Check out Grant Acedrex, our featured variant for April, 2024.

[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
Dipole Chess. A cross between Chess and the game Dipole by Mark Steere. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Nov 9, 2008 09:33 PM UTC:
Feel free to download the Zillions file for Dipole Chess, and edit it, and give it a new name. I would be interested in trying it out. Maybe you can call this chess variant: Advance Degeneration Chess.

Thomas wrote on Sun, Nov 9, 2008 03:38 PM UTC:
1. sorry, I forgot to enter my name in the last post

2. A lazy queen (or amazon) captures like a queen (the amazon like a
knight also) but cannot move to an empty square.

Somehow I like the idea that demoting ends with some 'lazy' piece,
only captures. But there are other possibilities too, of course.

If this were a modification or a different game, depends on the pont of
view, I think. I just want to give some ideas, maybe leading to a new
game. The coding of demotion can be done so (shown with a bishop which
demotes to knight):

(define slide                ;;normal sliding move
  ( $1 (while empty? add $1)
    (verify enemy?) add
(define slidebishop
  ( $1
    (while empty? (add Knight) $1) ;; demote on empty square
    (verify enemy?) add            ;; dont demote when capturing


     (name Bishop)
     (image White '...' Black '...')
        (slide nw) (slide ne)
        (slidebishop sw) (slidebishop se)

💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Nov 9, 2008 02:26 PM UTC:
What is a 'Lazy Amazon'?

Possible compromises in the game, is to allow a piece to demote to ANYTHING weaker than it, with either Knights and Bishops not able to demote, provided the piece it is demoted has been captured by an opponent.

And, on this note, I think we are looking at a different game related to this one.  Not sure how to code it up in Zillions, however, so I am going to hold off trying to do anything with this.

Anonymous wrote on Sun, Nov 9, 2008 10:05 AM UTC:
Another way would be to demote the Knight not to a pawn but directly to a lazy amazon. This I find even better, because it fits to the symmetry of the (lazy) queen (moving in all directions) when it can emerge on any square of the board. Pawns promote as usual to any piece-type, including a lazy queen.

💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Sat, Nov 8, 2008 11:50 PM UTC:
Wouldn't a simple answer for the demotion issue to be that piece demote to pawn-like pieces that can't promote? This is another way to break the cycle.

Thomas wrote on Sat, Nov 8, 2008 07:09 PM UTC:
I forgot one thing: if the pieces can move backwards and demote, one must
change the pawn-promotion, or the game is no longer cycle-free. One may
e.g. promote pawns to a 'lazy queen', which is not moving to empty
squares but only capturing like a queen (or maybe a lazy amazon,
like a knight also).

Thomas wrote on Sat, Nov 8, 2008 03:14 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
This variant I find very interesting.

Additional idea: let the pieces make a non-capturing move laterally or
backwards with demoting the piece to the next lower kind, e.g. in the
order queen -> rook -> bishop -> knight -> pawn. This is buying more time,
and also combinations may include the demotion of a piece to alter its way
of moving.

The king is maybe too vulnerable in these variants. A defended Queen on
any of the three squares in front of the King mates, and also a defended
rook directly in front of it. Three pawns can also mate.

One might add the rule that the king may also move laterally or backwards
when attacked. I think this does not lead to cycles, but if there are
Rooks and Nightriders, a cycle is possible:
white: King e2, Rook e1
black: King e5, Nightrider f7
1. Kd3+ Kd6+
2. Ke2  Ke5

💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Fri, Aug 22, 2008 06:47 PM UTC:
Dipole Chess is not a single attempt to save chess.  It is, however, if continued play holds up, a case for mutators to be introduced into the chess variant world, as a way to change things up.  Dipole could be a mutator, just as forwards is, as would extinction or other things.  It would provide a way for variants to get integrated into a common base game that people could play, and a proving ground for new rules, pieces and so on.

Consider what is written in the IAGO Chess System rules here as a framework for doing this.  And yes, IAGO Chess System does need to be worked on.

George Duke wrote on Fri, Aug 22, 2008 04:50 PM UTC:
Where to start surveying piece-weakening is with Ralph Betza. One of Betza's specialties among 200 CVs, or CV articles, is restricting opportunities on small 8x8 with regular pieces, as if 8x8 can be saved by humour. Half Chess, Halfling, Feeble, Weakest, Unreliable Delivery, Troll, Trapdoor, Lene Hau, Lag.

Anonymous wrote on Fri, Aug 22, 2008 06:23 AM UTC:
I am not Michael Howe. I exchange emails with him and am aware of his
work. I made my comment and presented my evidence. I did not give a bad rating. I have no wish to get into an argument or long discussion. I among others find overly aggressive defenses tiresome.

💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Fri, Aug 22, 2008 05:38 AM UTC:
What problems does Dipole Chess exhibit?  I have run the game a bunch of times in Zillions and it plays like Dipole does.  If problems are considered weakening of pieces, then I can understand that being seen as a 'problem'.  It isn't really.  Dipole Chess is like Dipole in that it is meant to be a game where you either capture your opponent's king, or outlast your opponent (outlast your opponent is what Dipole does).

Anyone here, including the mystery person, please explain what you see as problems with Dipole Chess.  If this is M. Howe, please say you are yourself, and explain why you didn't go the Dipole route with Advancing Chess.

Anonymous wrote on Thu, Aug 21, 2008 06:16 PM UTC:

This game, Advancing Chess, by M. Howe, might have solved some of the
problems that Dipole can exhibit. If I may take the liberty of quoting a
private email from the author: 'the Zillions website shows random arrays
with rotation symmetry, but I have since then decided that the game should
be played with bilateral symmetry, reducing the number of starting
positions to 5040.' The game was posted on Zillions St. Patrick's Day
last year.

I looked up Advancing Chess in the CV database, but did not find it. One
could wish for a complete online linked encyclopedia of variants...

💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Thu, Aug 21, 2008 02:05 AM UTC:
Hello again Charles.

I think it is important to note that a small change can have a large impact on a game.  I think people in the variant community should think on this when adding a new game.  One can get novel results by little effort.

I will stand by this being a modest variant, by the impact in the rules.  It is only marginally more than what is done with Skirmish Chess, for example.  And I will look to Skirmish Chess as an example to.  The game flat out plays different than Normal Chess, due to the proximity of the pawns and pieces.  Simplified Chess also came about when trying to shrink the size of the board.  Dipole Chess is similar in regards to rules tweaks similar, eventhough the effects are more severe.  

But, I will let people debate this.  If others want to chime in, please do so.  If this variant is considered radical, then please speak up, and I will not label it modest.  However, people may be concerned here about saying it is radical, because it is only removing a few rules.  This seems to go against the norm of what people here would want to do.  

I will also add here, that what I have been adding for the most part, had been done for practical reasons.

IAGO Chess System was done as a way to integrate the world of chess variants into normal chess (providing a migration path), and provide a way to play Capablanca chess with standard equipment for IAGO.  If anyone has an acceptable variant in the Capablanca Chess mold, please propose it.  Actually if Seirawan Chess was receptive to the variant community, the IAGO Chess System would of never came about.  It had been called, ironically, both 'too bold' and 'too modest'.  I have a feeling people may want a ton of noise that really doesn't change anything if that is the argument.

Near Chess ended up being stumbled across an attempt to do Minigrand Chess on an 8x8 board using IAGO Chess System rules.  This was then found to be Skirmish Chess, a modest chess variant, however, rules were removed, and it was repositioned as a game to help learn normal chess.  This then begat Near vs Normal (to see how it would hold up) and from there multi-formation chess (not entered in here yet) to allow for another way to mix the opening book in chess, and also a way to integrate variants into normal chess also (well, as another school of modifications to opening book that could join Chess960).

Vox Populi Chess is meant as a way to turn Chess into more of a party game, and attempting to increase its mass appeal, while making it more of a spectator sport also.  It is mean to get an audience involved.

And now, we have Dipole Chess.  This started out as Forwards Chess on site, but then was taken by myself to be like Dipole (Mark Steere's game) and done as a way to insure that there is a chess game that would never end up in a draw.  It is less severe than Forwards in what it restricts, adding depth seen in Steere's Dipole (capture to buy tempo).

A few others I added here have been for novelty effect, except for Simpleton's, which is there actually to be the world's easiest Chess game.  And this came from Henry VIII Chess actually.  Again, Simplified Chess appears in the form of the chessboard.  There is also mini-Near Chess, which has the Knights removed, again for teaching purposes.  

In all these, I wasn't trying to do anything revolutionary (well, IAGO Chess System can be said this, but it appeared to change nothing), just a minor change to deal with this and that.  They aren't meant as gimmicks either, or some sort of 'aha' thing either that thinks this is the magic bullet that would address all the perceived ills of normal chess.  I do know, however, that people who want to get fantastic about things may not give these designs much of a look.  They don't do anything way out there weird.  BUT, I will say they do end up fundamentally changing how chess works, even if the rules aren't that different.

Maybe I am a bit off.  Maybe what people want is stuff that looks really odd, but ends up playing pretty much identical to the chess they know already.  I also find it interesting people want the 'next chess' to end up allowing them to do everything they have been doing, not mess it up, but give them more variety in the opening, and being less likely to get draws at the end.  I would say people should considered Seirawan Chess for this off the top, vanilla Seirawan, and don't tweak it.  I would suggest, if not that, then people should give thought for the IAGO Chess System and make it there own, and discuss this.  It is meant to be variant community friendly.

Anyhow, in all this, I hope people look into this stuff, and even Simplified Chess.  I am finding, for example, that I do use Simplified Chess as a base for doing variants from time to time.  The board at least is interesting.  I know I am looking at Simplified Dipole Chess, for example.

Just my 2 cents.  I hope people also chime in here.  

By the way, I checked the Moves box, and unchecked the Modest box in the Index section.

Charles Daniel wrote on Thu, Aug 21, 2008 12:45 AM UTC:
Yes, I see how you came to this idea. But I can say that adding say 4 new pieces with new movement and keeping the rules the same is merely a tweak as well. I think it is the net result that is important. 
True you could change the wording a bit, take out a few lines of code in zillions but its still a major change. I don't see how this is any different from replacing say a queen with an amazon. or a rook with a chancellor. 
So, I would say this is a full fledged chess variant, but I do see how you see it as a 'tweak' to the rules. 
Just that this little 'tweak' changes things drastically - you have to admit! 

An interesting idea nonetheless ...

💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Thu, Aug 21, 2008 12:28 AM UTC:
Charles, I think Dipole Chess exposes taxonomy issues regarding chess variants on here (and the variant community).  What you see in Dipole Chess can, on the one hand, be seen as a bunch of new pieces being added.  On the other hand, it is a simple removal of a few rules to Normal chess, that could be summed up as a mutator. One could play with mutators, have the Dipole Chess rule in the waiting, and then use it to change the dynamics.  One could also use it as a game condition that kicks in to reduce draws in Normal Chess. 

Do you see how Dipole Chess can be argued to be nothing but a simple mutator ('simple' as in how it affects the rules, NOT in its impact)?  I see it that way.  I actually am a bit hesitant to give it the full name 'Dipole Chess' as if it is some radically new game.  It is merely a rules tweak, arguably the same that Near Chess is.  

In this, I believe Dipole Chess does call for work in the taxonomy department for chess variants, so we can have a bit more standardization, and allow for more rule variations to be played, while still playing a base game of a sort.

I do hope others care to join in and debate this subject here.  I will agree that Dipole Chess ends up coming off more different than even a game on a 10x10 grid with a few new variant/fantasy) pieces (and I do believe we should also come up with a standardize name for this category rather than 'fairy').

Charles Daniel wrote on Wed, Aug 20, 2008 03:54 PM UTC:
Standard chess is much deeper than dipole chess for obvious reasons. No one meaninglessly moves knights and bishops around in chess - so that is not even part of the comparison. (If deeper means less variety - less turns as Joe mentioned.) 

However, dipole chess could be interesting but the description here is very deceptive. 
This is a pure 8x8 chess variant - it is by no means a slight change to the rules as suggested.
I would describe this honestly as follows:  
A game with NEW pieces: THE PIECES ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!

the king ca only move one step forwards/one step diagonally forward. - it is not a standard chess king
Neither is the the very weak knight. 

The bishop is not a real bishop either. 
Nor the rook or queen. 

And this 8x8 chess with 5 new pieces is very unlike standard chess even more so than large board 10x10/104 square variants with new pieces. 

So in my opinion, this is not a modest chess variant but a complete makeover and change to chess. An 8x8 Fairy Chess just like any other Fairy Chess game. 

I personally don't like using the term Fairy Chess - but it has been used for some time now to describe a chess-like game with new pieces.

💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Wed, Aug 20, 2008 02:36 AM UTC:
An interesting question regarding normal chess is: How much of the depth is meaningful depth?  It is possible to have a position in normal chess where you meaninglessly move a bishop or knight around, stalling for time and so on.  This makes the number of the moves deeper than in Dipole Chess, but is it meaningful depth?

The one thing about Dipole, because it is impossible, short of capturing, to restore a piece to a prior position, that every move has an impact in the entire game.  A decision to capture one way (and at a certain turn), instead of another (and another tunr), results in pieces in different places on the board when it comes to the end game.  This could make the difference in the end game, with a piece being able to capture backwards and buy more turns, and win the end-game tempo race game.

If one were to cut out redundancy in normal chess, then it becomes a question how much deeper it is than Dipole Chess.  One think about Dipole Chess is that positions are a bit fragile, and you can mess up much easier in the mid-game.  

Anyhow, I don't want this post to be something that sounds like I am shilling a design I did.  I just happened to see how Forwards Chess that someone else did was like Dipole, minus what is in Dipole that is added to Dipole Chess.  It also should be an interesting study in how slight changes to normal chess rules can result in a game that is very different.  One can argue that Dipole Chess is a modest chess variant, but the consequences of the removal of certain rules makes for a game that potentially plays less like chess than more wild variants out there.

Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Aug 20, 2008 02:07 AM UTC:
Dipole Chess has to have a theoretical maximum number of turns; therefore, it must be less deep than chess. But I would argue that it is a very different game, chaotic in the mathematical sense of very similar starting points that have very different end points. This produces a game that seems opaque, extremely difficult to project moves turns ahead in any meaningful way. Moves that are good at one moment can be terrible several turns later, and save you several turns after that. It certainly provides dramatic tension, though. Reversals should be expected during the games. It was an interesting game to try out.

💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Aug 17, 2008 04:05 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
I have run this multiple times in Zillions and got to play it with Joe Joyce today.  I have to give it a thumbs up.  The game has one on edge most of the time.  There is room for a single mess up multiple times in the game that can cost you.  This happened when I played Joe.  I actually had the game locked, then bungled with my King and he won.  It is amazing that by removing a few rules, you can end up with chess going in an entirely different direction.

Well, that is my brief review to explain my experience.  Beyond this, I want to get people to look at this game and argue for how much less depth it has then normal (FIDE) Chess.  My take here is that, while the game forces more restrictions, there are critical key points in the game, that force one to even have to evaluate deeper in the decision tree in order not to lose.  Joe described this as 'Chaotic'.  In a 'Butterfly effect' sort of way, I would agree here.

Anyhow, if anyone wants to argue that Dipole Chess is a lot more shallow than regular chess, due to the lack of moving backwards, I would like to hear the arguments.  I will say that Zillions is a bit prone to not playing it well, making stupid mistakes, and not reading context of pieces to one another.

19 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.