Comments by AntoineFourriere

I think we should strive to enhance Chess rather to make it more dull. A
huge branching factor is desirable, but not at any price. And the game
could welcome a few extra pieces of secondary interest (that is, secondary
only to the Orthochess pieces), such as the Chancellor and the Cardinal,
the Champion and the (Omega) Wizard, the Falcon, pieces of the
Cannon/Grasshopper family or pieces of the Ultima/Rococo family including
the Reducer and Halfling variants. But shifting to Optima would destroy
the feel of Chess when simply exchanging the Knights and the Bishops
already hurts the game as we know it. It is true that someone decided to
introduce the Bishop and the Queen, but the game wasn't as good in 1475
as it is now. The six current pieces should retain a special status.

The huge branching factor exists in Shogi and Go, but Chessgi has three
flaws in my view.
1)A Knight in hand is stronger than a Bishop in hand, and doubled Pawns
are also very bad, so the players, and particularly Black, might simply
become unable to trot out their Knights.
2)Chessgi may be a theoretical win for White, much more than Chess.
3)There is too much material on the Board. And although the possibility of
a problemist's mate is a distinctive plus, the impossibility of an endgame
as in Chess is a distinctive minus.
On the other hand, Mortal Chessgi gives a Knight for the capture of a
Bishop, and a Pawn for the capture of a Knight (a Firz for the Bishop and
a Wazir for the Knight, with a Pawn for either a Firz or a Wazir and a
Bishop or a Knight for a Rook would make more sense). It keeps the high
branching factor, and it provides different type of endgames. King +
Rook + Pawn vs. King + Rook once in a while is fine, King + Rook +
Pawn vs. King + Rook at every other game becomes painful.
Another interesting idea is that of Stratomic, which features pieces which
can explode everywhere on the Board on a 3x3 square. I borrowed that idea
for Chess on a Larger Board with a few pieces dropped. (I added a
'Chinese' condition that the Kings can strike when they see each other,
provided both have moved and neither has hit the eighth row.) Zillions
also had a lot of difficulties with it.
(On an unrelated matter, it seems that Anti-King Chess is very unfriendly
to Zillions. The reason here is not an important branching factor, but a
difficulty to grasp the exact value of a piece.)

Rules are desirable as long as they correct flaws or enhance interest. 
Castling brings out the Rook faster, en passant strenghtens a Pawn on the
fifth row, the Palace and the rule forbidding Generals to see each other
are necessary to XiangQi. 
Allowing an unmoved Knight to swap with an adjacent unmoved Bishop and/or
two enemy adjacent Bishops to swap with each other (with a ko addendum) as
a move would introduce same-color Bishops (a nice possibility also offered
by Chessgi and Mortal Chessgi). 
If you shift to 10x10, you have problems with the Knights and the Pawns,
and you must introduce something as weird as castling to enhance them.
(Well, you can turn the Knights into (Knight+Wazir)s and allow the Pawns
to become Firzes on the eighth and ninth rows. Still, I don't like
10x10.)

There is the idea that Fischer Random Chess should replace Chess because
it allows the suppression of opening theory. I have nothing against FRC as
a variant among other variants (I voted for it in the poll), but I view the
lack of an opening theory as an impoverishment rather as an enhancement.
Mind you, the current opening theory offers some interest. If you part
with it, nearly all players with an ELO above 1800 won't accept the loss
of their favourite opening, which may be theoretically wrong, but
intellectually rewarding and practically fruitful. Indeed, there are a lot
of books devoted to unsound openings which have a core of enthusiasts and a
mass of disbelievers. I suspect the Grandmasters to be somewhat too open to
the idea of doing away with the favorite openings of weaker players which
would be even weaker without these openings.

I think the future of Chess rather lies in introducing a whole batch of
arbitrary, though finely and relentlessly tuned, rules. These rules should
allow the casual introduction of a few no-nonsense fairy pieces, the
infrequent modification of the Board, or some other remote change. It
would be Knightmare Chess without cards and sometimes without any change
at all. (It is advisable to relate these rules to the positions of the
Kings, because the Kings stay on throughout the game.) 
Cylindrical Chess is poorer than Chess for want of a center, but Chess
with the possibility of branching into Cylindrical Chess is richer than
Chess without that possibility, not unlike Chess with stalemate is richer
than Chess without stalemate, and we should devise a rule which would
provide for that possibility (for instance, moving one's King between two
enemy Pawns), so that it doesn't happen neither soon nor often, but that
there *are* games which become cylindrical, an outcome which the weaker
(or richer in Bishops, since a cylindrical Bishop commands as many squares
as a cylindrical Rook) side may be willing to invest material for. Chess on
10x10 (12x12, 14x14...) is also poorer (esthetically, not mathematically)
than Chess on 8x8, but allowing the Board to become 10x10 (12x12,
14x14...) with two brand new Pawns for each side when a King moves at a
(4,4) (then (5,5), then (6,6)...) distance on an 8x8 (10x10, 12x12...)
Board of its opposite number and the other King doesn't flee might also
enhance Chess. 
Of course, we need also a situation which would branch into Mortal
Chessgi, (or perhaps Chessgi if there are fairy pieces), and another one
which would branch into Marseillais. Another relative position would give
both players two or three Terrain squares to drop on the Board or to
create outside the Board...
Now the poor computer has to take into account these infrequent
possibilities which only human minds could come up with.

Introducing fairy pieces isn't easy. You cannot start with them, as I did
in Chess on a Larger Board, without spoiling the whole opening theory, so
you must allow their introduction only after some delayed and uncertain
event. Here's an idea. When both Kings have moved, a player who hasn't
lost his Queen, or his two Rooks..., that is, who hasn't lost by
Extinction Chess rules yet, can decide to bring in fairy pieces of his
choice (among a predetermined no-nonsense lot) for *both* players at the
cost of his move. They are worth that price only when the game cools down
and becomes more positional. The player usually introduces one or two
pairs of pieces on the imaginary y1, z1, i1, j1 for White and y8, z8, i8,
j8 for Black, and the pieces will have to move from these imaginary
positions to real empty squares on the 8x8 Board with their actual moves.
(There should be variations according to strength: only one Chancellor and
one Cardinal would appear for each side, without any other fairy piece, the
Grasshoppers would also enter the fray alone, but by packs of six.) The
other player may then (and only then) choose to forfeit himself a move if
he wishes to replace all the existing Pawns with Berolinas. More often
than not, he won't. But if it is clear than he would (because he has
tripled Pawns, because all the Pawns of his opponent are on same-color
squares, or because he has Rook and Pawn(s) for Bishop and Knight), then
neither player will be willing to do anything, which also keeps more of
the flavour of Chess. 
Fairy pieces should appear only at roughly every other game.

Such an extension would keep the opening theory as we (don't) know it for
at least ten or fifteen moves, save the endings as we (don't) know them
more often than not, yet branch at times into a more exciting and
prolonged middle game. And although the knowledge of the opening theory
(and particularly the knowledge of gambits, except against the computer)
would still give the book player some advantage, his opponent would have
only to concede a tempo to transpose into a more uncertain game. Or the
book player might avoid the fairy test by capturing a species quickly, but
for that too there would usually be a price to pay. 
Lots of uncertainty, for masters, patzers and computers alike.

Since Great Chess is *very* similar to Grand Chess, I think it is wise to
add at least another game for those who dislike both. Great Chess
wouldn't have been accepted last year. And even without Great Chess, 12 +
5 is more reasonable than 12 + 3.
I also don't see anything wrong with two players choosing another game
for their match, provided the referee finds the replacement game suitable.

My checking-for-check (not checking for checkmate or stalemate) presets for
Chess on a Longer Board with a few pieces added and Maxima managed to reach
the 30-second time limit within 40 moves (from each side).
I had to limit myself to move-checking presets which do not check for
check. (Anyway, the checking-for-check preset for Maxima also has bugs
which are related to baroque capture and the form of the board, and whose
resolution would require even more time from Game Courier).

I have just added the GC code for the above game between the inventor and
Ben Good. There seems to be a contradiction between this game and the zrf
and GC Preset. Do the Queens face each other?
(I have also changed the illegal 18... Le5 to 18... Le6; there may be
other errors in the transcription, since some moves look a bit strange.)

I think one or two thematic Tournaments should be enough for a start. If
one, I would prefer Chess/Xiangqi/Shogi. If two, I would suggest an
Oriental Tournament and an Occidental Tournament, something like
Chess/Grand Chess/Fischer Random Chess (/Capablanca Chess?/ Berolina
Chess?/ Extinction Chess?/ Cylindrical Chess?). Or maybe an Oriental
Tournament one year and an Occidental Tournament the next one.

For the main Tournament, I would suggest to give 90 days to each player
and to begin all games simultaneously, even without a move-veryfing
preset.
And if there are too many players for everybody to meet everybody, I would
suggest to qualify the seven higher-ranked players of a round-robin into a
six-game final.

Computer help is illegal, of course, but I think we should state clearly
whether book help or Internet help (particularly for Chess opening theory)
is allowed once the games have started.

I think only recognized variants or variants which have made it into one or
two Game Courier Tournaments should be considered for an overall rating
anyway.
(A game may need some fixing in the rules or in their writing. There have
been recent ambiguities about Rococo or Switching Chess. More annoyingly,
my own ill-considered Pocket Polypiece Chess setup gave me the opening
advantage of one Pawn against George Duke.)

Here's what I'm proposing. Each player plays two games of Chess, Shogi
and Xiangqi in a round-robin. They're assigned a random number (privately
drawn by the organizer).

If there are nine players, it goes:

     1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

1        C   X   S           s   x   c
2    c       C   X   S           s   x 
3    x   c       C   X   S           s      
4    s   x   c       C   X   S        
5        s   x   c       C   X   S    
6            s   x   c       C   X   S
7    S           s   x   c       C   X
8    X   S           s   x   c       C
9    C   X   S           s   x   c

(meaning that player 1 plays as White at Chess against player 2, and so
on.)  


The four higher-ranked players (ex aequo players being ranked as in
GC1/GC2 Tournament) will play three extra games.

     1   2   3   4  

1        S   C   X 
2    s       X   C
3    c   x       S 
4    x   c   s  

If two players have the same number of points (the round-robin doesn't
matter any more) and have drawn at Chess or Xiangqi, they play one extra
Shogi game.


Draws by mutual agreement at Shogi are not allowed. But in case a game of
Shogi takes too much time in the round robin, the referee (or a substitute
if the referee has some interest in the case) allows a draw by mutual
agreement, allows seven days to each player, or gives 0.25 to both players
or 0.5 to one player and 0 to the other (say, for being back on time and on
material after 100 moves), as he wishes.

So, assuming it's a Chess/Xiangqi/Shogi tournament, do you agree with my
formula or do you prefer three games for each round, like Fergus
suggested?
(and by the way, am I in charge?)

I think both tricks are useful.

Move priorities ensure that the AI needs not look at all for the extra
moves.
But the bogus square (mine are defined with a position of (-1 -1 -1 -1))
and the verify diminish the value of each add and thus allow more
precision in the points you intend to give.

(For my recent Dual Chess, which uses them both, I also defined several
pieces twice, so that the AI values them according to position, while
identical graphics and the use of the translate command make them appear
similar.)