Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Each side can choose between 8 different positions: 1 (the standard position) + 4 (the K can swap with both N, one B, and the Q) + 3 (the Q can swap with two N and one B). (Obviously, the Q-K swap is redundant in the latter case). Since both sides swap independently I get 8 x 8 = 64 positions. Am I correct? Chessplayers very much like to be in control, that's why I allow them to choose which swap to make. They can study their own favourite swap. Moreover, in a tournament game, it will be practically impossible to predict the initial position, anyway. So it retains much of the effect of a randomized swap. However, I have also implemented what I term 'Relocation Random Chess' which randomizes these 64 positions. In this way we get 64 positions, mostly unbalanced, which deviate marginally from the standard position and would comply with the general chessplayer's perception of strategical soundness. I think I will adopt the alternative name Chess64, for this. http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/relocationchess.htm
My [2005-01-14] comment to the Carreras Chess page begins: 'Carrera Random Chess has become Pairwise Drop Chess. Two games were played on the CV Game Courier in December 2004. You start a game by choosing one of five pairs: R+R, N+N, B+B, K+Q, Archbishop+Chancellor and placing the two pieces on your first rank. Bishops must be placed on opposite color squares. Each player copies the opponent's drops, placing pieces on the same files, and then chooses another pair. This process uses up the first three moves of the game.'
I included 'free castling' in the rules of this game. These rules give each player some degree of choice as to the initial setup, but still allow thousands of different games.
Just to act as devil's advocae: The main drive for developing shuffle games is to make development of opening theory much harder, by presenting the players with an unpredictable array. The price of someimes getting an unplayable, and always a les aestethically pleasing setup is taken for granted. But having them decide about which swaps to make kind of subverts this purpose. If I uderstand your prescription correctly, one can make 5 x 5 = 25 shuffles this way. (Each side can swap the center piece they have to swap for 5 others: everything except Rooks and the Bishop of the other color. Note that ICC supports several shuffle variants: except FRC there is wildcastle (K&R stay in place), nocastle (shuffle all, but symmetric setup), random compositions (but only one King each, and symmetric), or independent random shuffles of everything for white and black. Unlike FRC they are basically all just normal Chess with a different initial position, and there are more 'wild' variants like that, which do not satisfy the criteria one uually puts on opening arrays. (e.g. all Panws starting at 4th/5th rank, or white starting at 7th/8th rank and black at 1st/2nd). In winBoard I added an option to play every supported variant as a shuffle game; how it exactly shuffles depends on the existence and type of castling rights. I did not implement asymmetric shuffles yet, though; perhaps I shuld offer that too.
I have made an interesting discovery. One can, by a procedure of relocation, reconfigure the initial array according to the players' choice, thus, arguably, making the Fischer randomization procedure redundant. This also answers to the chessplayer's predilection for remaining in control. Rules: The players can, before play begins, swap places of the king/queen and another piece except the rooks. Thus, if the king is swapped (relocated), the other piece (the relocatee) ends up on the king's square. If the queen is swapped, the relocatee ends up on the queen's square. One restriction is that the bishops mustn't end up on the same square colour. Note that black begins by making the initial swap. Alternatively he can choose to leave the position as it is. The white player then has the option to relocate his king or queen, whereupon he starts the game by making the first move. Note that the king retains his castling rights even if it has been relocated. The castling rules derive from Fischer Random Chess. With these relocation rules the rooks remain in their natural positions, and the bishops are always positioned so that there is still a choice to develop them on either of the queen's or the king's wing. This maintains the strategical ambiguity of the initial position, while sound positions are produced where no definitive advantage can be obtained. Black relocates first. Thusly white gets a chance to make a strategical decision and create an initiative, as in the standard position. Although the initial positions are, as such, a subgroup of Fischer Random, the two parties may choose different setups. Read more here, plus Zillions program: http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/relocationchess.htm /Mats
6 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.