• Frog King Chess

    From Mats Winther@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 6 23:12:51 2021
    This is a modest variant that eliminates a lot of endgame draws. The king can jump orthogonally over a friendly piece to capture an enemy piece on the other side. Thus, K + P versus K is won.

    http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/frogkingchess.htm (with Zillions program).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eli Kesef@21:1/5 to malw...@gmail.com on Tue Nov 9 04:47:21 2021
    On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 8:12:52 AM UTC+2, malw...@gmail.com wrote:
    This is a modest variant that eliminates a lot of endgame draws. The king can jump orthogonally over a friendly piece to capture an enemy piece on the other side. Thus, K + P versus K is won.

    http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/frogkingchess.htm (with Zillions program).

    Bs"d

    Something like that existed already, it's called "checkers".

    Too many draws is only something to worry about for the world top, us mere mortals don't have to worry about that.

    https://tinyurl.com/tramp-checkers

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mats Winther@21:1/5 to Eli Kesef on Tue Nov 9 04:54:51 2021
    On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:47:22 PM UTC+1, Eli Kesef wrote:
    On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 8:12:52 AM UTC+2, M Winther wrote:
    This is a modest variant that eliminates a lot of endgame draws. The king can jump orthogonally over a friendly piece to capture an enemy piece on the other side. Thus, K + P versus K is won.

    http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/frogkingchess.htm (with Zillions program).
    Bs"d

    Something like that existed already, it's called "checkers".

    Too many draws is only something to worry about for the world top, us mere mortals don't have to worry about that.

    https://tinyurl.com/tramp-checkers

    Remember this? WCH 2018:

    Game 1: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    Game 2: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 3: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    Game 4: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 5: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    Game 6: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 7: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 8: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    Game 9: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 10: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    Game 11: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 12: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eli Kesef@21:1/5 to malw...@gmail.com on Tue Nov 9 09:10:42 2021
    On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 2:54:53 PM UTC+2, malw...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:47:22 PM UTC+1, Eli Kesef wrote:
    On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 8:12:52 AM UTC+2, M Winther wrote:
    This is a modest variant that eliminates a lot of endgame draws. The king can jump orthogonally over a friendly piece to capture an enemy piece on the other side. Thus, K + P versus K is won.

    http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/frogkingchess.htm (with Zillions program).
    Bs"d

    Something like that existed already, it's called "checkers".

    Too many draws is only something to worry about for the world top, us mere mortals don't have to worry about that.

    https://tinyurl.com/tramp-checkers
    Remember this? WCH 2018:

    Game 1: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    Game 2: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 3: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    Game 4: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 5: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    Game 6: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 7: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 8: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    Game 9: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 10: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    Game 11: Carlsen–Caruana, ½–½

    Game 12: Caruana–Carlsen, ½–½

    Bs"d

    Like I said; it's only the world top that has to worry about things like that.

    https://tinyurl.com/hard-to-win

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to Eli Kesef on Tue Nov 9 19:36:56 2021
    On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 5:47:22 AM UTC-7, Eli Kesef wrote:

    Too many draws is only something to worry about for the world top, us mere mortals don't have to worry about that.

    That's true enough in a direct sense.

    However, the fact of "too many draws" at the stratospheric heights of Chess _affects_ people who, although not
    grandmasters, do engage in serious rated play. Basically, evern since Steinitz came along, Chess stopped being
    particularly exciting as a spectator sport.
    This reduced the amount of support available for the game in free-market economies.

    However, while I found this variant interesting, I don't think it's a good solution to the problem. Making that
    particular endgame a win instead of a draw is, I think, going to be quite properly looked upon as damaging,
    not beneficial, to Chess as a game. Players should still have a reason to take care to avoid a stalemate
    when a checkmate is possible.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eli Kesef@21:1/5 to Quadibloc on Tue Nov 9 23:08:58 2021
    On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 5:36:57 AM UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 5:47:22 AM UTC-7, Eli Kesef wrote:

    Too many draws is only something to worry about for the world top, us mere mortals don't have to worry about that.
    That's true enough in a direct sense.

    Bs"d

    I think we should stop after this statement.

    However, the fact of "too many draws" at the stratospheric heights of Chess _affects_ people who, although not
    grandmasters, do engage in serious rated play. Basically, evern since Steinitz came along, Chess stopped being
    particularly exciting as a spectator sport.
    This reduced the amount of support available for the game in free-market economies.

    However, while I found this variant interesting, I don't think it's a good solution to the problem. Making that
    particular endgame a win instead of a draw is, I think, going to be quite properly looked upon as damaging,
    not beneficial, to Chess as a game. Players should still have a reason to take care to avoid a stalemate
    when a checkmate is possible.

    In the Karpov-Kasparov match they managed to play 17 draws in a row. No problem.

    They should just institute that in case of all draws the world champ keeps his title, and problem solved. The challenger will fight harder or go home as a loser.

    But the present solution with the rapid games, followed by the armageddon is also a good solution.

    Point is, chess isn't, and never was, a spectator sport. That's just a fact of life. I play chess because I like to play chess, not to entertain the spectators.

    And since during one world championship match not too long ago, don't remember right away who against who, there were 1.2 billion people who watched the games online, I don't think we have a spectator problem.

    https://tinyurl.com/checkmate-ends

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mats Winther@21:1/5 to Eli Kesef on Wed Nov 10 02:41:19 2021
    On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 8:08:59 AM UTC+1, Eli Kesef wrote:

    They should just institute that in case of all draws the world champ keeps his title, and problem solved. The challenger will fight harder or go home as a loser.

    But the present solution with the rapid games, followed by the armageddon is also a good solution.

    Point is, chess isn't, and never was, a spectator sport. That's just a fact of life. I play chess because I like to play chess, not to entertain the spectators.

    And since during one world championship match not too long ago, don't remember right away who against who, there were 1.2 billion people who watched the games online, I don't think we have a spectator problem.

    https://tinyurl.com/checkmate-ends

    In fact, chess is a hugely popular spectator sport. To determine the WCH with rapid games is an abomination.

    I have modified the rules in the main variant, so that the king jump can only occur over a pawn. Frog King Chess ought to make practical endgames more critical, since the king can now control the square before the pawn. The rule is very simple, and we
    are already used to kings that jump two steps. With such a rule, there will be no more 12 draws in a row, in a WCH.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Hyde@21:1/5 to Quadibloc on Wed Nov 10 14:44:25 2021
    On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 10:36:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 5:47:22 AM UTC-7, Eli Kesef wrote:

    Too many draws is only something to worry about for the world top, us mere mortals don't have to worry about that.
    That's true enough in a direct sense.

    However, the fact of "too many draws" at the stratospheric heights of Chess _affects_ people who, although not
    grandmasters, do engage in serious rated play. Basically, evern since Steinitz came along, Chess stopped being
    particularly exciting as a spectator sport.

    You were wrong when you said this on r.a.s.f.w, and you are still wrong.

    Wrongness is invariant with respect to newsgroup transformations.


    This reduced the amount of support available for the game in free-market economies.

    Perhaps you have some idea that pre-Steinitz chess benefited from generous free market support.

    It did not.

    Until the advent of the FIDE system, twentieth century world championships paid far more, in actual purchasing power than Steinitz' predecessors ever got. Post-Fischer, they again do. More than poor (literally poor) Steinitz could have dreamed, though
    he got more than had earlier players.

    Tournament prizes and appearance fees rose, so that more people were able to support themselves as chessplayers.

    Remember that of the pre-Steinitz greats, Morphy had family money, Anderssen was a teacher, Kolisch a banker, Von Der Lasa and St Amant diplomats, and so on. Blackburne supported himself through six months of touring in England, Staunton through writing,
    Wyvill had money, and Williams was a pharmacist.

    Contrast the twentieth century, where not only world champions, but contenders such as Nimzowitsch, Marshall, Tartakover, Rubenstein and many others could support themselves entirely (if not richly) through chess.



    However, while I found this variant interesting, I don't think it's a good solution to the problem. Making that
    particular endgame a win instead of a draw is, I think, going to be quite properly looked upon as damaging,
    not beneficial, to Chess as a game. Players should still have a reason to take care to avoid a stalemate
    when a checkmate is possible.

    Agreed entirely.

    William Hyde

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to William Hyde on Sun Nov 14 08:41:48 2021
    On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:44:26 PM UTC-7, William Hyde wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 10:36:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

    However, while I found this variant interesting, I don't think it's a good solution to the problem. Making that
    particular endgame a win instead of a draw is, I think, going to be quite properly looked upon as damaging,
    not beneficial, to Chess as a game. Players should still have a reason to take care to avoid a stalemate
    when a checkmate is possible.

    Agreed entirely.

    Upon reflection, though, I think my comments were too harsh.

    On the one hand, the defending player should be rewarded for preventing a checkmate.

    But on the other hand, the attacking player ought to get partial credit for being a pawn
    up due to the preceding play. Giving partial credit for stalemate, i.e., a 3/5-2/5 point
    split, seems to me an appropriate way to do this, as it addresses both sides of the
    question.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Hyde@21:1/5 to Quadibloc on Thu Nov 18 13:51:56 2021
    On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 11:41:49 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:44:26 PM UTC-7, William Hyde wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 10:36:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

    However, while I found this variant interesting, I don't think it's a good solution to the problem. Making that
    particular endgame a win instead of a draw is, I think, going to be quite properly looked upon as damaging,
    not beneficial, to Chess as a game. Players should still have a reason to take care to avoid a stalemate
    when a checkmate is possible.

    Agreed entirely.
    Upon reflection, though, I think my comments were too harsh.

    Well of course. You were right, and that's the one thing you can't stand.

    Or so it appears.


    On the one hand, the defending player should be rewarded for preventing a checkmate.

    But on the other hand, the attacking player ought to get partial credit for being a pawn
    up due to the preceding play.

    This would make for a more boring game. Take the Marshall gambit in the Lopez. Sometimes this results in a pawn-down but drawn endgame for the person who sacrificed a pawn. If this resource were not available, the Marshall would be a significantly
    worse opening, and probably never played.

    Making pawn sacrifices more risky would make for a more boring game.

    William Hyde

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mats Winther@21:1/5 to William Hyde on Fri Nov 19 12:45:37 2021
    On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 10:51:57 PM UTC+1, William Hyde wrote:

    This would make for a more boring game. Take the Marshall gambit in the Lopez. Sometimes this results in a pawn-down but drawn endgame for the person who sacrificed a pawn. If this resource were not available, the Marshall would be a significantly
    worse opening, and probably never played.

    Making pawn sacrifices more risky would make for a more boring game.

    William Hyde

    Firstly, the Marshall pawn sac occurs early in the game, long before the endgame. It creates dynamic possibilities, and the game is likely decided long before the pawn endgame. Black's objective is not to achieve an endgame with a pawn less, and then
    hold that to a draw.

    Secondly, the Marshall gambit is so good that it has effectively killed the Spanish opening. That's why they play d3-variants, today. It would be good if the Marshall were weakened.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to malw...@gmail.com on Fri Nov 19 18:19:05 2021
    On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 1:45:38 PM UTC-7, malw...@gmail.com wrote:

    Secondly, the Marshall gambit is so good that it has effectively killed the Spanish opening. That's why they play d3-variants, today. It would be good
    if the Marshall were weakened.

    Whether or not there is any truth to that, it is highly unclear to me how one could modify Chess so as to alter the relative merits of different openings without changing it beyond recognition - with, therefore, unpredictable consequences instead of good ones.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Hyde@21:1/5 to Quadibloc on Sun Nov 21 15:40:53 2021
    On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:19:06 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
    On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 1:45:38 PM UTC-7, malw...@gmail.com wrote:

    Secondly, the Marshall gambit is so good that it has effectively killed the Spanish opening. That's why they play d3-variants, today. It would be good if the Marshall were weakened.
    Whether or not there is any truth to that, it is highly unclear to me how one could modify Chess so as to alter the relative merits of different openings without changing it beyond recognition - with, therefore, unpredictable consequences instead of good ones.

    Agreed. But then it's my view on the whole topic.

    William Hyde

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mats Winther@21:1/5 to Quadibloc on Sun Nov 21 22:25:33 2021
    On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:19:06 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
    On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 1:45:38 PM UTC-7, malw... wrote:

    Secondly, the Marshall gambit is so good that it has effectively killed the Spanish opening. That's why they play d3-variants, today. It would be good if the Marshall were weakened.
    Whether or not there is any truth to that, it is highly unclear to me how one could modify Chess so as to alter the relative merits of different openings without changing it beyond recognition - with, therefore, unpredictable consequences instead of good ones.

    John Savard

    How could it lead to "unpredictable consequences"? It only requires theoretical analysis with the aid of computers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to malw...@gmail.com on Mon Nov 22 02:49:01 2021
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 11:25:34 PM UTC-7, malw...@gmail.com wrote:

    How could it lead to "unpredictable consequences"? It only requires theoretical analysis with the aid of computers.

    Right now, though, there's only _one_ computer, AlphaZero, which is owned by Google, that can really do this kind of stuff properly.

    Eventually, something based on Leela or other such programs that will analyze chess variants will become available, and indeed people will do interesting things
    with it...

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)