[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments by Charles DanielLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧[Subject Thread] [Add Response]Charles Daniel wrote on 2011-02-02 UTCYou can add Wreckage as my 2nd choice of game. Charles Daniel wrote on 2011-02-02 UTCIt would be nice if we could get along to just play a tournament .. I must say I am a bit disappointed with the way the site is heading now -- It is not a good sign that George Duke is banned -- I had quite a few issues with him - but I occasionally enjoy his posts and think he contributes positively to the site despite some of his eccentric behavior and 'trolling'. I feel the only posters that should be banned are those that post spam. Just my opinion. Charles Daniel wrote on 2011-01-31 UTCI take it this tournament is over before it even began? Charles Daniel wrote on 2011-01-26 UTCHello, I got an email from Carlos about this tournament. I would bring ONE of 1. King to Bunker Leap 2. Shock Troops 3. Wreckage. in that order of priority .. I am not sure what the consensus or rules agreed upon - I haven't had much time to be on chess variants lately. [Subject Thread] [Add Response]Charles Daniel wrote on 2010-05-06 UTC>>>If A. and T. were playing representative Schoolbook Chess for the world championship ..... >>. Why should they? They don't want to. Sure some chess players like variants but only a few -- I could say the same thing if only A and T were to play: Displacement Chess 2 or Fischer Random. In the end, a chess variant will have to stand on its own by attracting new players and not depend on those who play the orthodox variety to switch to this new game. Pillage. Features the powerful jumping Super Pawns as well as a twin set of Vaos and Cannons. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Daniel wrote on 2010-03-08 UTCFast pawns are exactly like regular pawns except for the double step, so the usual capturing restrictions NE NW only apply. Super Pawns are really pieces that can promote similar to a pawn. They have no capturing restrictions. I adjusted the description slightly - hope its clearer. Asylum Chess. 3 new unique pieces: fire-through rooks, double-capture knights, leaping bishops. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Daniel wrote on 2010-02-12 UTCquite true!!!! [Subject Thread] [Add Response]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-12-28 UTCBig Brother is indeed forcing everyone to play orthodox/Western chess against your will and preventing you from seeing the obvious that Chess is dead! If only they would do just that and leave us alone with regard to everything else! Big Board Chess. On a 10 by 10 board with individual opening setup. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-12-21 UTCGarth, The problem is that the setup is too tedious. It is just not that playable practically -- and is actually more unlike chess that a chess with exotic pieces. There is only one exotic piece in my proposed variant -- we can even do without it some prefer it that way. Necessitating Openings seems to be a good thing - why get rid of openings? My version provides both a setup and an opening phase which seems more desirable. There is enough variety in the setup to ensure that deep opening theory CANNOT be memorized (by humans). In fact, in addition to bishops on opposite colored squares I can even place restrictions on where the bishops can be placed and 2 other rooks can be placed. Perhaps like balancing them on each wing. This to reduce the number of possible positions but lead to more balanced setups. Computers can be programmed to do quite well in Big Board chess as it stands -- so defeating computers cannot be the goal in designing this or most chess variants. Usually, I would submit this idea as a brand new variant, but I don't have the desire to make new variants anymore. If anyone is interested in developing a game from my proposition feel free to do so. Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-12-21 UTCI think this is too tedious as well. Actually I would much rather modify this considerably. 1 king 1 queen 4 rooks 4 bishops 4 knights and 1 camel/knight compound. (or zebra-wazir). All Pawns set up on rows 3 and 8. Choice of King on e or f and Queen on e or f. 2 Rook must be on a and j Each player gets to set up rest of pieces on first 2 rows behind pawns only. Castling allowed. This version is immensely more playable -- [Subject Thread] [Add Response]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-12-11 UTCVery Weak players and those with zero understanding of chess may compare chess to tic tac toe. It should be noted that TicTacToe3x3 IS solved. IF eventually chess could be solved. The 'solution' would not be very helpful for two humans playing each other unaided. The entire chess is dead claim is started by players with no understanding of chess nor computers. What I dont understand is how can someone compare chess to tic-tac-toe and then proceed to look for a next chess which is based on chess anyway? Are we then looking for a 12x12 tic tac toe then? King to Bunker Leap. King can jump over own pieces to reach 1 of 2 bunker positions in Shuffle Chess or Pre-Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-12-10 UTCOne thing that interested readers might notice about this: If the pieces were set up as in std chess - the game would still be slightly different: - a-side castling would not be same. - King can bunker leap after the rooks are moved. So one can develop the rook and then still 'jump' the king to 'safety' The reason I create and play chess variants is because of my profound interest in chess-like games. I like variety and do not want to limit myself to one form of chess. That being said, it is quite obvious that the number playing chess variants has been quite small. I certainly don't see myself as being in one camp vs the other. I don't see the popular form of chess as the 'ENEMY'. And I certainly cannot predict 200 yrs in the future and claim chess will be dead though it could very well be ..who knows? I can guarantee though that in the near future 10-20 yrs or so orthodox chess will be as popular as it is now and will not decline. I think it is important to understand if the public loses interest in std chess, they surely will not be interested in any chess-like game on this site, so it isn't too wise in hoping for the demise of '64 sq chess' and corresponding emergence of 'next chess' - ain't gonna happen. On the other hand, getting new people interested in a variety of chess-like games - that could work ... [Subject Thread] [Add Response]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-12-10 UTCTo add a bit more humor to this odd little topic: Nakamura is currently playing this 'dead' chess very seriously despite having the choice to simply drop the game and pursue other interests. Fischer decalared the original form dead well after retirement and with a preference for his FRC form which has caught on esp for those not too interested in learning too much opening theory. Must be noted that FRC uses same pieces, same board, and random arrangement but usually gets to normal type positions during middle game. King to Bunker Leap too with even more start positions can do this though it is a bit less 'chess-like' than frc. However, even Fischer's form has not caught on as much to be considered 'next chess'.. Why? Because the average chess player cannot learn/understand chess to the extent of a GM. For the average chess player the game is NEVER played out and is ALWAYS creative. So while 8 GMs might struggle to find small advantage after playing 25-30 lines of theory - millions play completely new lines on a daily basis hacking out an average of 5-10 blitz games in relatively short time. They drive the game not any sanctioning body or any GM. One day perhaps a few decades from now but maybe more, humans would be able to interface their brains with computers with ease. So what is inevitable by 2200 NOT 2020 (thats just around the corner), is that Chess will be replaced by NO Chess. No Chess because humans having the capability of computers see no need to use their brain alone to solve any problems and any chess-like game will cease to be interesting. [Subject Thread] [Add Response]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-12-07 UTCAt this point I prefer just plain old chess (orthodox chess) or fischer random. I have not found any chess-like game on this site whose gameplay is comparable or exceeds them. Perhaps its just the huge volume of literature available or that is the most developed that makes it this way ...but there is no way I want to be stuck on a desert island with a chess game that is too far removed from orthodox chess .. On the other hand ...a 10x10 chess board with extra pieces can still be used to play vanilla chess so this 'desert' island theme cannot be taken literally. [Subject Thread] [Add Response]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-12-02 UTCPot Luck was a great tournament because players get to submit their own variants. I for one will not participate in a tournament where i cant submit my own variants. This 'next' chess, chess is dead thread is a bit tiresome esp in a forum where no on is too interested in ortho chess - I would rather see this being posted in one of many ortho chess forums for entertainment purposes! Nakamura said chess was dead for him at one point (because he intended a different career) and has since renewed his interest and passion in chess and quest to be WC. Why would he do so if its 'dead'? If a game was to replace chess it would do so naturally not because a few people make their choice for others. King to Bunker Leap. King can jump over own pieces to reach 1 of 2 bunker positions in Shuffle Chess or Pre-Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-11-05 UTCThanks for your comment.. I dont have any special notation -- it may not be necessary. I will add a zillions preset that plays both shuffle chess and prechess using these new rules soon. Schoolbook. 8x10 chess with the rook + knight and bishop + knight pieces added. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-10-01 UTCHave you not seen zillions make opening moves in regular chess? That is the type of 'chess' engines played unless they have some sophisticated opening book/algorithm built in. We are not talking simple e4 /e5 here we are talking about opening plans 20 moves deep as in a Ruy Lopez, a Sicilian -- what program has come up with something as detailed? I am not criticizing your engine - and I understand that NO ONE has developed any opening book for capablanca chess .. But you cannot expect your engine to make complex strategical decisions (esp in the opening) unless you program it that way .. In any case, you have misunderstood my point - Lets say you try the same thing with 8x8 chess and one is the std setup. Your machine might pick up tactical threats but it certainly will NOT play the openings very well as least in comparison to a GM (std chess setup of course) Do you realize that it took at least 100 yrs + to get opening theory where it is now? There is no program ever made that could ever come up with anything close to it. Even Rybka plays very questionable lines when opening book is completely removed IN any case your experiment is still useful in throwing out some setups - greater tactical threats will pressure a human player even more. But given time, humans can certainly come up with better ways to play the opening than your engine can by itself esp for the first 10-15 moves. This may or may not change your results but that was not my point of contention. Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-10-01 UTCCertainly, this shows that there may be greater tactical advantage for white in some of these setups. But one would have to be careful about this -- these engines are not very good in openings esp in making moves that are sensible strategically. Note that only recently are advanced chess engines making good opening moves without a book. Zillions for example is horrible in openings. I believe and I am sure many would confer that the Capablanca chess varieties are the closest to orthodox chess when considering larger board/new pieces type of games. I would like to see this experiment with the foll array: R N B Q M K A B N R I believe this was one patented but nevertheless would be fascinating to compare against. I do not like Queen not next to king nor queen in the wing for fixed setups. I believe that the Alberg variation is the best setup not just from the results but from the the nice initial placement of pieces. There was some fairly good work done...[following passage removed by editor Jeremy Good for chessvariants.org policy reasons - email me if details are wanted] However, I see no mention of the Alberg setup. Myself, I have played some Capablanca chess games and enjoyed them, but the novelty wears off after a while .. I was of course much more interested in 10x10 then and now I am reverting back to 8x8 ...but thats another story. Basic Chess. Variable baseline chess without drawing lots. Restrict Rooks to a and h files, and King to d or e files.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-10-01 UTCI am NOT the inventor of this game, I merely submitted this link. The inventors are on that website- I am not sure exactly who though. [Subject Thread] [Add Response]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-08-23 UTCThese 'kludge' rules are what makes chess what it is. Take out stalemate and the beautiful endgame studies of the past are gone. Stalemate is surely not a win since the objective was to checkmate not to capture the king. Change this and try this - it does not work. You are making a game with LESS not more. Castling is a king safety rule - that speeds up the game and makes it more dynamic. Take it away and try it - the game is slower and not as interesting. Shuffle chess without castling or Fischer random - it seems people have already decided. Eastern variants dont have the queen- Chinese chess the king is confined to the palace - the stalemate =win seems more logical in that context .. The double pawn move and en passant go hand in hand as well. I have actually taught kids to play chess - and they have no problem picking up the rules in one go. If anything, its the movement of the knight that confuses them. I think what is important to note is that even the smallest rule change has significant effect. Lets call it as it is - we are making different chess-like games. Maybe for the chess variant community this is still chess or next chess but for everyone else - it is a different game regardless of how chess-like it is. Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-08-21 UTCI have always advocated playing chess variants, and with me creating so much, of course I have some stake in this. But, this whole notion of past chess, chess been dead, next chess just seems utterly ridiculous. It seems there is a far greater chance of some world wide catastrophe happening in my lifetime, like some obscure gamma ray burst from an unknown star, or some rock from outer space string earth or nuclear war than chess dying. These are the numbers quoted around: >>Today more than 285 million people play chess with other chess players from all over the world, via the internet. It is estimated 605 million people worldwide know how to play chess. Of these 7.5 million are registered players, covering 160 countries worldwide. Making chess one of the most popular sports around the world.>> If you think these are exaggerated then explain why millions of people are registering for these chess sites? Chess is popular despite tv, video games and interactive (m)ass media all of which should have struck a nail in its heart. It seems it would be far more constructive to speak about the merits of any proposed new game or system rather than harp on this supposed demise of chess and say, 'There chess is dead, play our new untested game instead!' IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-08-19 UTCRich - I'm a bit confused here. You are referring to speed chess as a variant. The implications are astounding. Imagine if the 285 million players on the internet are told they are not playing chess but a variant! - since most do play some variety of speed chess I for one don't think so. Speed chess is simply an agreement to complete x amount of moves in y time. Even current classical chess is played at faster controls than before. Since chess was actually not meant to be played with clocks in the first place, are we all playing a variant? Clearly not. The issues of strong players drawing more often, stale opening etc only affect about 2-5 % of the chess population, and the chess community is driven by class A to class D amateurs. Draws are not even an issue at classical time control for many of them. The FIDE is not a 'community' and has absolutely no control on how online chess is played. It serves no purpose except to enforce the rules of FIDE sponsored chess events. Some variants like losing chess, Bug House catch on because they are different and not considered serious chess. IN a similar vein, one can market a game if different enough from chess such as maybe Arimma maybe even Rococo, but not as a next chess. The best one can do to promote chess variants is to advertise the events that take place. The categorization scheme works too. With the exception of Chess960, (and only because it was suggested by Bobby Fischer), it seems to me that the chess community is simply not interested in any other chess-like game. Perhaps its the nature of chess being too complex, perhaps it is their need to master the game or their inability to think outside of chess ... So I believe chess variants will have to compete on equal footing with any other unknown Board Game X to attract a niche audience. Trying to convince the chess purists that we have the 'next chess' is probably fruitless, but I will be very interested in reading the comments if anyone starts such a promotion targeting chess players on forums etc. Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-08-19 UTCInteresting, when I play live chess, I do play the very common default 2+12 time controls mostly - which is according to : FIDE handbook still blitz since its 2+60*12/60=14 minutes which is under 15 min. So yes, speed chess is the most common chess then. Section F (Miscellaneous) of this handbook actually contains rules for Chess960! Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-08-19 UTCI have never heard of speed chess - unless you mean blitz or fast chess and the chess community never settled on that or whatever it is you refer to as a 'future'. Fischer Random Chess. Play from a random setup. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-08-04 UTC'I love chess, and I didn't invent Fischerandom chess to destroy chess. I invented Fischerandom chess to keep chess going. Because I consider the old chess is dying, or really it's dead. A lot of people have come up with other rules of chess-type games, with 10x8 boards, new pieces, and all kinds of things. I'm really not interested in that. I want to keep the old chess flavour. I want to keep the old chess game. But just making a change so the starting positions are mixed, so it's not degenerated down to memorization and prearrangement like it is today.' - Bobby Fischer as quoted in http://www.chess960.net/quotes 25 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.