Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

When I got up this morning, I wanted to play solitaire (specifically a game called Gaps) on my Kindle Fire, and this got me thinking about how computers have already taken over the playing of solitaire. I used to play solitaire card games with actual cards, but this requires making space available for the cards and manually placing them. It's so much easier to let my tablet or computer quickly arrange the cards, and it's more convenient to deal with cards on a computer screen than laid out on some surface. I'm also under the impression that many other people have taken to playing solitaire on computers instead of with actual cards.

A couple factors could explain why computerized solitaire games seem to have overtaken the physical game in popularity, whereas computerized Chess still lags in popularity behind Chess on a physical board. One is that cards are essentially two-dimensional in function, whereas Chess pieces tend to be be three-dimensional. So, less is lost of the physical experience of playing solitaire with cards when you play it on a computer screen instead of with actual cards. The other is that solitaire is something you play by yourself, but Chess is something you play with another person. When two people are playing a board game together, it is more convenient to use physical equipment. When playing Chess or a Chess variant, each player can see the board from his own perspective even while his opponent is thinking about his next move. Using a physical set also allows for more interaction between the players, and part of the reason for playing Chess or Chess variants may be social in nature.

I have previously read about coffee tables having computer screens, and I think that would be a great way for people to play Chess variants together. Hologram technology like seen in Star Wars would also help a lot. This would provide some of the same advantages a physical board still has over playing on a computer screen. If people could start playing 3D versions of the old MS-DOS computer game Battle Chess, in which pieces engage in holographic combat scenes, that could go a long way toward making computerized Chess a common way for two people to play the game together. That could then set the stage for people more frequently playing Chess variants together. After all, the technology for playing holographic Chess could also be used to play other Chess variants holographically. Not being limited to one set, people may be more interested in exploring Chess variants that use different equipment.

Regarding the Kindle DX, I bought mine on ebay a few months ago, because I really wanted it. I previously bought a regular Kindle DX, but a button broke, and fixing it with crazy glue made it worse. So I set my sights on a Kindle DX Graphite and eventually won an auction after losing several others. Actually, I returned one because it wouldn't charge, and then I bought another. The battery will drain quickly if I turn on wireless, but it works fine as long as I download books to my computer and copy them to the DX via USB. Since it's not my main Kindle, this is not much of an issue. When I had the one that wouldn't charge, I did look into videos on how to replace the battery, and I at least know they are out there. So, you could look into that and maybe refurbish your DX with a new battery.

@ Kevin,

There will always be misinformed people, to some degree at least, in the end some with malitioous intent. It is everybody's job to stay informed and act with good reason. But this is scratching the surface. I'm not sure how euthanasia could come into play. About eugenics. I'm not sure, as I don't see anyway to define a "perfect" fitness function for the proposed next genome. The world is everchanging, and better always mean something else. Probably quite a few think along these lines but I'm pretty confident about my statement.  Abouy scientist king or maybe some form of oligarhy, it is probably the next step, as society badly needs more reason. But once again I believe that everything will eventually fail :)!

Regarding replacing or complimenting physical boards, it is within the realm of possibility that one day coffeetables or even regular tables for everyday use will have imbeded in them computer screens. Perhaps better yet would be physical board/screen size 3D holograms that are changeable by machine or manual control, a la Star Wars, which would allow them to be seen from a distance in the same room, thus making even decorative hologram chess variant boards a possibility in the home, besides perhaps in tournament halls even. All assuming the price and technical aspects can one day be managed. Then the matter of chess sets etc. may become like the debate about using Kindle vs. physical books.

@Aurelian

In this particular instance (my post on the 18th April) I had less in mind theparticular religious story and more in mind something even many atheists can possibly agree with: it's quite likely that among our world/industry/military leaders there will always be a sizeable number of snakes looking to take advantage in some way of any transition from humanhood to beyond. There are perils and ramifications aside from all that that may not be known until its too late, as well. Euthanasia and eugenics may come into play, as also the question of who is deserving of what fate according to the 'authorities' of the day (plus are we trying to imagine we'll establish a utopia of e.g. scientist or philosopher kings someday first?). In any case the question of transhumanism is quite an emotionally charged and even ugly debate at times. Also, a discussion of philosophy and/or religion along the way is something a lot of rational people would regard as perhaps unavoidable as an implication, as well. Much can be found with an internet search alone. Much too much to even begin to bring up all the issues on a chess [variants] board in anything but a superficial and passing way.

For books that benefit from more space for pictures or diagrams, I use a Kindle DX.

I loved my Kindle DX, but after about six years of heavy use it finally stopped working.  Sadly, Amazon no longer makes it, no doubt because it was not popular.  I ride the Metro to work on a daily basis, and, while I see lots of people reading Kindles, I have never once seen another DX.  Your the only other person I've ever even heard of having one.  There are a few other large format eReaders, but they are very expensive and not all that good (based on reviews.)

While some books benefit from print, my own preference is to use a Kindle. While able-bodied people can hold a book open with one hand, I normally need two hands to hold a book open, and I prefer the convenience and ergonomics of holding a Kindle with one hand. I also like not having to reorient my head from page to page and being able to read with a font and font-size I'm comfortable with. For books that benefit from more space for pictures or diagrams, I use a Kindle DX. Before ereaders came along, I was always dissatisfied with physical books, and I read comic books a lot because they stayed open more easily. Now I read books even more than I used to. I'm currently reading 1984, a book I originally tried to read in 1984, but the paperback copy I had used a small typeface, and I couldn't get into it then. With the Kindle, it has been easy to read. One book that has especially been made better with the Kindle is Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games by László Polgár.  The physical book is huge and bulky. I have this on my Kindle DX now, and it allows me to look at one problem at a time in a much larger size than the physical book does. When I have figured out a problem, I can quickly check my answer by following a hyperlink and then go back with the press of a button.

Boards using computer graphics have some of the same advantages. You can resize them or customize the board and piece images to your preferences without affecting what your opponent sees. But I do understand that people who have the option may still prefer to use physical boards. If I were playing a CV against someone in person, I expect I would prefer a physical set over computer graphics. But video games are so common these days, I could imagine people in the same room eventually playing CVs together on tablets or phones. Furthermore, it was thanks to having Chess variants available through computers that I actually made a hobby of playing them. So, I expect it will be more through computers than through physical sets that Chess variants will grow in popularity.

I always saw enjoyment as a practicall matter :)! But now we are getting into philosophy :)!

Yes, but people didn't actually enjoy using the yellow pages :)

@Greg,

That is currently but new tech always leads to new habits. Playing on a computer is just cheaper, so that is why physical boards playability is never a design goal for me (although I did though a bit on how Bruhaha squares should work- for the fun)

Normally playing on physical boards should have practical advantages otherwise it will become marginal.

I mean the way yellow pages don't actually exist anymore. I could be wrong and I'm sure it will never be as drastic.

I see no point in holding to the concept of physical boards. They can be used by collector or in some other vintage manner, but nothing more, as far as I can see.

I can only say that the vast majority of chess players would disagree with you.  We like moving physical pieces with our hands.  We like sitting face-to-face with our opponent.

I mostly read books on a Kindle because it is small and light.  I can hold it with one hand when riding the metro and I have to stand.  I can have a ton of books with me very conveniently.  But I still prefer the act of reading an actual book.  Then again, I'm admittendly old-fashioned.

Also I know what I did wrong now, I ha pressed person tag instead of submit twice. No worry guys, just me being silly :)!

@Kevin

So, I am answering to your comment on the 18th :)! The one that starts with : " My rather restrictive set of criteria".

I don't thing that a small randomization to the initial state is a bad thing. 960 has it and it is the most played GM variant although admittedly because it is as close as you could get to orthodox. I would not even call it a chess variant even. It gives the chance for more openings. If the game ever becomes studied enough I'd recommend that in tournament play that initial states that produce the most opening should become more used by changing the probability distribution of that state.

I see no point in holding to the concept of physical boards. They can be used by collector or in some other vintage manner, but nothing more, as far as I can see.

100% machine is not cyborgs as far as I can see but robots, in the industrial robots sens. Cyborgs are basically augmented humans. They are meant to preserve the human and improve on the sapiens.

Omniscience cannot be claimed by any sane person for them or anything else. That is quite easy to argue on the lines of "How do you know that you know everything?". Immortality is rather impossible the same way. How can you guard yourself with certainty from accidents. That second thing is probably more difficult and maybe not entirely provable as knowing future techs is impossible. But you can make a very good argument along these lines too. Also androids are in no way mythical. They are as airplanes to queen Vitoria's contemporaries. Icarus would be something mythical.

If you type up a long message, you should always save the text to the clipboard before moving off the screen so you don't lose it if something goes wrong.  And that applies to practically all websites, not just ours.  That has saved me from losing work on many occasions.

It seems I blew it up again. So a third time. I stiil have not uncovered what I've done wrong but I had done it twice :(!

Test

Fergus has informed me that there was no comment between Kevin's and the one I asked if my comment was deleted, from the comment indexing, so my bad, I'm sorry :(! A bit later I'll come back to you Kevin :)!

@Kevin It seems it was not deleted but somehow, I was not carefull and I had not posted it :)! I'll come back soon :)!

@ Jarid:

The alfil+ferz compound piece (Ferfil or Modern Elephant) has a feature that is at least somewhat interesting, perhaps, namely that part of it's move capability is to leap, which can show to advantage in many positions before a wide open endgame might arise, where it often could indeed effectively be an inferior bishop (though even from diagonally adjacent to its king, it can leap over said king, which might make a difference occasionally).

Earlier in this thread, I think, I posted that I thought a Next Chess (if a feasible one is even possible that meets nearly all arguably desirable criteria that chess does) would take at least 100 years before replacing chess in popularity, due to need at that time, and so inventing or agreeing on the best Next Chess candidate(s) would be a generational project that we wouldn't see come to fruition in our lifetimes. To be fair to the idea of faster change though, top level chess led the way in switching tournament chess generally to play using digital clocks (also with faster time controls becoming the standard), and the related ending of adjourning games before playing them to completion. The latter may have also had to do with strong computer engines (or endgame tablebases), but I'm not sure. Those engines are also helping to exhaust chess opening theory at an accelerating rate (however note exhausted 8x8 Checkers still lives on competitively, perhaps in rather pale fashion though). A problem for a Next Chess is, will its correctly interesting opening possibilities be anywhere near as rich as for chess itself, even if there are more pieces and squares in such a game (such as even for my massive 10x10, 60 piece units Sac Chess game, with its compound pieces theme, which may not be ideal for young children, at least).

@ Aurelian:

I did not read your post if it ended up being lost or deleted, but my guess would be that CVP editorial policy might go against any posts that have too little percentage of content related to the subject of a thread, namely whatever it is supposed to have to do with chess variants (such as their future). Also, any extra level of passion or controversy a given poster might happen to convey might prove unwelcome to an editor, though again I did not see your missing post.

Also I like Shako, too :)!

@Jarid,

A significant change has already taken place in the 20 years or so. Computers are taking over. I think it is natural that as a result of this enviroment change others will follow. I make my variants mostly for fun but in the context of this discussion. Others, too.

And the information goes both ways. An accidental change today is virtually impossible, but good changes catch on quite quickly :)!

I think minor variants with different pieces would have a better shot at becoming popular. Games like Shako or even Hannibal chess seem like good candidates. Weird shapes like hexagons or too many exotic pieces aren't likely to catch on fast; while those two games just have cannons, alfils, etc. Pieces that are simple enough to learn, but provide a significant change that might interest people. And given how small the changes have been historically it seems to fit. Look at chaturanga vs regular chess, or shatranj. Even Xiangqi and Shogi aren't massively big in terms of a change. Historically chess and games in general seem to change very slowly with a few slight modifications that people find useful. Like the alfils turning into bishops rather than being gimped and only touching 8 squares on a board. 

And change is likely to be slower because there is an "orthodox" chess. It isn't like the old days where someone forgetting a rule or house ruling the game (in this case chess) slowly over time will branch off into its own thing and become a different game. People can just look it up now and information travels faster. And there aren't any real issues in chess that bug enough people for a change to catch on. The average person who plays chess isn't a grandmaster who knows the most precise moves or memorized openings a ton and faces any real annoyance to their gameplay. Whereas the weakness of the alfil would spur people on to change it. But what piece is really weak in chess? Aside from high level play, there is no real gameplay weakness to speed up the desire for change among your average Joe sitting down to play a game. Yeah, at high level play this results in a lot of draws, and it may bore people who watch it, but most people aren't sitting around firing up their engines and seeing those underlying flaws. They're just playing the game or watching it and it's still fresh to them. 

Standard chess is just too well balanced for there to be some outcry against a weak or gimped piece like with shatranj and such and there aren't enough people who know chess like an engine and find the game dull. Change rarely happens for the sake of it. And I'm just not seeing what would make chess change in any significant way when chess has barely changed from Shatranj, and that was barely, if at all, changed from Chaturanga. 

Has someone deleted a comment of mine here?

 My rather restrictive set of criteria (as developed so far!) for a Next Chess took heavily into account what I thought is the importance of simplicity of piece movement rules as a whole for the sake of a game's greater popularity, that is to attract even very young child players. Sad to say, but if someone gives up on an activity as a child, they might not come back to it with fresh eyes for many years, if ever.

Even setting that aside, the Apothecary games, while quite rich and complex, even rule-wise arguably, have the added possible handicap, in my view, of having off-board extra pieces and squares (not to mention the lack of a fixed setup position), which could well be a problem for displaying set up decorative sets, e.g. in the home, or for even use in clubs or tournament halls; the board effectively becomes 12 rows long with the extra cells, if nothing else, as far as making the size of physical pieces needing to be smaller than for a 10x10 board (remember, a lot of tables are much longer than they are wide). On a computer this is no problem though, at least if cash prize events can one day commonly be held online, which includes maximum precautions vs. possible cheating, easier face-to-face at a physical playing site.

I'm assuming somehow hopefully we're never going to be cyborgs en mass, and so will generally continue to want to meet at clubs or tournament halls, but I suppose if humans becoming cyborgs (perhaps us being 100% machine is the ultimate goal here?!) somehow is not impossible, nor a hellish folly, then I assume we can all just send each other internet or some other sort of signals rather than having to ever physically meet, should we still care to play chess variants or even enjoy sharing a meal. Beware of what men (including our dear leaders) may wish for though: immortality and omniscience were promised, but not delivered, in the mythical(?) Garden of Eden by one infamous serpent. Put another way, one retired Ottawa chess organizer once wrote half-jokingly that those of us who aren't paranoid have been weeded out by natural selection.

Well Kevin,

I hope I won't upset you in any way but I find my 2 apothecary games "superior" to yours which in my view are a bit blend. A few more pieces don't mean much progress and the joker (fool,imitator etc.) is a quite interesting piece with a rich tactical contribution and which is quite difficult to evaluate in advance. My wider combination of pieces make these game more interesting :)! Also I think, although many seem to not agree my promotion rules brings more choices to the game :)! After all it is a matter of taste, after some point but not much. I like shako, too. Also Eurasian, Grand and Omega. They are good, 10x10 at least, progressions (technically omega is 10x10+4 but you get the point). They are probably better and more general than mine although I don't like the promotion rule in Grand and Eurasian is a bit too tactical as for many hoppers. As I had said before all these 4 : Shako,Grand, Eurasian, Omega could become similarly popular, as I mentioned earlier, it is like biological evolution. On the other hand probably human non-android like transhumans chess is passing away, at least as far as I can see. So maybe this whole thing is moot :)!

I've added a couple of edits to my old second last post in this old thread, increasing or clarifying the number of there-posted stringent criteria for a 'Next Chess' candidate that I personally have, as well showing my only (5) picks for candidates as of today, which are largely games of my own, thanks only to having my said stringent criteria in mind when designing them. To recap these 5 picks for this present fresh post, they are: 10x10 Shako (the only game of the 5 not my own), 10x10 Sac Chess, 10x8 Hannibal Chess, 10x8 Frog Chess and 12x10 Wide Nightrider Chess. Having given all these, I'm personally not yet convinced any of these 5 are nearly as good, or completely satisfying, as standard chess, if only due to one pleasing feature or another that the 5 seem to lack compared to that game (albeit while having their own peculiar charm[s] that compensate at least to some extent). A lot more testing of the given 5 may be required to judge their worthiness, in terms of playability, as well.