[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Uh-oh, expanded topic. In principle, the 4000 CVs here and 2000 more in book 'Encyclopedia CVs' can be actually reduced to about 20 clusters having each mostly over 100 CVs. In the process, authorship when unworthy could well be dropped for up to 1/2 of them as duplicative, copycat, or plagiaristic; and any substance present could be inserted into the older precedential art as added explanatory paragraph. Only less than 10% the CVs would still be left out as unclassifiable -- the way Gilman's Man & Beasts does now for piece-types themselves in having M&B21, ''Lords High Everything-Else'' a catch-all miscellaneous file. Hutnik in IAGO systematization also begins what are clusters of CVs as Gilman does for the pieces M&B-wise. Also, what are NextChess Track I and II but two super-clusters first-approximate? Where does a rank beginner, like f.i.d.e. master or grandmaster, go? Or someone not so totally ignorant? Typically, the specialist G.M. is ignorant of CVs, chess evolution, and history. Uninformed as a child but impressionable with native intelligence, good instinct and a will to learn possibly, the orthodox ranking chessist, we owe her/him something even better. The INDEX of CVPage he may try, but it does not reveal clusters. ''Large CVs'', ''Three Dimensional,'' ''Round,'' ''Historical'' in that Index are alone not cutting it to the heart of the matter and dilemma. Clusters would be cross-categorical in for instance being based more often on piece-types than size, shape, history. The outside chess master is bewildered, perhaps thinking Capablanca's is original from recent 1920s. The unfortunate individual knows no better. Is Capa's large or medium anyway? The ''See Also'' link in articles sometimes irrelevantly cites other different work not similar clusteral conformity. Suggesting Cluster number I as first obvious is Carrera's, invented 1617, now expanded to over 100 CVs ranging from 64 to 100 squares. They mostly have Centaur(BN) and Champion(RN), but minimal entry into the Carrera cluster allows two Cardinals(BN). You whoever may prefer calling them that, Cardinal for Centaur or Marshall for Champion. Clusterings as methodology, and the cluster #1 Carrera itself of 100-150 cvs, are robust in handling such nuances as alternate nomenclature, as well as sizing from 64 of Tutti-Frutti to 100 Capablanca's first try. By extension, mere addition of Amazon (RBN) maintains Carrra-cluster status. Now then we think of one resultant Cluster, CARRERA, not 125 separate CVs scattered about. If any variant Index would in some separate, expanded or overlapping list, besides essential Alphabetical etc., say CARRERAS -- plural without the apostrophe -- we understand, and professionals of expert CVers can pick, choose, mix, match within the group as such, for improved accountability and perfectibility. http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm.
Well one cluster that comes to mind is those applying Shogi rules to non-Shogi games. To the established Chessgi I have added not only Bishogi but also my Frontofhouse, Mitred, and Horn Rimmed variants.
Charles, your suggestion of considering games with shogi drops added as a cluster category got me thinking about mutators, and whether mutators indicate clusters or something else. My first thought was no, they don't form clusters. It's like dimensionality, it's not enough to determine a cluster of similar games. Trivially, not all 2D CVs are in the same cluster. I considered the 2D and 3D versions of my shatranj game, and your current 3D game, and figured it was apparent that 3D Great Shatranj is closer to Great Shatranj than it is to Redistribution 3d Chess. Consider shogi, chessgi, and bughouse... yeah, well, there is a bit of likeness in those games... Second thought was that, yes, that is a very strong similarity. Consider that the conceptual space of chess variants has more than 3 dimensions, and I don't even know what to call all the ones we are using right now. I considered that 'viewing angle' might be important to what made a cluster, and that you could see things in different ways. But then consider the line between GtS, 3DGtS, and Hyperchess. That reasoning would cluster Great Shatranj [2D] with Hyperchess [4D]... That line of thought took things to mutators, or conditions, or elements, something that could apply to many different individuals, groups, and clusters. Then I considered that what I was looking at was an evolutionary taxonomy of CVs, so things like dimensionality and the shogi drop rule represent environments that games must adapt to, to be able to exist in that specific area of chess. An environment can tentatively be described as a condition that can be applied to a whole range of games with success. Like Alicing, which is its own environment on the fringes of neighboring dimensions. The original Alice took chess to a limited 3D game, sort of straddling the border between the two dimensions. But you can alice any 2D game, or 3D, 1D, or 4. So third thought is no. You have described an environment, not a cluster. Do you agree this is a valid and useful distinction, or do you prefer something else?
4 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.