Buho21 - red social y juegos online Multijugador  |  Juegos  |  VIP  |  Clubis  |  Software  |  Foros  |  Búsqueda
OverChess

Para participar en los foros debes identificarte en la web. Gracias.
05/02/2008 19:42

OVERCHESS: AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE TRADITIONAL CHESS.
by Kasparovzilla
Renato Neubert de Souza
renneubert@gmail.com
Skype mywell.

Why creating a new chess?

Disregarding a general wish for renovation, there are no doubts that the traditional chess, like it is played today, it is already too stressed by the theory study progress on the last few years and by the introduction of computer analysis on games.

While researching in Internet, a lot of possible variations trying to create new chess games, as we can see on below listed links, have been developed along history:

http://www.chessvariants.org/small.dir/alapo.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/diffmove.dir/almost.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/arch.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/dpieces.dir/diffknights.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/dpieces.dir/berlin.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/capablanca.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/unequal.dir/cwda.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/courier.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/boardrules.dir/cylindrical.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/winning.dir/extinction.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/diffsetup.dir/fischer.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/winning.dir/kinglet.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/small.dir/losalamos.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/diffmove.dir/polymorph.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/shatranj.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/diffmove.dir/switching.html.
http://www.chessvariants.org/link2.dir/chessv.html.

We cannot compare Kasparov’s knowledge with, for instance, Capablanca’s, although their skills can. In a hypothetical game between them, of course Kasparov would be favoured simply because of his knowledge. Today a game between two GMIs has about its firsts twenty movements made in a blitz. The previous study and their teams capacitation can make the difference between two equally ranked players but it demands a lot of hard study in order to grow very little in general performance.

The study is a must, it is necessary but today what we see is that there is no more space for creation and the chess is becoming more and more a precise science than a challenging game for mind and spirit. There is no more passion and risk on top of the board.

Just as an example, it is almost impossible to win a hard player when he decides, since the game’s beginning, to make a draw, specially if he is playing with whites. Most of the time, chess is played through Internet, not face to face and the distance between players allows anyone to use the assistance of a computer to “qualify” its movements. So, this becomes much more a competition between technical resources than between two persons and their own minds.

So we are proposing here a new chess game, contested in a bigger board, with eighty squares (8 rows X 10 columns) or with one hundred squares (10 rows X 10 columns), with the introduction of two new pieces: the prime-ministers, or simply ministers, based in a modern parliamentary monarchy, as in United Kingdom. Ministers design is still undefined, suggestions are welcome.

The OVERCHESS would have some minor changes on a few pieces movements, as below:

PAWNS: nothing changes in an 8 x 10 squares board. In a 10 x 10 squares board they could start jumping one, two or three squares ahead, and they would have two possible captures “en passant”, described on following examples: 1st: black pawn in c5, white pawn moves to d5: black can play cxd4 and the white pawn is removed from board; 2nd: black pawn in c4, white pawn moves to d4 or d5: black can play cxd3 and the white pawn is removed from board.
QUEEN: it would have its movements reduced to the current movements of the king, like the king moves today.
MINISTERS: they would have the current movements of the queen, like the queen moves today.
All other pieces would keep their movements as on traditional chess.

GOAL: to capture both king and queen, the crown.

The idea is to start from zero, the ground for this OverChess development being the creativity of individuals. This will bring back the emotion, the risk, the real minds challenge to chess board.

So, a player could get four different results:
Zero point: defeat;
One point: draw;
Two points: victory with half crown;
Three points: victory with full crown.
And a game could have five possible results: 3 – 0, 2 – 0, 1 – 1, 0 – 2, 0 – 3.

As I see this new game, my basic proposal is like below:

While both monarchs on board, anyone of them could be taken like any regular piece and it is not compulsory to defend a check, but it is a must when only one remains on board. For instance, when both monarchs are simultaneously attacked, one of them will be fatally lost. Any missing monarch can be replaced by a promoted pawn.

The castle would be allowed to both monarchs, and with both rooks, moving three squares towards the rook chosen. Of course, each player can castle only twice in a game, and only when each majesty would do it with its own side rook.

The ministers position would be one at each monarch’s side, the crown being centralized on board, like it is today.

POSSIBILITIES:

1- an OverChess game would last much more time than a traditional chess game;

2- it becomes possible to have more than one conflict zone on an 80 or on an 100 squares board, since each player will have two monarchs to be taken by the opponent;

3- while being a full crown on board, any monarch can be used like any other piece else, also in attack operations, and can check. An hypothetical endgame of a full against a half crown cannot be a draw;

4- while playing on a bigger board, pieces with limited range movements, like knights and monarches, will have to make more moves in order to become operational, instead of rooks, bishops and ministers, whose movements are not limited by the board’s size. This can emphasize, for instance, the power difference between bishops and knights;

5- in any game under control, a player with half crown can try to promote a pawn in order to complete it and to perform three points with his victory. Resigning is then an option to his opponent, in order to refute this plan;

6- of course, minister’s offensive power is infinitely greater than any majesty’s. Because of this, under some game circumstances it may not be interesting to take a monarch using for this a minister sacrifice. Otherwise, in a pawn promotion, according the game’s circumstances, can be not so easy a correct choice between a minister or a missing majety.

This is the central and basic idea, which I suppose new, since none previous was based in a crown of two monarchs. None new movement was created, so even the new piece, but a big lot of new possibilities is introduced. In chess openings theory terms, we would get back to Ruy Lopez’ time.

In Capablanca’s suggestion, only for instance, the two new piece created would have complicated movements, mixed of rook and bishop with knight, but with few new possibilities. The game remains basically the same.

Of course Kasparov, like any true chess player, didn’t like to lose to Deep Blue, a technology development, although was he able to win it in the first match. So, I ask: would it be easy to equacione the OverChess, with all its possibilities, in a software for computer? How long time would it be needed to be created a digital tool able to play this game like a GMI, as we already today have for the traditional chess?

Suggestions and criticisms are welcome. Thanks.

Sí, quiero ser socio VIP  | Ayuda | Contacto