Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 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
Optimum design of a Chess variant. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Fri, Jun 9, 2006 11:58 PM UTC:

Some of the points made here may echo points I made in my article On Designing Good Chess Variants.


Jeremy Good wrote on Fri, Jun 9, 2006 11:38 PM UTC:
That previous discussion discusses some other interesting ratios and comparisons. Perhaps Namik would be interested in adding them to this essay and we could continue here where that discussion left off.

Larry Smith wrote on Fri, Jun 9, 2006 11:20 PM UTC:
Even if the game generates a value, using this formula, which is close to
or even exactly like that of the Mad Queen variant, it would not
necessarily mean that the game is in any way similar.

The only thing that this formula would note is a ratio between the piece
power/density and field size. This value is really of little use without
further considerations.

I once advocated that the difference in the piece-types, or the potential
exchange ratios, might have an influence in the game. A game which is
populated with pieces of similar value offer little chance for advantage
during play. While a game with a large variety of piece-types would offer
a greater opportunity for advantage during play.

Even this would not be the only consideration when evaluating a game.

There was a old thread which covered this particular subject. Does anyone
know its title and how to access it?

Never mind, I found it:

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?limitby=75&subjectid=Game+Design

💡📝Namik Zade wrote on Fri, Jun 9, 2006 02:35 PM UTC:
Of course, this method doesn`t show us which game is better. All Chess variants are good enought. It is just for comparison analyses. If somebody like to play Orthodox Chess then he can choose something similar (pieces density, pieces influence and so on) with using this method.

Larry Smith wrote on Fri, Jun 9, 2006 11:09 AM UTC:
This does not determine whether a game is good or bad, only that it is
different from another.

And I know that the argument will be made that the Mad Queen variant could
represent a standard by which to evaluate other games. But that is merely
establishing a arbitrary baseline for comparison and doesn't determine
whether the games being compared are good or bad.

It could be argued that a game with very weak and very few pieces located
on a very large field might represent a negative. But this evaluation
would not take into account the in-game rules, such as Shogi drops.

The only claim that could be made is that this formula is able to generate
a given value for a game. The application of this value would probably be
best in conjunction with other considerations of the evaluated game.

I would be curious to see evaluation of Shogi and Xiang Qi in addition to
the Mad Queen variant. Since these three might epitomize the best in
Chess, their quantification and comparison may render some interesting
methods by which to evaluate other games. Though these games may resist
proper comparison since each have unique aspects.

💡📝Namik Zade wrote on Thu, Jun 8, 2006 09:34 AM UTC:
Total Pieces influence on the centre of the empty board ( White or Black only, if they are symmetrical) without King and pawns = f.exp.(Orthodox Chess) - Knight = 2x8, Bishop = 2x13, Rook = 2x18, Q =27 ,Total = 97. Empty squares in the beginning of the game = 32. Then for Orthodox Chess S = 97/32 =3.03.

Peter Boddy wrote on Thu, Jun 8, 2006 02:21 AM UTC:
How does one figure out the first number in the equation, the pieces influence?

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Jun 6, 2006 12:35 AM UTC:
This all needs elaboration. It is too cryptic to make heads or tails of.

Jeremy Good wrote on Mon, Jun 5, 2006 04:37 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Namik, some very intelligent and constructive ideas. I'd like to see these ideas further elaborated and expanded upon (and more applications and examples). Great beginning for very important and intriguing discussion.

9 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.