Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I think Pre-Chess (a variant where each player places a piece anywhere on the first rank until the first rank is full before moving pieces noramlly) is a very interesting variant. This variant is mentioned, as I recall, in New Rules for Classic Games, but only exists as a Java applet on this server with no discussion of the variant. As I recall (I got rid of this book years ago when cleaning out storage), Pre-Chess was mentioned in a 1970s issue of Chess Life magazine.

The Carrera chess variants is a crowded field, but with good reason: This setup makes for a very nice game. I think I mentioned this before, but the big reason there are so many Carrera variants is because there were some serious problems with one of the more famous Carrera opening setups. I said this before, but it's interesting that what you settled on as being the best 10x8 setup is very close to my own Schoolbook setup (which I came up with in the summer of 2004). Indeed, your placment of the rooks may make for a better game.

- Sam

'In November 1978, as editor of 'Chess Life,' I published a controversial article by GM Pal Benko, entitled 'Pre-Chess: Time for a Change,' and an accompanying article by GM Arthur Bisguier.' [Burt Hochberg, in his two-part internet article THE CHESS OF THE FUTURE] Rules for pre-chess can be found in Sam Trenholme's List of Chess Variants.

I always assumed that some sort of 'Pre-CapaChess' was already being played by chess variant fans, and that I was simply stating the obvious in my Carrera comments. I dislike 'Fischer Random Castling' and chose to go with free castling. Note that (extreme examples of) free castling can look like 'King takes friendly Rook, followed by a Rook drop on the square vacated by the King'. Sad to say, any preset that enforces the normal rules of chess will forbid such an action.

- Sam

Since there is also a table of piece values on this page, I should point out that playtesting with almost any program shows that the Archbishop values given here are way too low: A+P typically beat Q, and A+A+P beats C+C, in any game phase. See the discussion on the page of th Aberg variant.

Derek Nalls in the mean time revised his piece values accordingly.

Thank you, George, for explanting. In SMIRF I already have implemented traditional, symmetric and modern castling, which is defined by the King's destination squares and thus also will work for randomized setups.

But having randomized pieces, there might be Kings neighbored or near to Rooks, thus the given definiton of free castling will not be usable for such varying starting arrays, because it would ban any castling towards such blocked sides. That is a weakness, as I think. A more flexible definition therefore would be welcomed and moreover would less interfere with any claimed patents.  

How about following (which probably will be in conflict only marginally with some of those games using free castling): you can choose any square on the base row to be the King's castling target field except of the center and the border squares. The left squares are related to the left Rook, the right squares are related to the right Rook. A castling Rook will always be placed to the inner side of the castled King. Only still unmoved pieces will be allowed to castle. Castling is invalid under check or if the King will have to pass or reach a threatened square. All squares between King and its target (included) and between Rook and its target (included) have to be free from third pieces (therefore at least all squares between King and Rook have to be free).

A clear notation would be O-c-O, with a central letter related to the King's target square column.

The logic of FRC castling is that the outcome of the castling in a shuffled variant will be the 'normal' location of K and R, i.e. the one they get by performing normal castling from an unshuffled variant. This could similarly be applied to shuffle variants of games with free castling. Just pick any of the final positions that the castling type with centralized King and corner Rooks could give.

• White's king moves to b1; White's queenside rook moves to c1. Black's king moves to b8; Black's queenside rook moves to c8.
• White's king moves to c1; White's queenside rook moves to d1. Black's king moves to c8; Black's queenside rook moves to d8.
• White's king moves to d1; White's queenside rook moves to e1. Black's king moves to d8; Black's queenside rook moves to e8.
• White's king moves to h1; White's kingside rook moves to g1. Black's king moves to h8; Black's kingside rook moves to g8.
• White's king moves to I1; White's kingside rook moves to h1. Black's king moves to I8; Black's kingside rook moves to h8.

While putting links here, here are some other 8x10 starting arrays: Aberg's variation and Paulovich's variation, and, of course, this exhaustive list.

- Sam

Since there is also a table of piece values on this page, I should point out that playtesting with almost any program shows that the Archbishop values given here are way too low: A+P typically beat Q, and A+A+P beats C+C, in any game phase. See the discussion on the page of th Aberg variant.

My reply: I looked at the discussion and just saw a flame war. Do you have a table of your proposed values for pieces in 8x10 chess? And, yes, implementing Schoolbook's castling in Joker80 would be nice, in addition to supporting more of the proposed 8x10 opening setups.

- Sam