rules, publish my game 100 years after my death.

You can "plagiarize" a game, they already did it with Bobby's game.

I know that you are discussing it from a "technical and legal perspective"

I however am discussing it from a practical perspective, in the case of Fischer they first changed the name of the game and then they stole it.

His family and relatives should be entitled to royalties for 70 years starting from 2008.

But very little is fair in this life. 

"They" didn't do anything. It was Fischer himself how invented the variant chess960 - and he din't claim any patent or copyright for it.

No

Fischer invented Fischer Random

Yes, no patent for Fischer Random but he did patent the Fischer Clock but the patent lapsed as he did not keep paying the fees for it (funny how everybody uses the Fischer Clock system now)

Copyright is automatic, it comes into effect as soon as you publish it, you don't even have to state something like this:

Copyright 1996 Robert J. Fischer

or

(c) 1996 Robert J. Fischer

Fischer announced Fischer Random at a press conference in Argentina in 1996

I am not sure if he ever officially published the rules before or after that so I guess that was his own fault.

Perhaps he just did not even care, he did after all turn his back on chess and the chess establishment many years before he announced Fischer Random.

There are no doubts as to who invented Fischer Random/Chess960. Fischer might as well be laughing in his grave.

The document makes no reference to his name, but neither do "they" claim any credit for the invention. You consider that stealing someone's intellectual property? You're way too greedy for your own good.