As a chess variantist inventor two matters preoccupy me the most. The first is the next evolution of chess meaning which game, or most likely games, if any, will take a mainstream place along the classic western chess. The second matter is what will happen to computer chess now that even go has fallen under the dictatorship of computers through the defeat of multiple world champion Lee Sedol. This article is about the first matter.
In my view the first evolution of chess was chaturanga/shatranj. I'm not much of a chess historian but suffices to say that in the 18thcentury our classic western chess was dominating. That is the second evolution of chess. This one is still here. What about the 3rd evolution of chess? Well it is very much prepared. Beginning in the 1970, maybe with the rise of personal computers, a number of chess variants have appeared (not that they weren't any older ones). Although only two of these variants are claiming to be the next evolution of chess I'll enumerate all my personal favorites for that stating that there are 3 likely candidates -tier 1- and 3 tier 2 candidates.
The tier I candidates are in my view Omega chess, Grand Chess (those 2 claiming that stature) and Ralph Betza's chess with different armies. The tier two candidates are Wildebeast chess, Eurasian chess and Shako. Why those? Well let's go through some principles the next evolution of chess should follow.
The game should be bigger. Well it's not much of an evolution if the game doesn't get bigger.
The game should be simple. Not weird principles or weird pieces, not to say that atomic chess isn't fun, but we aim for generality.
The game should be interesting and fun.
This is not a principle but a fact, the game should become fairly popular (actually Eurasian chess and Shako are not fairly popular but they respect the other principles).
It is my opinion also that if a game is completly solved meaning there is a program that gives perfect play in all cases than it should go down the history path.
What about Arimaa? Well, in my view Arimaa is not chess anymore, and also it handles itself rather neatly through a fervent community.
Also it is my opinion that the tier one games for the next evolution of chess should coexist meaning there should be a world champion in each an Olympiad in each and so on. And why not a triathlon of the three for really crazy players.
The main topic of this discussion are the two claimers, Omega chess and Grand chess.
First the good things that make them tier 1 candidates for the next evolution of chess. Cristian Freeling's idea to push pieces forward and leave the rooks back was a very good enhancement brought to the Capablanca chess family. Omega chess bring two new pieces to the table that make for very interesting play. First, those games should learn from each other, second they don't have enough pieces (omega chess doesn't have enough strong pieces and Grand chess doesn't have enough minor pieces), third the knight is to slow. Fourth as a personal flavor I don't like the Omega chess board with corners, although I admit that changing the rook into a minor piece has it's flavor. Five in omega chess opening the champion and especially the wizard are to far from the initial action. Omega chess has a version of itself named omega chess advanced where the knight has an added zebra just move solving one of the problems stated above. Also omega chess advanced introduces the foul, a very interesting piece. The foul imitates the last move ability of the opponent, which makes it a very interesting piece in my opinion. The second ability of the foul is to immobilize enemy pieces within a kings move. Introduction of this rule could go under debate but I think Grand chess really needs a foul.
Before going to my proposals on the matters raised, I just want to state that I believe Omega chess and Grand chess to be very well done, just not perfect.
What do I propose?
For advanced omega chess, push the pieces one rank ahead, put the rooks in the corner, put the champions and wizards in the middle of the bottomest rank, start with a griffin (a griffin is a piece that makes a diagonal move then an rookwise move) and an aanca (an aanca is a piece that makes an orthogonal move then a bishopwise move). Corner squares are debatable. We get the diagram bellow:
r . . w c c w . . r
. g n b q k b n a .
p p p p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
P P P P P P P P P P
. G N B Q K B N A .
R . . W C C W . . R
For grand chess add a treeper ((3,3) diagonal jump) just move to the knight, so that we don't actually copy omega chess, add two modern elephant+just move threeleaper ((3,0)orthogonal jump),so ferz+alfil+just move threeleaper. Add an Camel with an just move wazir and a Zebra with a just move ferz (for mobility and colorboundness negation) start with a foul in hand an we get this diagram:
r . . z e e l . . r
. n b q k m a b n .
p p p p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
P P P P P P P P P P
. N B Q K M A B N .
R . . Z E E L . . R
25 pieces (with the foul) are exactly one quarter of the board like in regular chess.
I also propose that pawn should promote to anything on rank 10 and to at most a rook on ranks 8 and 9. I propose no castling. Castling rules can be invented if desired. Pawn double move and en passant are like in classic western chess as the distance between white and black pawns is the same.
I don't consider these new variants but variations of the original games, and I believe them to be perfect for tier I next evolution of chess. I hope the gods of chess variants will forgive me for daring to try to improve such well recognized variants.
What about chess with different armies. That's also a brilliantly done variation but in my opinion it can also use a foul. Because the board is so small the fouls ability to immobilize should be reduced to a ferz or wazir area, or scraped altogether. If a foul imitates the move of the last moving opponent piece it will take from the flavor of chess with different armies, so my proposition is that the foul should move like the last counterpart of the move piece from the player's army (i.e. Move my bede if a rook has just been moved, move like a charging knight if a half duck has just been moved). One may also try to allow promotion to knight or bishop or their counterparts on rank 7. Just saying.
As for wildbeast chess, eurasian chess and shako I consider them lesser candidates so I don't put them under microscope.
What about the 4th evolution of chess. For now leave that on me, for my next article, and my next variants.
The next evolution of chess
As a chess variantist inventor two matters preoccupy me the most. The first is the next evolution of chess meaning which game, or most likely games, if any, will take a mainstream place along the classic western chess. The second matter is what will happen to computer chess now that even go has fallen under the dictatorship of computers through the defeat of multiple world champion Lee Sedol. This article is about the first matter.
In my view the first evolution of chess was chaturanga/shatranj. I'm not much of a chess historian but suffices to say that in the 18th century our classic western chess was dominating. That is the second evolution of chess. This one is still here. What about the 3rd evolution of chess? Well it is very much prepared. Beginning in the 1970, maybe with the rise of personal computers, a number of chess variants have appeared (not that they weren't any older ones). Although only two of these variants are claiming to be the next evolution of chess I'll enumerate all my personal favorites for that stating that there are 3 likely candidates -tier 1- and 3 tier 2 candidates.
The tier I candidates are in my view Omega chess, Grand Chess (those 2 claiming that stature) and Ralph Betza's chess with different armies. The tier two candidates are Wildebeast chess, Eurasian chess and Shako. Why those? Well let's go through some principles the next evolution of chess should follow.
The game should be bigger. Well it's not much of an evolution if the game doesn't get bigger.
The game should be simple. Not weird principles or weird pieces, not to say that atomic chess isn't fun, but we aim for generality.
The game should be interesting and fun.
This is not a principle but a fact, the game should become fairly popular (actually Eurasian chess and Shako are not fairly popular but they respect the other principles).
It is my opinion also that if a game is completly solved meaning there is a program that gives perfect play in all cases than it should go down the history path.
What about Arimaa? Well, in my view Arimaa is not chess anymore, and also it handles itself rather neatly through a fervent community.
Also it is my opinion that the tier one games for the next evolution of chess should coexist meaning there should be a world champion in each an Olympiad in each and so on. And why not a triathlon of the three for really crazy players.
The main topic of this discussion are the two claimers, Omega chess and Grand chess.
First the good things that make them tier 1 candidates for the next evolution of chess. Cristian Freeling's idea to push pieces forward and leave the rooks back was a very good enhancement brought to the Capablanca chess family. Omega chess bring two new pieces to the table that make for very interesting play. First, those games should learn from each other, second they don't have enough pieces (omega chess doesn't have enough strong pieces and Grand chess doesn't have enough minor pieces), third the knight is to slow. Fourth as a personal flavor I don't like the Omega chess board with corners, although I admit that changing the rook into a minor piece has it's flavor. Five in omega chess opening the champion and especially the wizard are to far from the initial action. Omega chess has a version of itself named omega chess advanced where the knight has an added zebra just move solving one of the problems stated above. Also omega chess advanced introduces the foul, a very interesting piece. The foul imitates the last move ability of the opponent, which makes it a very interesting piece in my opinion. The second ability of the foul is to immobilize enemy pieces within a kings move. Introduction of this rule could go under debate but I think Grand chess really needs a foul.
Before going to my proposals on the matters raised, I just want to state that I believe Omega chess and Grand chess to be very well done, just not perfect.
What do I propose?
For advanced omega chess, push the pieces one rank ahead, put the rooks in the corner, put the champions and wizards in the middle of the bottomest rank, start with a griffin (a griffin is a piece that makes a diagonal move then an rookwise move) and an aanca (an aanca is a piece that makes an orthogonal move then a bishopwise move). Corner squares are debatable. We get the diagram bellow:
r . . w c c w . . r
. g n b q k b n a .
p p p p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
P P P P P P P P P P
. G N B Q K B N A .
R . . W C C W . . R
For grand chess add a treeper ((3,3) diagonal jump) just move to the knight, so that we don't actually copy omega chess, add two modern elephant+just move threeleaper ((3,0)orthogonal jump),so ferz+alfil+just move threeleaper. Add an Camel with an just move wazir and a Zebra with a just move ferz (for mobility and colorboundness negation) start with a foul in hand an we get this diagram:
r . . z e e l . . r
. n b q k m a b n .
p p p p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
P P P P P P P P P P
. N B Q K M A B N .
R . . Z E E L . . R
25 pieces (with the foul) are exactly one quarter of the board like in regular chess.
I also propose that pawn should promote to anything on rank 10 and to at most a rook on ranks 8 and 9. I propose no castling. Castling rules can be invented if desired. Pawn double move and en passant are like in classic western chess as the distance between white and black pawns is the same.
I don't consider these new variants but variations of the original games, and I believe them to be perfect for tier I next evolution of chess. I hope the gods of chess variants will forgive me for daring to try to improve such well recognized variants.
What about chess with different armies. That's also a brilliantly done variation but in my opinion it can also use a foul. Because the board is so small the fouls ability to immobilize should be reduced to a ferz or wazir area, or scraped altogether. If a foul imitates the move of the last moving opponent piece it will take from the flavor of chess with different armies, so my proposition is that the foul should move like the last counterpart of the move piece from the player's army (i.e. Move my bede if a rook has just been moved, move like a charging knight if a half duck has just been moved). One may also try to allow promotion to knight or bishop or their counterparts on rank 7. Just saying.
As for wildbeast chess, eurasian chess and shako I consider them lesser candidates so I don't put them under microscope.
What about the 4th evolution of chess. For now leave that on me, for my next article, and my next variants.
Please excuse the poor diagrams.
I'm waiting for your comments.