Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Two telling sentences in Fischer's last comment: 'A randomization of
quality does not approach an average. Instead it approaches the lowest
possible value since the definable nature of quality involves order and
structure.' How low? Probably low enough for Fischer to be considered a
'1' or '3' in Enneagram terms. (See Recg.ChVs. comments) Moreover,
there may be one Ultima-like ideal CV from an infinity of those, and also
one from the Carrera-Capablanca family, and so on, the ones actually
adding up to many games. A chemical analogy might be to trans-uranium
elements, having islands of stability, or simply isotopes, finite numbers
of ('semi-ideal') forms(species). By what standards for CVs? Many still 
to be revealed or discovered, but one would be a full second row pawn rank,
at least as probabilistically more aesthetically satisfactory and more likely to be
associated with quality, if one will.

Life evolution has been fast, considering the age of Universe. But it was
needed a very complex process of natural selection, in which mutations and
random processes were present in an incredible number of times. Life
process has not been, perhaps, very intelligent, but effective. Trial and
error is not ever a bad idea, but, undoubtely, intelligent selection and
intelligent mutations can conduct to incredible forms much more quickly,
and the goal criteria might be chosen previously. I doubt any of us are
going to see this class of experiments in our life in its complete
potential, it is reserved for the future, but imagination and a little
knowledge of the state-of-art is enough to conclude. Chess is in
evolution, and it is an intelligent evolution. It is very possible that
FIDE-Chess is going to be the Chaturanga of the year 3000, but we have not
elements to see which game is going to be the substitute, because we are
not working with a common goal in the horizon. Here is where natural
selection is going to do its work.

I would like to just add a note that this thread follows an interesting
thread from 'Recognized Chess Variants', in case it seems a bit
non-sequitur. 

I am also of Fergus' school. I design chess variants not pursuing an
ideal, rather developing an idea. On the other hand, following Roberto's
analogy with art, I have found that my game ideas tend to have
unintentional themes. So, perhaps, in one's mind, the game inventor is
working semi-consciously on a kind of artistic problem whose solution is a
game. I have found that over time my games become simpler, perhaps because
the solutions are more clear.

I would like to reiterate that I do think most contributors are interested
in quality. Perhaps there have been a few sloppy contributions, but not
many. I also think that the good games are quickly recognized by the
discerning eye of this readership, without the need for exhausting study!

On this note, could I suggest something in the interest of quality? How
about playing games in Game Courier from time to time whose purpose would
not be primarily competitive but more like chess study. I mean, play a
game with an opponent but encourage Kibbitz comments during the game, not
concerned that the players will be influenced. In fact, a free discussion
of the game would be encouraged and be reflected in play of the game. The
benefit would not be so much winning the game (unless friendly 'teams'
emerge, like competing philosophies) as gaining more insight into the
game's mechanics, strategy, flaws, aesthetics, etc. 

Chess analysis is common, but chess variants analysis is not because the
games come and go and there is not much opportunity to go back and analyze
them. I would even go so far as to suggest that computer advise could be
used to inform the Kibbitzing, something like what I believe Kasparov
suggested for human-computer competition after being crushed by Big Blue!

To your comment on intelligent selection, Roberto, I like a quote by
scientist George Wald: 'Several years ago a thought struck that at first
seemed so aberrant as to embarrass me. That was that mind, rather being a
late product of evolution, had been there from the start; and that this
became a life-breeding universe because the constant and pervasive
presence of mind had guided it in that direction.'  I think Fischer's
chess-driven comments too intelligent to be from anyone else; if he does
not simply say he is not the grandmaster within a day or two, I assume
about 50-50 he is.

Tony Quintanilla:

Yes, I am totally in favor of this.  In my games I try to use kibbitz
comments explaining the situation for the benefit of anyone who may
watching.  But it might be good to take a game of high-interest, like
Alice or Anti-King II, and find two players who are interest in
participating, and have a kabbitz free-for-all.  If interested parties
follow the game and make insightful comments, then the result would be an
truely expert-level game worthy of study.

Any other iterest?

Tony, that sounds like a good idea. Something like 'the World against
Kasparov.' Maybe the winner of the CV tournament could play one side and
'the world' could play the other? Or, just 'the world against the
world.'

Regarding game creation, I think I am of both schools. I tried firstly
with Bilateral Chess (obviously flawed), then with Chess on a Larger
Board with not so few pieces dropped (perhaps too unbalanced) to come
up with a satisfactory extention for Chess, but the games I am most
happy with came to my mind randomly, usually out of an external contraint
such as the number of squares (Jacks and Witches, Pocket Polypiece Chess)
or Roberto's idea of a game without capture (Bifocal Chess).

I think we should use Game Courier to revive Glenn Overby's
Invent-and-Play formula on a yearly basis, with no other time limit.
Games which are to a large extent the juxtaposition of a number of
somewhat contrived pieces, or which threaten to last for about a hundred
moves, like Achernar/Deneb, Chess on a Larger Board with not so few
pieces dropped, Optima, Heroes Hexagonal Chess or Chess with Terrain
should start there rather than on a Game Courier Tournament.

I would suggest to allow comments on a position, either from the players
or from the kibitzes, only five moves later. Otherwise it will taint the
game needlessly.

The World against Kasparov is also a nice idea, however I think we should
enrol several Kasparovs, again on a yearly basis, because the Kasparovs
may be unavailable at times. On the other hand, the World should have a
definite answer period, say three days for choosing their move by a poll,
with ties broken randomly, which means Fergus would have to implement
such a device. Maybe a higher Kasparov in the GC Tournament should not
participate against a lower Kasparov.

Regarding open kibbitzing, it would certainly be nice to get top-level
players, but why wait? I ranked somewhere in the middle of the recent Game
Courier tournament, but I would be willing to start an invitation against
another brave soul! Any takers? Any game suggestion? We have Grand Chess
from Mark, I believe.

I agree with Antoine that it would be very nice to revive Invent-and-Play.
Believe it or not I am still playing 3 games from the original
Invent-and-Play rounds 1 and 2! The games are ongoing by e-mail. The
rounds, however, will not be concluded officially, it does not seem. 

Invent-and-Play by Game Courier with liberal time limits (say 6 months
total time per player, no bonuses, = 1 year) and limited open kibbitzing
(open after 5 turns), like Antoine suggests, would be interesting. 

We also need a new moderator. Anyone?

External constraints, like the variant design contests, can certaily spur
creativity, sometimes more than complete freedom.

Antoine: Yes, a good Achernar game may last, in expected number of moves,
around 80-100, but it is not the case with Deneb. Average number of moves
in a Deneb game should be around 40-50. Chess on a Larger Board With No So
Few Pieces dropped avarage should be around 80-100 moves, but I think it is
not more than this, and for Chess with Terrain, my initial estimation of
around 100 moves may be short, now I´m thinking it is over 150. dimensions
and terrain are determinant in this case. The number of average number of
moves to finish is a characteristic, but not necessarily a quality factor.
If it is good or bad depends on preferences.

Yes, Roberto, Chess w/ Terrian in it's current form is going to take a
rediculous number of moves (and the game has other problems.)  I see
someone was kind enough to vote for its inclusion, but it really is way to
long to be included...

George: I´m not apologizing intelligent selection and/or intelligent
manipulation of evolution, it is only a fact of actual science, with all
the pros and contras anybody can have in mind, genetic engeniering is
growing fast as science, and it is not easy stop it completely in all its
possible consequences. I´m not looking for an ideal in Chess, my games are
only art manifastations, as pointed out by Tony about his work, mine is the
same, and I´m careful with quality, at least from my point of view,
nevertheless, I admit that one or a couple of my games may need a
revision, and I´m thinking in Achernar. I like this game, but it has some
elements that may need a revision. In others, my fantasy and artistic
perception was the motor of my work. It is possible that an ideal in Chess
is a function of time, and we can´t discard that the ideal in the future is
going to be somthing like the things we do in our Tournaments: the
possibility of playing a miriad of interesting games based in the
meta-concept of Chess. Of course, natural selection is going to do its
work, and some games are going to be prefered than others. We have not a
crystal globe to see what is going to happen in the future, but I´m
convinced that our work is going to have heavy weight some day. We are
pioneers in this sense, and we are creating a very nice collective
artistic work.

Thanks to Robert Fischer for coining the phrase 'bad game pollution'. I
address that problem a year ago under 'Slide-Shuffle' ( a type of
Fischer-Random-Chess game).  I think Fischer states the case better
cutting as he does across several chess-related disciplines.  His figure
of 10,000 games is realistic, my projection of 10 to the 100th (googol)
permutations an obvious over-dramatization. Yet of 2000 CVP games how many
are examined thoroughly for playability?  Not more than 5 or 10 have been
analyzed for strategy, tactics, openings, end games except superficially. 
Over 1900 games are less advanced than 'mad Queen' (present 'FIDE')
Chess in Andre Danican Philidor's day 225 years ago.  Incidentally, how
many CVs were widely known in 1750's, the time of Philidor's early
playing career?  1750 is chosen conveniently as near halfway from 1475,
the earliest date Chess may have acquired its now orthodox embodiment, to
the present. Author of 'Analyze du Jeu des Echecs', actually Philidor
was an experimentalist too, known to give knight odds and play multiple
blindfold games simultaneously.

Antoine: Bifocal Chess is excellent. I think it is not very known by other
people, so i invite everybody to take a look to this Antoine´s game.

I would take on anyone at Rococo original form.

Because of 'bad game pollution' and volume (2000 games mostly unknown to
most viewers), I think you need something like this. Focus on a couple
games as being played, with kibbitzing, would be a start. I kibbitzed a
couple GC games, but the players themselves stayed walled off without
comment. No one followed your Tournament #1, not a single game in
progress, just published declared winners. So you can make umpteen game
rules, what else can you do?

Greg is already strong at Switching, so he would catch on to Rococo
immediately.  Those are my votes.