(no subject)
Nov. 15th, 2007 01:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI was flicking through, on top of the pile of books to give away, a Gor book. Amongst many other peccadillos it describes a chess variant. My original thought had been that it was so stupid, obviously chess with a few ill-thought out extra rules tacked on that are totally incompatible. Okay, that's still what I think, but having experimented with penultima, I'm going to admit it's *possible*.
The key characteristics described:
* A slightly larger board and slightly larger number of pieces
Perfectly reasonable. Unnecessary, in my opinion, to make it more impressive, more complicated interactions would sound better, it's not like chess is "solved", but perfectly reasonable.
* The king-equivalent piece, and some others, are placed on the board within the first n moves.
* Weaker opponents playing experts often claim advantages, eg. handicapping the expert by several pieces.
Yes, that works. It's a lot harder to calibrate than in go, where it works well: missing a queen is a decisive disadvantage. On the other hand, good players can certainly beat me starting from behind. I suspect most of the time one or other would still have a notable advantage in the game. But it's possible.
* In the game described, the expert appears to be losing, makes three random moves, which ultimately reveal a "check", allowing a minor piece to take the king-equivalent piece on the last move, one move before the other player would have won.
That's a reasonable description of an expert winning against a weaker player in an apparently strong position. It didn't ring true to me, though. At first, I missed what they were describing. But even after, I know how easy it is to fall into fool's mate or similar, but with more of the pieces clear of the board, and examining the meaning of an apparently bizarre move, you think you could easily examine every piece.
My current rationale is that the pieces interact in some way, so that the minor piece was unusually strong (a vague description along these lines was made, but not clear if it meant only used in conjunction with, or it actually altered how the piece can move), eg. its move depends on the configuration of others, so the weaker player forgot that it might be able to move like that.
I don't think that was in the mind of the author, but it's consistent.
* A weaker player is often given an advantage, to move thrice in succession once in the game.
This just sounded mad. The king-equivalent piece was described as "captured", not "check-mated", so in most positions, this would be an instant win! How is that not completely unbalanced?
I really don't think this was thought through. On the other hand, it's not impossible. In go, for instance, it would be similar to starting with several pieces on the board, or the expert player conceding several areas of the board at once, both of which are negatives, but completely recoverable.
My rationale is that something like check-mate applies even if it's described, eg. pieces prevent other pieces from moving near them, or similar, so protection applies even when it's not your turn, or that check-mate applies to the king. Then, it might just be possible to guard even intermediate points, so the weaker player can't bring in the pieces necessary for even a fool's mate. But I still don't think it was a good idea.
* A naturally gifted player can beat a good player on their second ever game.
I just don't believe it. However gifted, whatever you've heard, it surely takes longer than that to learn the moves of the pieces?
The key characteristics described:
* A slightly larger board and slightly larger number of pieces
Perfectly reasonable. Unnecessary, in my opinion, to make it more impressive, more complicated interactions would sound better, it's not like chess is "solved", but perfectly reasonable.
* The king-equivalent piece, and some others, are placed on the board within the first n moves.
* Weaker opponents playing experts often claim advantages, eg. handicapping the expert by several pieces.
Yes, that works. It's a lot harder to calibrate than in go, where it works well: missing a queen is a decisive disadvantage. On the other hand, good players can certainly beat me starting from behind. I suspect most of the time one or other would still have a notable advantage in the game. But it's possible.
* In the game described, the expert appears to be losing, makes three random moves, which ultimately reveal a "check", allowing a minor piece to take the king-equivalent piece on the last move, one move before the other player would have won.
That's a reasonable description of an expert winning against a weaker player in an apparently strong position. It didn't ring true to me, though. At first, I missed what they were describing. But even after, I know how easy it is to fall into fool's mate or similar, but with more of the pieces clear of the board, and examining the meaning of an apparently bizarre move, you think you could easily examine every piece.
My current rationale is that the pieces interact in some way, so that the minor piece was unusually strong (a vague description along these lines was made, but not clear if it meant only used in conjunction with, or it actually altered how the piece can move), eg. its move depends on the configuration of others, so the weaker player forgot that it might be able to move like that.
I don't think that was in the mind of the author, but it's consistent.
* A weaker player is often given an advantage, to move thrice in succession once in the game.
This just sounded mad. The king-equivalent piece was described as "captured", not "check-mated", so in most positions, this would be an instant win! How is that not completely unbalanced?
I really don't think this was thought through. On the other hand, it's not impossible. In go, for instance, it would be similar to starting with several pieces on the board, or the expert player conceding several areas of the board at once, both of which are negatives, but completely recoverable.
My rationale is that something like check-mate applies even if it's described, eg. pieces prevent other pieces from moving near them, or similar, so protection applies even when it's not your turn, or that check-mate applies to the king. Then, it might just be possible to guard even intermediate points, so the weaker player can't bring in the pieces necessary for even a fool's mate. But I still don't think it was a good idea.
* A naturally gifted player can beat a good player on their second ever game.
I just don't believe it. However gifted, whatever you've heard, it surely takes longer than that to learn the moves of the pieces?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-15 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-15 04:35 pm (UTC)I don't know -- did the expert just lose/draw if that pawn was taken? That seems *way* too easy, you could force a draw in a few moves, surely? But maybe so. Otherwise, it seems hard but not impossible -- presumably you have to leave the pawn back and win strategically with the rest of your pieces, until you can control the whole board and herd the king into the right position.
And I see about the double move. In fact -- maybe if it just couldn't capture, it would be a lot closer, it would let you develop a good position, but not just win right then. At the start of the game has this effect -- four moves would be instant win, but any fewer would be useful to develop position only.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-15 05:25 pm (UTC)I assume it's still winnable for a really good player, but I think I'd far rather give up my queen than have to deal with that.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-16 02:25 pm (UTC)And look at "queen-side", that's some handicap.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-15 05:47 pm (UTC)How? I can see how you could capture your opponent's king in four moves, using a knight, but not checkmate it (because on their next allowed move their pawn could capture your knight), and I thought the rules of chess were specific about having to actually checkmate.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-15 06:15 pm (UTC)I was thinking of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar's_mate (Also known, possibly erroneously, as fool's mate). Move the king's pawn forward, then the bishop and the queen out through the gap so they both bear diagonally on the opponent's king's side's bishop's pawn. This pawn is only protected by the king, so the queen (or bishop) can take the pawn and checkmate the king, blocked in by its own pieces.
I was suddenly unsure if this needed your opponent to move anything out of the way, but I don't think it does.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-15 06:32 pm (UTC)Scholar's mate: cool, that's impressive.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-16 02:29 pm (UTC)In fact, that's interesting, there's quite a lot of things I know quite a bit about despite not having done much, I don't know if that makes me best described as "cultured" or "dilettante" :) OK, that's a joke, but I think it might actually show a bias for learning about things, even whilst there's only a limited amount I ever manage to do.