Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I repeat, I have not extra-sensorial powers, but I have some reasons to
believe that we can´t expect quantum computers in the next 100 years,
perhaps much more... (and, returning to other somewhat related point, we
can´t expect another types of teleportation apart from sub-atomic
particles in the same period of time, and I bet for year 3000 or more).

A personal preference may be an indicative, and may not. Masses preferences
are so difficult to pronosticate, that if not, many people could take
advantage of this fact, and it is not the reality. There are many factors
of influence, marketing is not always the clever, and statistics is not
always helpful. My personal preferences differ from yours, and surely from
others, I don´t like Chessgi too much, and although I like Crazyhouse, I
don´t think this game has enough elements of attractive for the grand
mass. But guessing is a good mental exercise, undoubtely. And, who knows?,
can you kill, with strong arguments, the possibility of a Symmetrical game
of the collection as the FIDE-Chess substitute?. I can´t, a priori,
regardless my personal opinion. I prefer Maxima, of course, but this
preference is clearly biased.

In all honesty, I don't think humans will lose interest in chess just
because computers can beat us at it.  It's already the case for the vast
majority of chess-players, and yet they still play.  Or to make another
comparison, we didn't stop holding foot-races because we had built
machines that can go faster than us.

Chessgi and Shogi have the highest resistance to computer analysis because
the drop rule gives them a HUGE branching factor, at least in the
mid-game, once several pieces are in-hand.  Most would probably suspect
Chessgi to have a larger branching factor than Shogi, because the Chess
pieces are so much more powerful, and thus have many more possible moves. 
I suspect that Shogi, however, actually has the larger branching factor due
to the fact that the board has 81 squares instead of 64.  In any case,
these games won't be 'digestable' by computers for several decades at
best, in my opinion.  They are both still easy to analyze very deeply in
the opening, though, with Shogi being a little more so, because pieces
aren't usually captured quite as early as in Chess.  Shogi is a wonderful
game to be sure; I haven't played Chessgi, but I suspect it is wildly more
challenging (for a human) to play than Shogi.

An interesting question would be how resistant to computer analysis
Marsellias Chess (or other double-move games) would be.  ChessV doesn't
support any double-move games at present, and I must confess that I am not
at all clear on how to program such a thing efficiently.  I have found no
technical writings on the subject.  The only computer program I know of
that plays such games is Zillions-of-Games, so the Zillions team might
well be the only people on the planet who know anything about it.  And
their solution wouldn't really be directly applicable, anyway, even if
they wanted to share it.  Although I know none of the technical details of
how Zillions is programmed, I am quite certain that it is of a radically
different design than ChessV.  This is primarily because the two programs
were written with a very different design goal.  Zillions is designed to
play as many games as possible (currently hundreds, if not thousands, but
many are played very poorly.)  ChessV is designed to play as many games as
is possible to play with a very high level of skill (presently about 35;
will be hundreds, but many chess variants will NEVER be supported.)  I
will investigate double-move some day, but I have about a thousand other
things I want to do first.

Now, the super-computer resistant game is Go, with 19 x 19 = 361 legal
opening moves ...  Ok, you can divide by four (at least) because of the
symmetry, but after a few moves, the board will be asymmetric, and the
branching factor will still be 300+!!!   Computers play Go very badly ... 
I got the best program I could get about 3 years ago and was able to beat
it, even giving it quite a long time (which is scarry, because I'm really
not very good; about 15 kue at best.)  I'm sure programs have gotten
somewhat better, but I know for a fact that there are literally thousands
and thousands of kids living in China/Japan/Korea less than ten years old
who can easily defeat the best technology has to offer.

Greg Strong wrote: 'When exact refutations to every single opening can be
calculated, and are published, then professional Chess will no longer be a
game of Chess skill, but rather just a game of memorization. Ok, you could
still try to substitute Chess skill, but a person with a fantastic memory
will probalby clean your clock.'

Indeed, I feel we have already witnessed the Scrabble-ization of Chess:
the step from amateur to tournament player already requires loads of rote
memorization. However, if we switch to Grand Chess the number of openings
will be far greater and hence harder to learn, for any human being
(without cyborg cortical implants); if we switch to any variant with a
large number of variable opening setups, I think it will be impossible. 

The objection someone made to Mercenary Chess that whatever makes the
'best' army and opening setup would be soon discovered misses one of the
points: the best army and opening setup for White would depend on the army
and opening setup Black is using, and vice versa; hence if they choose
them one piece at a time it would be unlikely that the same one would
always be used. Also, remember that there's a 'catalog' of pieces with
prices: I should have stipulated that the catalog offerings and prices
would continually be reviewed by the World Mercenary Chess Federation,
which would periodically raise the prices of pieces in the greatest demand
and lower the prices of pieces no one wants to hire. Also the WMCF might
introduce new pieces from time to time. Hence, I don't believe exhaustion
could ever happen.

Computers may play better than humans. But we're still a long way from
building a machine that can enjoy the game as much as we can.

A large branching factor doesn't always give the human the advantage. 
When grandmasters play the computer, they often want to trade queens
early, because the computer seems to be better at using the queen
tactically as the boards opens up, while the grandmaster is better in
closed positions where positional play is more important.

A game that is highly positional and has a large branching factor (like
go) does seem to give the computer fits.  But I suspect a game that is
very tactical and has a large branching factor gives the computer the
edge.  I suspect the progressive variants fall into the latter category.

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.

In my particular opinion, Shogi is superior to Mortal Chessgi, and this is
superior to Chessgi. The power of pieces in Chessgi is not the best for
the game, White has a clear advantage and, very probably, this game is a
White victory. Once a team has some material advantage, its weight is much
more than in Chess, it is not the case in Shogi, because the power of
pieces is relativelly small, fact that seems to be in favour of beauty and
complexity of the game, and by these reasons Shogi is an extraordinary
game, product of many years of evolution. No, Chessgi game play is not so
beautiful, and it can be guessed soon who is going to be the winner in
many cases, so deepness is not as clear as supposed. Yes, Mortal Chessgi
may work better with some weaker pieces, like Ferz or Wazirs, and the
Queen can be substituted by a weaker piece. It is very possible that
richness and beauty of the game may increase, but I don´t know until some
tests were performed, and I´ll try to do that when my time gives me a
chance. I firmly believe that Marsellais Chess works better with weaker
pieces, and I´m going to prepare a game with this characteristics to see,
it is very possible that surprises are going to be great. Marsellais and
variants are not easy to implement in such a way the Computer is a good
player. Zillions plays it poorly, regardless the tricks used in the ZRF.
The future?. I don´t know, but I believe that FIDE-Chess interest in going
to fall down in the future, and a related new game can come. Grand Chess,
or a variant, has good chances, perhaps adding some complexities and
refined rules to add new sthetics to the game play, because it is deep
enough, much more than FIDE-Chess. Don´t be iluse, these are, on the long
term, the characteristic that are going to be selected by the players:
Beauty in tactics and strategy, and deepness. I coincide with Antoine,
Ultima and related games are a quantic jump and it is not supposed it is
the natural evolution of a game, but interest in Ultima-like games can
grow to the point these games are played widely, and it should be a good
moment for a displacement, if interest in Chess fall down. Nova-Chess and
Mercenary are both in similar lines, but one favours personal selection,
the other randomness, I´m not sure what thing is desiderable, but, by the
way, the name 'Mercenary Chess' is one of the worst possible, in
Marketing language, so a change in the name is priority one for those who
think this class of games can success in the future. And don´t discard
Arimaa-like games. The fundamental idea is well thought, and it can offer
very interesting possibilities, it is not expected that computers can play
it at unbeatible levels, unless quantum computers appear, and it is not
expected soon, some people balieve it is only theory, but physically there
are important obstacles that can´t be saved unless in some ideal and
extremely rare environments. By now, I´m enjoying the things we are doing
in this Pages. It is the present, as it is Chess, Shogi and Xiang-Qi. All
of us are speaking in Meta-Chess language, and our work is counting to the
future. Be sure.

Changes in Western Chess are coming soon, and Amber is an excellent
example, players want new things, it is not only Rapid Chess, Blidfold
Chess, Advanced Chess... With time, it may not be to be enough!. Now is
Kriegspel. In a few years, it is possible we are going to see top Grand
Masters playing many other variants. Why not?