Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Initial impression I am getting from the designers of this is that they
don't want to have anything to do with the variant community.  I will
hopefully be able to confirm, but apparently they don't want their game
changed in any way.  They also don't want their game anywhere near the
variant community.  This being said, IAGO/IAGO World Tour may be forced to
come up with its own game with the Capablanca pieces, on an 8x8 board. The
version would use gating, and the objective is have things set up so that
the game can continue to evolve and adapt as needed.  The game would
belong to the chess world, to agree on how it is, and avoid falling into
the trap FIDE has, where lines of play get spelled out too much, and it
becomes draw-prone.

My hope is that this version gets an ok to be accepted by IAGO by the
designers, and they allow for variants off of it.  But, if they don't, we
will still use the drop.  I am working up the rules now for this, and once
dust settles, I can post it.

One way or the other, I want IAGO Chess to end up being a leading game for
the variant community to rally behind and make their own.

Actually, by using the Trojan Horse you could drop the Chancellor or ArchBishop or Amazon (etc)on a square other than the horse's initial starting point. You could also stipulate ... 'must be droped not passed the 4th rank,' or something like that if you wanted to avoid drops within the opponent's camp. The Trojan Horse method was introduce in my Catapults of Troy several years ago... I do not know if there are any earlier examples...

I am afraid that I have to agree with George Duke's well articulated POOR comment.  RN and BN too powerful on an 8x8 board with only 8 pawns to 10 pieces. Disagree with George only in that I believe Omega plays excellent compared to this shoddy little variant getting a bit too much publicity. Here s an improvement using the drop concept in this game: use Joyce's short range war machine/knight and elephant/knight compounds instead for a more balanced game.  
So Excellent for the whole drop concept (though I would prefer that the player pay the price of 1 move to bring in a piece), and Poor in piece selection. 
I understand the enthusiasm of previous commentators of bringing in new pieces via gating but why use a knight compound anyway: Just drop a real Elephant (modern type) and war machine/wazir and maybe 2 ninja pawns - thats a bit more subtlety than just going crazy with powerful knight compounds.

Great comment! Especially when talking about an 8x8 board. I agree wholeheartedly.

I want to add a comment here regarding why work with Capablanca pieces
first on an 8x8 board.  A major reason is that these are the top fantasy
chess pieces, and if we can get it to work right, MAYBE we stand a chance
of them being massed produced, so we can have them go forth.  Games like
Grand Chess or even Random Capablanca Chess have a hard time being
adapted, because they are not available.  And I know that people want to
use a larger board, but how available are those?  8x8 is available
everywhere, which is why it serves as a good place to start getting
something going.  I will close here by saying that, 'Gee creating chess
variant pieces is half the fun of doing chess variants'.  Well, I would
like to say, MAYBE FOR YOU.  People would want results NOW and have it
easy for them to get to things.  If you listen to the arguments for
Seirawan chess, you see why this approach is the best one, overpowered or
no.

My suggestion is to work on a way to do Capablanca chess on an 8x8 board
AND MAKE IT WORK.  Lead with this, and then we can go forth from there. 
I
personally believe that drops and gating are essential here.  We get this
to work, then we can talk about being able to drop in weaker pieces and
mixing it up.  As of now, let's get this going first.

I would suggest working together, unless you want to have the Capablanca
Archbishop and Chancellor (or whatever you want to call them) called
'Hawk' and 'Elephant' because they are the only version of pieces you
can by, followed up with the whammy that you can only play Seirawan
chess,
because they forbid you from changing the rules for your variants.  You
can't add new pieces, remove them or change how they move.  This will
cause Grand Chess to disappear, and do I need to add that Capablanca
Random Chess will be nowhere?

I ask everyone to look at the big picture here.  On this note, I am
looking fairly soon to get what I call IAGO Chess on here for review.  I
would like people to get involved with this.

'Seirawan Chess is important because Yasser Seirawan is the leading USA
Grandmaster at present time.'

Actually, no.  Gata Kamsky is currently the top American grandmaster.

George, what I am looking to have with IAGO Chess (I am looking to get on
here sometime this week), is a better framework for having a version of
chess that would continue to evolve, and draw new players in.  It is a
framework by which we won't run into the same laments over and over that
drive someone to create a stand-alone fixed rules variant, and believe it
is the answer.  This is the approach taken historically.  Instead it is a
form that allows people to contribute to a community effort, in a
framework that is meant to last.  It allows a large degree of freedom,
while having some standardization, and enabling a version of chess to
emerge from a community that will meet ongoing needs.

I personally believe Seirawan Chess could meet these criterions, but it
appears that they the Seirawan group, at this point and time, has no
interest in Seirawan Chess being the starting point for a continually
evolving form of chess.  In other words, it has the same flaws that almost
every other variant does.  It is a game that is done for personal
preferences of the creator, either to stroke their ego, or their own
personal tastes.  This is demonstrated in things like, 'leave my game
alone', and 'I would rather the name of the piece be something I like,
rather than what the community is trying to settle on'.  Purely selfish
in nature, and of small mind.  It gets away from how chess WAS and IS
supposed to be, a game that evolves by the efforts of a community of
players.

IAGO Chess, on the other hand, will be something whose purpose is to serve
the continuing needs of the community.  The first iteration of the game,
does what Seirawan Chess does, but is sufficiently nuanced to be a
different game.  In addition, it uses the Capablanca naming conventions. 
It is also mean to get the Capablanca pieces in circulation, so Grand
Chess and Capablanca Random Chess, and others can finally get greater
exposure.  I do expect the C-Class (Classic or standard) versions to 
likely be adjusted by  the community through practical experience.  Also,
to be kept fresh, the M-Class (Modern, evolving) version be one that
people will be able to change just it starts to get played out.

I have never been a fan of the drop, feeling it to be an alien addition to the mechanics of chess. Promotion on the other hand is not, being a well established chess mechanism.

I therefore suggest using promotion as a better means of introducing the RN and BN. Thus, for example the Rook could promote to RN on making a capture, and the Bishop likewise but to BN. The idea could be extended further allowing the Knight to promote to, say, a Nightrider.

Using promotion also goes someway towards relieving the piece-density and power increases associated with dropping; more so if the number of each of the new pieces is restricted to one.

It is my belief figuring out the best way to get the NB and NR pieces onto
game board, in the most logical way as a next step for chess, is
worthwhile pursing.  I suggest people give thought to it, and also think
on how it would work, as far as being adopted

I personally believe that piece promotion of every pieces really goes way
beyond the norm of chess however.  This is true for several reasons:
1. Tell me where you can acquire the pieces to do this?  Saying, 'Well we
can make our own' isn't something someone you introduce the game to, will
actually do.
2. If people thing adding two pieces between queen and rook level is too
powerful, how is having a rook fly down to the other side and promote, and
the other pieces going to not be overpowered?
3. Is the main concern 'congestion'?  If it is, then can't something be
done with a drop or gating that it is limited to how many pieces are on the
board?  If you want to end up being really restrictive, you have it that
you can't introduce a Capablanca piece until either the queen is captured
from the board, or it is promoted?


Anyhow, I suggest people check out this Zillions attempt to get Capblanca
pieces into an 8x8 board:
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/43367?do=show;id=1492

I also suggest the Seirawan version be looked at and adapted somehow to
the CV community, because you are running a distinct risk of Seirawan
catching on, and permanently removing the traditional names for the
pieces, plus preventing use of their pieces for any other variant except
the ones that they approve of, such as Bughouse.

I will say the point about gating is that it is a useful way to integrate
new pieces into older games.  If you don't happen to like it, or anything
drop related, you are forcing chess to follow the same way it has always
been, that being fixed positions, which means a game develops static lines
and formation of books openings, which kills creativity.  Chess has run
into the issues it has that everyone complains about, because the opening
is fixed.

'In other words, it [Seirawan Chess] has the same flaws that almost every other variant does. It is a game that is done for personal preferences of the creator, either to stroke their ego, or their own personal tastes.' -- end of that part of the quote --

But I, Simpatica, ask is it not expected that a game's creator(s) would create something that is to their own liking? Senor Seirawan is a Chess Master with many years of experience and with deep knowledge of chess and that his game idea should be welcomed. I believe Senor Hutnik's comment of 'ego stroking' is an insult to game inventors. I myself, have considered attempting to invent a game, but it seems difficult to me to come up with anything original... but let me add, it was (is) the desire to create a game... it is a creative aspect and I never considered ego as a factor here.

Senor Hutnik continued, 'This is demonstrated in things like, 'leave my game alone', --- end of this part--

'Leave my game alone' is a fine response from a creator. Games have rules. Imagine how chaotic a game would be if everyone tampered with the rules. Shatranj was stable, and can still be played today. When change came, Shatranj still remained intact, but eventially we saw a new game Chess, which in and of itself, is stable... as are its sister games of Japan and China. So I would say, yes, leave their games alone.

Senor Hutnik wrote on, '... and 'I [the inventor]would rather the name of the piece be something I like, rather than what the community is trying to settle on'. Purely selfish in nature, and of small mind.-- end of that part--

Here I do believe that traditional pre-established names should be used. I saw that Senor Seirawan uses an Elephant, for example... but it is not the Shatranj Elephant, it is not the Elephant of Modern Shatranj... and Senor Seirawan uses a Hawk... both these pieces (as he has them move) already exist... so,for the sake of consistency, why he not rename all his pieces? Why not call his King a Turtle? I am being sarcastic, of course. So, I do agree with Senor Hutnik about the name issue... but do not agree in his conclusion of 'selfish and small mind' ... why insult people?

Senor Hutnik continued: 'It gets away from how chess WAS and IS supposed to be, a game that evolves by the efforts of a community of players.'-- end of this part--

I disagree. I believe Chess, like Shatranj, was to be a stable game with fixed rules. When it comes to change, we have a variant. And that is what this great website is all about.

I would like to comment on some of the things that senorita simpatica said.
 I appreciate the feedback, so let me explain a bit what I mean:

1. I personally believe that Mr. Seirawan's game is welcomed, and I like
it.  But IAGO World Tour ran into problems with it.  Because of the
dislike of variants by one of the creators of the game, it means that they
don't want to associate with any other variant.  Secondarily, the
impression I received was that they don't want any variants made of their
game.  It is fixed and changes are not welcome.  In other words, if the
variant community really liked it, but wanted to expand on it, as a
variant, they are likely to be forbidden to do so.  Yes, designers have
every right to be as restrictive as they like with their design.  But if
they adopt a very restrictive attitude, where does that leave the variant
community?  Seirawan chess is a 'dead end' as far as the variant
community is concerned.  This is why the classic version of IAGO Chess
exists and will have its rules produced.  It is mean to belong to the
world, and for them to use it as they see fit.  

2. Let me comment on what I spoke on 'flaws'.  I don't mean a game is
fine in its own right.  What I mean is that a game, unless it is an
evolving design (chess was this until the say the 19th century), it will
eventually get 'solved' and people get bored of it.  Of course, variants
are a way to keep things fresh.  But the issues with variants is you
usually never get enough players behind a single version in order to have
it stick.  There are rare exceptions of course.  This becomes an issue
when you have an association that wants to have champions at games, and
promote and retain them.  It also needs a way to systematize variants on
the whole.  It also needs standards of some sort.  It would also need a
game that is willing to be changed, so that it never falls to the being
'solved' issue that abstracts run into.  The point here is to deal with
it now, so that the game continues to remain fresh.

3. The idea of 'tampering with the rules' is exactly what chess had done
for centuries. The game changed as the community had new needs.  I believe
there is room for a version of chess that does the same.  Of course, such
changes do need to be managed.  The issue of just spinning of variants
willy-nilly is the same thing you have in regards to variants.  That is
what a variant is, by the way.  They are great for providing a diversion,
but without some concern given to treating them more seriously, they are
always going to not be viewed seriously.  

4. I will argue that the changing of the names of the pieces was selfish,
in regards to it was a personal preference done in order to appeal to
personal tastes.  Not quite 'small minded', but selfish (Ok, I can
recant of saying 'small minded' in my prior quote).  He wanted to have a
distinct look to the pieces, and there apparently is little concern for the
variant community.  The argument about 'small minded' is that the person
would want to do it alone as a stand alone variant.

5. As far as Shatranj being stabled and fixed, ask yourself how many
people are still playing the regular rules of the game.  They do variants,
right?  The question here is whether or not you want people to just abandon
a game completely when they get bored, or there be at least one version of
chess that is open to change with time, to support the needs of a
community.  I will also add here that the likes of Chess, Shatranj, etc...
are NOT games that were created by one person.  They are a community
developed game that is the byproduct of evolutionary input.  What I am
saying about a chess I am looking at, is that I propose that a version be
developed that will continue to change and evolve over time, without the
intent on being close ended and permanently fixed.  The game can remain
relatively stable, and the changes be gradual.  

I will say that, so long as everyone is freelancing, and not working
together, then the way it is now isn't an issue.  But, if you want to
jointly promote variants, and a range of chess, consideration to how to do
this is important.  IAGO and the IAGO World Tour are looking to eventually
have chess variant champions, and a champion of the chess variant world. 
The question is, how does one do this if things are as they are now? 
Also, how does one end up doing a chess game that is in the Capablanca
school, when one variant that is new tells variants to buzz off, and the
other one got itself blacklisted from this site, due to threats of
lawsuits.  In all this, that is what IAGO Chess will be heading towards.

1. Tell me where you can acquire the pieces to do this? Saying, 'Well we can make our own' isn't something someone you introduce the game to, will actually do

The future of chess, I suspect, is on computers and the internet within the virtual cyber-realms created by software. Any initial lack of physical pieces should not hinder the popularity of a variant.

2. If people thing adding two pieces between queen and rook level is too powerful, how is having a rook fly down to the other side and promote, and the other pieces going to not be overpowered?

Surely a Rook promoted to RN is a less powerful outcome than a Rook and newly dropped RN ?

3. Is the main concern 'congestion'? ...

The main concern is surely playability? Unless a variant plays well it is unlikely to gain a following, however well it is promoted.

I will say the point about gating is that it is a useful way to integrate new pieces into older games. As is promotion.

If you don't happen to like it, or anything drop related, you are forcing chess to follow the same way it has always been, that being fixed positions

I am not forcing chess into anything, merely suggesting a way for using RN and BN within an 8x8 board. Besides, neither 'drop' nor 'promote' will change the fixed nature of the starting position. The only solution to that is to introduce non-determinism.

Senorita Simpatica, thank you for your comment.  Will see how it goes.  The
objective of IAGO chess isn't just a variant, but a framework by which
Chess can evolve over time, and have variants integrated.  It will need to
be tweaked of course.  The variant is the starting point, using the
framework, as a way to introduce the Capablanca pieces onto the boar.

Graeme Neatham, I have tried to fit your suggestion into the framework of
IAGO Chess.  Hopefully this will work, and you can see a multitude of
approaches that will help mitigate congestion and overpowered issues. 
Feel free to check it out and comment.  My only concern now regarding the
approach you have, is that it doesn't create a variable and deep opening
book.  This is one of the advantages Seirawan Chess has, and IAGO Chess
has.  The promotion is good as a way to break through at the end game, to
close things out, but the opening is still the same.

George Duke, thank you for the comments.  I just wanted to add a few things in response:
1. I think you are getting the idea of what is attempted here.  I believe starting with a few, and then growing to 25 works.  
2. The Seirawan drop (version of gating) is as you described.  It is one of the least disruptive versions and a natural evolution in chess.  In addition, it provides a way to get more piece into chess.  Other attempts, outside of a limited zone drop into start areas (at start or during the game), doesn't expand the opening book, causes the initial piece balance of pieces to change, or changes the initial pawn structure.  When you go to a larger board, you end up with the complaints about the knight losing power, pawns unprotected, or being forced to deal with the name that shall not be named, for legal reasons.  The larger boards also don't add a way to make chess expandable. either, although it extend the life of chess.  Drop and gating ends up making for a way to bring new pieces into just about into chess, in the least disruptive way.
3. I am of the belief that the consensus method, which is an evolutionary one, determined from a lot of play is the best at making changes.  It is how chess managed to grow and evolve over time, surviving the migration to mad queen.  Other methods force things, and aren't natural.
4. I am not going to say a static/fixed opening lacks creativity.  What I will say is that it creates a community that is used to a fixed configuration, and makes it hard to adapt to any needed changes, although changes can happen and does buy you a bunch of times (a few hundred years maybe).  The fixed position in chess results in any changes to chess now being marginal.  There is no smooth way to experiment and while keeping the foundation in order.  I believe gating and drops, even if restricted a lot of ways, offer a chance to do this.  Even if such is used before game begins, it helps.  Let's just say that Chess960 is in the drop family, for example.  It is just that where the pieces are dropped occur before the game begins, and not in the control of the players (done at random).
5. I know people might be upset about the whole 8x8 board as a start.  This is done for pragmatic reasons.  It doesn't mean you only have to use that board, but it makes it easier to get people to migrate over as a starting point.  What is looking to be done with IAGO Chess is to allow a variant class to have larger boards and so on.  As for there being 9x10 of Chinese Chess, and 9x9 of Shogi, I will say the IAGO Framework can work with these games to create an IAGO Chinese Chess and an IAGO Shogi.
6. IAGO stands for International Abstract Games Organization.  It is mean to give all abstract strategy games that don't have an association for them a home, and coordinate efforts between games that do.  This whole Capablanca on the 8x8 board came about due to issues it ran into looking at ways to do Capablanca chess, and finding out there was rejection on the Seirawan chess people to have anything to do with the IAGO World Tour, and the chess variants community.
7. Yes, I have mixed feelings about Seirawan chess.  I like the game alot.  I believe that it could serve as a foundation for a LOT of chess variants and be a basis for a migration path for chess.  However, the word from the Seirawan chess people was 'get lost and keep your chess variants away', so it was time to move on.  End result is you see an interest in Seirawan chess, but also the idea to be similar to Seirawan, but friendly to variants and also provide a migration path and frameworks for chess to evolve and bring all variants into IAGO. 

Let me sum up the one new rule brought into Chess via IAGO Chess: Thou shall have your piece mix match up with the rules, and not force people to flip a rook and then require it to be a queen only (gee, what happens if someone wants 3 knights on the board?).  There are other elements in the base rules, that are recommended, but mutable for variants.

If you want to see the rules to IAGO Chess, they are up on chess variants, and can be found here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste

Feedback is definitely welcome, as is playtesting so we can make tweaks as needed.  I suggest people start off with B-Class or C-Class rules first, before doing tweaks.  I am hoping to get a Zillion adaptation done soon for this.  Need to figure out how to do the gating for the game.