Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Take a look at this: http://www.mobygames.com/game/amiga/distant-armies/screenshots Nice. And old.... (1988) :)
Can you explain why a single promoted pawn forcing stalemate would be a reason for dropping the Bare King Loss rule? I don't see the connection. An approach I am seeing is you have something like 3 types of win conditions with 3 different scores: 1. Checkmate, resignation = 2 points. 2. Shatranj type minor wins = 1 point. This includes stalemate or baring the king. 3. Positions that are normally considered draws in FIDE or Shatranj = 1/2 point. This would include things like 3 move repetition check, barring a king and then next move having your king barred, and so on. Of course, one player would only get he half point. 4. A genuine draw, based on obscure positions. My proposal to deal with this is to allow one player to pick a color and their opponent only get 1/2 point for the draw, or they can take the 1/2 point for the rare draw and their opponent picks the color. This approach, while a tad more complicated, handles more situation and actually allows room for handicapping. If people want me to post it in greater detail, I can put it up here.
I would like to see some comments relating to certain legal positions in the game. Example: my previous comment. Another example follows my [Rule 5] Bare King Loss in Shatranj Kamil (64).
My choice of rules is specific to the mix of pieces in each chess variant. Since a King and a single promoted Pawn can force stalemate in Shatranj Kamil X, I have dropped the Bare King Loss Rule and kept [Rule 4] 'Stalemating your opponent wins the game, except when you have only a lone King. Then the result is a draw.'
My [2005-03-08] comment on this page 'BLOCKADE STALEMATE IN 20 MOVES' is unlikely to happen in a real game, but it demonstrates the need for precise and complete rules. Even in those chess variants which allow Kings to move into check and be captured, it is possible for a player to reach a position with no legal moves.
Repeating my [2007-04-16] comment to Wildebeest Chess.
Endgame Position White: King c1, Knight e1 and Black: King a1, Pawn a2, Rook e2. +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 4 | |///| |///| |///| |///| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 3 |///| |///| |///| |///| | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 2 | p |///| |///| r |///| |///| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 1 |/k/| |/K/| |/N/| |///| | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ a b c d e f g h
1.Nc2 check Rxc2 check and Black has won in Shatranj by the Bare King rule, which has only one stated exception. The Zillions Rule File for Shatranj (correctly) scores the game as a win for Black.
2.Kxc2 stalemate draws the game in my two recent 'Shatranj Kamil' variants. R. Wayne Schmittberg has just confirmed that White wins in Wildebeest Chess. And so we all agree to differ.
contains my Comment on Nīlakaņţ·ha’s Intellectual Game and its unusual rule - which attempts to avoid stalemate. I suppose Pritchard's rule variation should also have a page of its own. Stalemate rules are more complex than most people think - see my 2005-03-08 Comment on this page.
(loss-condition (White Black) (pieces-remaining 1) ) ; This 'bare king rule' creates problems for Zillions in Shatranj and other chess games. Here is an example with 5 pieces set up on an empty board:
VariantName=Shatranj (White Shah c1) (White Rukh b2) (White Baidaq h2) (Black Shah a1) (Black Rukh b8)
1. Shah c1 - c2 [a deliberate blunder in order to test Zillions] 1. Rukh b8 - c8 2. Shah c2 - b3 2. Rukh c8 - b8 3. Shah b3 - c2 3. Rukh b8 - c8
Apparently Zillions was worried about the sequence 1... Rukh x Rukh check 2. King x Rukh 'bare king victory'. I have not seen Zillions actually play an illegal move, but this example does show Zillions failing to win a game because it reacts to the apparent threat of a future illegal move. Another Problem: every Shatranj related ZRF that I have tested will record a 'bare king victory' without granting the player the opportunity for a final move resulting in a 'two bare kings draw'.
Using Zillions, I played out this sample game, which ends with the 4 remaining Black Pawns blockaded by 4 White pieces, while a Black King, Chariot, Knight, Counselor, and Elephant are locked in behind the Pawns. Even if this was a variant allowing Kings to move into check and be captured, Black would still have no legal moves in the final position:
a b c d e f g h +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 8 | k |:n:| e |:::| |:::| |:::| 8 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 7 |:r:| f |:::| p |:::| |:::| | 7 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 6 | p |:::| p |:N:| p |:::| |:::| 6 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 5 |:R:| |:E:| |:R:| |:::| | 5 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 4 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:P:| 4 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 3 |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| | 3 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 2 | |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:::| 2 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 1 |:::| |:::| K |:F:| E |:N:| | 1 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ a b c d e f g h alf-chaturanga.zrf VariantName=Shatranj 1. Pawn h2 - h3 1. Pawn a7 - a6 2. Pawn h3 - h4 2. Knight b8 - c6 3. Chariot h1 - h3 3. Elephant c8 - e6 4. Chariot h3 - f3 4. King d8 - c8 5. Chariot f3 x f7 5. King c8 - b8 6. Chariot f7 x g7 6. Elephant e6 - c8 7. Chariot g7 x h7 7. Chariot a8 - a7 8. Chariot h7 x h8 8. King b8 - a8 9. Pawn a2 - a3 9. Pawn b7 - b6 10. Pawn a3 - a4 10. Knight c6 - b8 11. Pawn a4 - a5 11. Pawn b6 x a5 12. Chariot a1 x a5 12. Counselor e8 - f7 13. Elephant c1 - e3 13. Counselor f7 - e6 14. Elephant e3 - c5 14. Counselor e6 - d5 15. Chariot h8 x g8 15. Counselor d5 - c6 16. Chariot g8 - g5 16. Pawn e7 - e6 17. Chariot g5 - e5 17. Counselor c6 - b7 18. Knight b1 - c3 18. Pawn c7 - c6 19. Knight c3 - e4 19. Elephant f8 - d6 20. Knight e4 x d6
I used to play Shatranj a lot when I was a teenager with a friend of mine and also with my father. We all enjoyed it. It has its own unique feel. Some modern chess players who have tried it have told me they didn't like it. That is their right but I have gathered that often their dislike is due to conservatism: they simply feel uncomfortable trying new things. Some also make the mistake of using modern chess as the yardstick and in so doing see Shatranj's slower pieces as thus being weaker and so less enjoyable (less power). They miss the point, I think. A slower game is NOT an inferior game just a different game. Draughts (checkers) is another game with slow pieces (and in some varieties the Kings are also slow) but millions enjoy it nonetheless. When I first played Shatranj I realised that I had to divest myself of much that I held to be true in modern chess: pawns, for example, are much more powerful than in the modern game, yet paradoxically promotion is less important. This tended to make me use the pawns more in the game and not worry so much about preserving them in order to promote them to Queens. The play of the Shatranj Queen and Bishop are also correspondingly diferent. The Bishop is useful mainly as an annoyance, a covering force against rook attacks, and, in conjunction with two friendly pawns in a chain formation, as a barrier and fortress. Thus a pawn on e3, another on d4 and a bishop on c5 mutually support each other and can be difficult thus to break up without the use of rival pawns. This arrangement is good in the middle game when enemy pawns have advanced forward and have moved to where such a formation can no longer be threatened. As for the Queen, its limited power could either be used defensively to shelter the King against Rook checks, as H.J.R.Murray noted the European players were prone to do, or used aggressively by moving it forward, often in conjunction with the King's Bishop, to assault the enmy lines, as the Arab masters used to do. After a Bishop sacrifice taking out a few enemy pawns, the Queen, alone or in conjunction with say a Knight, can gain entry into the ranks of the enemy and prove a real threat. The reason: because enemy Bishops and the enemy Queen cannot usually attack it (unless the enemy Queen is a promoted pawn on the same set of 32 squares, and the enemy player is often forced to use a Rook or Knight, or bring over his/her King thus exposing the King to attack. Thus the Queen ties up enemy forces much more powerful. Likewise with the changed power of the Queens and Bishops the Rooks and Knights come into their power. Not having to fear Bishops, or Queens sweeping down the board at them, Rooks are the most powerful pieces, and once a Rook can break into the enemy ranks can usually cause havoc, especially if both Rooks can get in. Knights also find themselves more influential, not having to fear being swapped off by Bishops so much, and can really threaten the enemy with forks and checks. The net result is often an interesting middle of the board clash. Where the game disappointed some people (and led to the changes made to bring in the modern game) is the length of time it takes to play. I've had many games that went over a hundred moves, easily. Plus the end game is less decisive without Rooks, and as a result can be a long drawn out affair. The rules of Shatranj allow for a win by Bare King. This is OK but no doubt left some players less than satisfied as cornering the King is supposed to be the prime object of attention, so I can understand why it frustrated some people, but I still like the game. Strategy, tactics and feel are really different. If one is a little jaded with modern chess it can make an interesting alternative for a while as a break.
First Position. White: King e5, Knight e1 Black: King e3, Rook a1 MOVES 1. Nc2 check, Kd3 2. Nxa1, Kc3 3. Ke4, Kb2 4. Kd3, Kxa1 is a simple 'two bare Kings draw' in FIDE chess. I wonder if centuries ago there were Shatranj tournament rules concerning bare King draws that require more than one move.
Second Position. White: King c1, Knight e1 Black: King a1, Pawn a2, Rook e2
MOVES 1. Nc2 check, Rxc2 check 2. Kxc2 stalemate(?) Applying the Bare King rule exactly as stated, White lost the game before he could capture the Rook and win by stalemate. This seems unfair. But if the rules did allow White to play his second move, should a stalemate by a bare King count as a win or only a draw?
Great website, very interesting and well informed. I'm particularly interested in the many variants of chess played in India, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Unfortunately (in my opinion), many of the historical variations of chess seem to be dying out, replaced by the one same 'standard' game.. to me this is a great shame and a loss to everyone who enjoys world culture and the game of chess. Just to add my piece to the discussion about the origins of chess, it seems to me extremely reasonable to assume that chess was originally invented in ancient India. There have been very many civilisations that have risen and fallen in the sub-continent... much of which is far from desert! In the past it is likely many of the current desert regions were much more fertile, and since when have people living in the desert not been able to create great civilisations?!! (are we forgetting that virtually all the ancient civilisations of the world were located in desert regions with great rivers, just like Northern India/Pakistan?). Any arguments about Indian/Pakistani people not being the 'type' to invent games are obviously complete bollox. I have travelled widely in both countries and have found the local people (particularly the old men) very fond of board games including a number of chess variations. The truth is that we will never know exactly where chess was first played, and to be honest I suspect a very ancient game was played millenia ago that eventually evolved into what we recognise as chess at a relatively recent date, say the 5th or 6th Century AD. Where this occurred is open to speculation, but I would say Northern India is an extremely likely spot, that the first known record came from Persia immediately prior to the Arab conquest would fit well with that hypothesis as there was a great deal of trade between the two regions. There can be little doubt that the spread of Islam also carried with it the game of chess to many distant regions, including perhaps Europe. Remains of boardgames, some of which have a passing resemblance to chess/draughts/go, have been found in Ancient Egyptian tombs, Ancient Chinese tombs, burial mounds in central Asia, Africa, Crete and Europe, and indeed tombs in India. Boardgames are probably nearly as old as man, and although I don't believe in 'Atlantis' it is quite easy for me to believe simple chesslike games were played by early man, with stones for pieces and a board marked in the dust with a stick, why wouldn't they be? For certain he was as intelligent as any of us (probably more so because he had to live by his wits), had the same likes and dislikes as we do, and spare time to relax after a good days hunting. Couldn't the first version of 'chess' have been a game revolving around a group of hunters and prey, or a skirmish between two clans? It is only in very recent times that we have set down the rules of the one 'standard' game of chess in tablets of stone and hence prevented the multitude of individual variations which must have been very common in former times.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.