Would you play this game?
Landsrgame
was too difficult? Would you expect its inventor to simplify the rules, or
perhaps try again on a different game? Comparisons are welcome.
This might be the wrong question for r.g.b., since Chess in particular doesn't
seem to be popular in this newsgroup. On the other hand, some German-style
games aren't exactly simple. Reviews might simplify a game to: the ending
doesn't work! So, pages of rules is no guarantee of a good game, nor is it a
guarantee of poor sales.
Imagine that George Finnegan just published his brand new game, Chess! What
would you say to him about his game? Remember that you just got to play the
game at a recent convention, or gathering of friends.
Harvey
http://members.aol.com/landsrgame
Chris Camfield
Chris
Matthew
> Imagine that George Finnegan just published his brand new game, Chess! What
> would you say to him about his game?
>
Well, George, the theme is a bit dry and I especially didn't
understand how the castles could be moved around so easily. I can't
help but think that there might be a significant advantage to going
first. Some of the rules seem a bit niggly - "castling" for example -
why even bother putting that in there at all? It doesn't seem to flow
with the rest of the game.
I suspect that since the game is one of perfect information and
completely equal sides that two players of comparable skill will
always degenerate into a draw. Perhaps you should have some kind of
VP winning conditions rather than just "kill the King".
-MMM
Landsrgame
>
>Chris
Hi Chris,
The opposite of "abstract" would be "real," "concrete," a "simulation." So
you're saying that things don't happen this way in real life, and that the game
can't be fixed to make it "more real," or "less abstract."
You would prefer random elements controlling the game pieces, such as cards and
dice? The game pieces move too slowly, and get bunched up, requiring the
players to consider too many options that don't have anything to do with
reality.
What about the ending being too "drawish"? The game can come down to too few
pieces, so that neither player can win. There should be a clear winner!
Anything else objectionable about George Finnegan's game? Can it be fixed?
Harvey
Robin King
news:20031206224522...@mb-m29.aol.com...
Check out the amusing reviews at
http://kumquat.com/cgi-kumquat/funagain/allreviews?;05511
Robin, it got a rating of 3.3 out of 5, in eight reviews
Sebastian Bleasdale
>If Chess were invented today, would you play this game? Or, would you think it
>was too difficult? Would you expect its inventor to simplify the rules, or
>perhaps try again on a different game? Comparisons are welcome.
No. It's yet another two player abstract with a load of special cased
rules. I may play it a few times if it takes off, but unless it does,
it's just too much like hard work to find someone to play it against,
especially as I'd probably have to teach them how to play it.
--
Sebastian You are a piece of grit and
the world is your oyster
Landsrgame
If Chess were invented today, would you play this game? Or, would you think it
was too difficult? Would you expect its inventor to simplify the rules, or
perhaps try again on a different game? Comparisons are welcome. >>
<< No. It's yet another two player abstract with a load of special cased
rules. I may play it a few times if it takes off, but unless it does, it's
just too much like hard work to find someone to play it against, especially as
I'd probably have to teach them how to play it.
Sebastian >>
Hi Sebastian,
What would cause the game "to take off," presumably in a matter of months, or a
few years, at most? By accident, the "responsive chord"? By promotion? By
good reviews? By vast distribution?
George Finnegan's game isn't difficult to teach how to play (there are only 6
types of pieces), it is difficult to teach how to WIN. The winning condition,
and the way to get to that point, is determined by an invisible network of
routes that each piece can take, and combinations of routes that both players
need to consider. That sounds like a challenging idea that people would just
love to take on. I guess it's the difficulty in winning that turns people off
the game.
Harvey
The Maverick
> If Chess were invented today, would you play this game?
Nah, too abstract - unless they jazzed the pieces and mapboard up a bit
to fit the combat theme, then it might do ok. ;-)
> Or, would you think it was too difficult?
Not difficult to learn, but difficult to master all of the strategic
possibilities.
> Would you expect its inventor to simplify the rules, or
> perhaps try again on a different game?
Simplify? The rules are pretty darn simple...
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
The Maverick
>
> No. It's yet another two player abstract with a load of special cased
> rules.
A "load" of special cased rules? If you can't easily remember them all
in your head, then maybe you should be back at Candyland. ;-)
Landsrgame
bit to fit the combat theme, then it might do ok. ;-)
> Or, would you think it was too difficult?
the Mav: Not difficult to learn, but difficult to master all of the strategic
possibilities.
> Would you expect its inventor to simplify the rules, or perhaps try again on
a different game?
the Mav: Simplify? The rules are pretty darn simple...
Hi Mav,
Agreed that the rules are simple enough. Perhaps it should be "simplify the
effect of the rules." Meaning that there is too much to figure out, for most
people, so George Finnegan should try to decrease the number of things to
figure out in the game. Possible? Or would such an attempt only ruin the
game?
Harvey
Sebastian Bleasdale
><< Landsrgame wrote:
>If Chess were invented today, would you play this game? Or, would you think it
>was too difficult? Would you expect its inventor to simplify the rules, or
>perhaps try again on a different game? Comparisons are welcome. >>
>
><< No. It's yet another two player abstract with a load of special cased
>rules. I may play it a few times if it takes off, but unless it does, it's
>just too much like hard work to find someone to play it against, especially as
>I'd probably have to teach them how to play it.
>Sebastian >>
>
>few years, at most? By accident, the "responsive chord"? By promotion? By
>good reviews? By vast distribution?
There are two ways for it to take off. The first is that it succeeds by merit,
a sort of underground success. I can't really see that happening - there are
a lot of competing games which condense the same sort of strategic and tactical
depth into shorter games without the clunky rules.
The second is that some company promotes it as a christmas hit. I can't really
see any company doing that, either. The cost of promoting enough to get some
sort of return is rather high, and it's limited by the fact that it depicts
war (losing family friendlyness), two player (christmas hits want full family
participation) and relatively tawdy (comeon - get some colour on the board)
The thing is, if people want to play a two player abstract strategy, then they
end up playing Ochmir instead. There are Ochmir clubs in all the schools,
everyone has an Ochmir board hidden under the stairs somewhere. Ochmir is a
game which everyone knows is a really deep game. Why would you want to waste
time with this ... chiss.
But I shouldn't be so negative. Try to get people to set up some chiss clubs
near where you are. It probably will never be anything but a local success,
but at least you gave it go.
>George Finnegan's game isn't difficult to teach how to play (there are only 6
>types of pieces), it is difficult to teach how to WIN. The winning condition,
>and the way to get to that point, is determined by an invisible network of
>routes that each piece can take, and combinations of routes that both players
>need to consider.
That sounds like a generic description of pretty much any abstract two player
strategy game. Except that most have fewer types of pieces.
>That sounds like a challenging idea that people would just love to take on.
>I guess it's the difficulty in winning that turns people off the game.
Quite frankly, it doesn't sound like a challenging idea that people would
just love to take on. It sounds like a random collection of rules that
someone's cobbled together, and that only works as a game due to MHF's Law.
Sebastian Bleasdale
>Sebastian Bleasdale wrote:
>> No. It's yet another two player abstract with a load of special cased
>> rules.
>
>A "load" of special cased rules? If you can't easily remember them all
>in your head, then maybe you should be back at Candyland. ;-)
I have nothing against rules. I do not like rules with lots of silly
special cases. "The pawn captures diagonally. Except it can't move
diagonally unless capturing, so it goes forwards most of the time.
Except it can go forward two space only the first time it moves.
And if it does that, then another pawn (only another pawn) can capture
it by moving into the space behind it. And if it moves into a space
where it can't move forward, then we turn it into something else."
Basically, I associate two player abstracts with simple rules and
lots of interesting concequences. If chess were designed today, I would
view the extra rules as evidence that the designer had attempted to
paper over the cracks in order to get something that was sufficiently
playable. And I would be worried that at a slightly deeper level,
those cracks would turn up to haunt us.
Landsrgame
<< The thing is, if people want to play a two player abstract strategy, then
they end up playing Ochmir instead. There are Ochmir clubs in all the schools,
everyone has an Ochmir board hidden under the stairs somewhere. Ochmir is a
game which everyone knows is a really deep game. Why would you want to waste
time with this ... chiss. >>
From what I've been able to find, "Ochmir" is a fictional game, with
insufficient rules to make an actual set. Hmm. I was ready to go online and
buy a set.
Don't think I want to know what MHF's Law is.
Harvey
(eating gullible stew with chestnut gravy)
Kevin J. Maroney
(Sebastian Bleasdale) wrote:
>I have nothing against rules. I do not like rules with lots of silly
>special cases. "The pawn captures diagonally. Except it can't move
>diagonally unless capturing, so it goes forwards most of the time.
>Except it can go forward two space only the first time it moves.
>And if it does that, then another pawn (only another pawn) can capture
>it by moving into the space behind it. And if it moves into a space
>where it can't move forward, then we turn it into something else."
This seems to be the week when I quote myself:
<http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/VaryingChess.shtml>
Scroll down to the section "The Devolution of Chess" for a version of
Chess with all of the fiddly exceptions stripped off. (It's also much
more difficult for a game to end in a draw.)
I've played it a few times, and it's a decent game, but Chess
aficionados hate it.
The most virulent complaint I ever received on it was using East Asian
Chess-style pawns, which move and capture one space forward. A friend
suggested that instead, Ur-Chess pawns should move and capture to any
of the three forward spaces. I've never had an opportunity to test
this idea.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
<http://www.panix.com/~kjm/games-for-sale.html> updated 27 November 2003
The Maverick
>
> Agreed that the rules are simple enough. Perhaps it should be "simplify the
> effect of the rules." Meaning that there is too much to figure out, for most
> people, so George Finnegan should try to decrease the number of things to
> figure out in the game. Possible? Or would such an attempt only ruin the
> game?
Simplifying it would make it a different game altogether, as we have
seen in a number of variations on Finnegan's game (see various other
abstract games relying on Chess-piece moves).
The Maverick
>
> I have nothing against rules. I do not like rules with lots of silly
> special cases. "The pawn captures diagonally. Except it can't move
> diagonally unless capturing, so it goes forwards most of the time.
> Except it can go forward two space only the first time it moves.
> And if it does that, then another pawn (only another pawn) can capture
> it by moving into the space behind it. And if it moves into a space
> where it can't move forward, then we turn it into something else."
The fact that you are able to type them out - zip, zip, zip - seems to
demonstrate their simplicity. To each his own...
The Maverick
>
> Scroll down to the section "The Devolution of Chess" for a version of
> Chess with all of the fiddly exceptions stripped off.
Chess "fiddly"? That has to be about the worst use of that overused,
overambiguous term...
Sebastian Bleasdale
>Sebastian wrote:
><< The thing is, if people want to play a two player abstract strategy, then
>they end up playing Ochmir instead. There are Ochmir clubs in all the schools,
>everyone has an Ochmir board hidden under the stairs somewhere. Ochmir is a
>game which everyone knows is a really deep game. Why would you want to waste
>time with this ... chiss. >>
>
>From what I've been able to find, "Ochmir" is a fictional game, with
>insufficient rules to make an actual set. Hmm. I was ready to go online and
>buy a set.
*grins*. Well, I had to make something to replace chess as the most
popular game. And an imaginary one seemed perfect for this imaginary
situation. Sorry about that.
>Don't think I want to know what MHF's Law is.
MHF's Law is that if you take any set of random rules, and bung them
together, then you'll end up with a playable two player abstract.
It may not be much good, but it'll work as a game simply due to the
competativeness of players.
tarot
> George Finnegan's game isn't difficult to teach how to play (there are only 6
> types of pieces)
6 types of pieces are a lot for an abstract game, especially since each
of the 6 types move differently.
Go, Backgammon, Morris, Chinese Checkers, Abalone, and many other
abstracts have only 1 type of pieces. Some like Checkers have 2 types.
Gipf and Dvonn have 2 types, Zertz 3, Arimaa 6, which all move the same
way. Yinsh and Quaridor have 2 types, and one doesn't move.
It is a fact that Chess rules complexity is on the high end among
abstract games. IMO it has got about as much rules complexity
as Attika, and higher than Ra. People consider that it has simple
rules only because they learned it since they were small, just
like Monopoly.
--
"Live life with Heart."
Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews)
Tarot Games Hong Kong : http://www.tghk.com
Landsrgame
<http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/VaryingChess.shtml>
<< Scroll down to the section "The Devolution of Chess" for a version of Chess
with all of the fiddly exceptions stripped off. (It's also much more difficult
for a game to end in a draw.)
I've played it a few times, and it's a decent game, but Chess aficionados hate
it. >>
Hi Kevin,
Interesting article! For the hypothetical circumstance in this thread, I was
interested to read your own summation of Ur Chess:
"Is Ur chess a better game than chess? Almost certainly not. But it has a charm
of its own, and I think it's a faster and cleaner alternative, a variant which
keeps the strongest points of chess while sanding down just a few of the sharp
edges."
So your recommendation to George Finnegan would be that his version is almost
certainly better than the version you put together. Which leaves the question,
how would you improve your version to make a better (more simple?) game than
George Finnegan's game; presumably there are more "sharp edges" to remove. Or
would you just leave the rules to Ur Chess as they are, as an exercise that
isn't worth pursuing any further? Since Chess aficionados hate it, Ur Chess
probably has as much chance as Ochmir to become a successful product. But,
that's mixing circumstances. I expect that George Finnegan doesn't think much
of Ur Chess either.
Harvey
Christopher Dearlove
<ta...@netvigator.com> writes
>Landsrgame wrote:
>
>> George Finnegan's game isn't difficult to teach how to play (there are only 6
>> types of pieces)
>
>6 types of pieces are a lot for an abstract game, especially since each
>of the 6 types move differently.
>
>Go, Backgammon, Morris, Chinese Checkers, Abalone, and many other
>abstracts have only 1 type of pieces. Some like Checkers have 2 types.
>
>Gipf and Dvonn have 2 types, Zertz 3, Arimaa 6, which all move the same
>way. Yinsh and Quaridor have 2 types, and one doesn't move.
Hive has 5, all moving differently (a couple quite differently). It I
think shows
that this "chess" game has chances.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Anthony Simons
> Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>
> >
> > Scroll down to the section "The Devolution of Chess" for a version of
> > Chess with all of the fiddly exceptions stripped off.
>
>
> Chess "fiddly"? That has to be about the worst use of that overused,
> overambiguous term...
>
> the Mav
Nah; En Passant, Castling and Stalemate are all fiddly; it's a while
since I read Kevin's article but I'm fairly certain he points out more
than these three (obvious) examples.
Landsrgame
<< Quite frankly, it doesn't sound like a challenging idea that people would
just love to take on. It sounds like a random collection of rules that
someone's cobbled together, and that only works as a game due to MHF's Law. >>
together, then you'll end up with a playable two player abstract.
It may not be much good, but it'll work as a game simply due to the
Hi Sebastian,
At various stages in the development of a game, it might be justified to say
that the rules have been cobbled together. Through repeated testing, it should
be possible to find where the faults are and fix them (through further
development, hopefully). Whether everyone will agree with the final result is
another matter. It just depends on what one expects a game to be. In general,
the ability to have fun at a game is a good thing. If players think a
particular rule should be changed, then they create "house rules," and the game
goes on. If a set of rules doesn't work as a game, then "competitivess" won't
keep the game going.
Harvey
Sebastian Bleasdale
>Sebastian wrote:
>> MHF's Law is that if you take any set of random rules, and bung them
>>together, then you'll end up with a playable two player abstract.
>>It may not be much good, but it'll work as a game simply due to the
>>competitiveness of players.
>goes on. If a set of rules doesn't work as a game, then "competitivess" won't
>keep the game going.
I think that the point of MHF's Law is that a pretty arbitrary set of
rules will work a lot better than it has any right to. (It certainly
has in my experience, where I've just got a board from another game,
made up some rules and given the resulting game a try).
But I grant the point.
The Doctor
>
> Hive has 5, all moving differently (a couple quite differently). It I
> think shows
> that this "chess" game has chances.
You say this as if Hive is a fun game to play.
I think it's just as boring as chess, really.
I picked this chess thing up at my FLGS last week and gave it a try, but
it's pretty boring, The only way to win is to go first against someone
who has less knowledge of the game. All these draw conditions in the
rules makes the stuff end without a winner once you get to have the same
level of knowledge.
//Doc.
--
"Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen." - Loesje
Kom spelen, 28 Maart 2004, Noorderspel, Groningen. www.noorderspel.nl
Kevin J. Maroney
>Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
><http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/VaryingChess.shtml>
><< Scroll down to the section "The Devolution of Chess" for a version of Chess
>with all of the fiddly exceptions stripped off. (It's also much more difficult
>for a game to end in a draw.)
>I've played it a few times, and it's a decent game, but Chess aficionados hate
>it. >>
>
>Hi Kevin,
>
>Interesting article! For the hypothetical circumstance in this thread, I was
>interested to read your own summation of Ur Chess:
>
>"Is Ur chess a better game than chess? Almost certainly not. But it has a charm
>of its own, and I think it's a faster and cleaner alternative, a variant which
>keeps the strongest points of chess while sanding down just a few of the sharp
>edges."
>
>So your recommendation to George Finnegan would be that his version is almost
>certainly better than the version you put together.
Actually, that doesn't logically follow--it could be that I thought
that it's very likely that Ur-Chess is neither better nor worse than
Chess.
>Which leaves the question,
>how would you improve your version to make a better (more simple?) game than
>George Finnegan's game; presumably there are more "sharp edges" to remove. Or
>would you just leave the rules to Ur Chess as they are, as an exercise that
>isn't worth pursuing any further?
I suspect that the main difference between Ur-Chess and "George
Finnegan's Game" (Chess) is that Ur-Chess is more tactical and less
strategic, for reasons I described in the article and others: The lack
of a certain type of strategic development of pawn position, the fact
that the forces are in almost immediate contact, what I suspect is a
greater focus on capturing materiel instead of developing multi-piece
positional advantages, the reduced importance of pawn promotion. Even
the different victory rules could be viewed as a strategic downgrade,
though I'm pretty sure I prefer them.
My article discusses some of the reasons why Chess has the rules that
it has. Most of them evolved for specific reasons to address specific
needs expressed by players. While my game has some guesses about
different, more formally elegant ways to address those needs, I'm not
going to make the claim that formal elegance is the best criterion for
determining which game is "better". After all, the third-row pawns are
present in the East Asian games Chess games--Xiang Qi, Shogi, and
their relatives--but somewhere along the line, the Western version
decided to handle the question of distance beween the forces
differently, which in turn lead to pawn doublestep and en passant.
Given that Chess evolved over a period of hundreds of years, thinking
of it as "George Finnegan's Game" is misleading. It's really unlikely
that someone would sit down and create Chess from a blank board; Chess
bears the adze-marks of the folk process.
>Since Chess aficionados hate it,
Actually, I overstated the case there; I only know of one Chess
aficionado who hated it, but boy did he hate it.
Landsrgame
I haven't played Hive yet, but I have ordered a set. They must be doing
something right. They deserve high marks for creativity. Their website has
all the rules, and a way to play the game online. http://www.hivemania.com
They have gotten recognition from Games magazine, and International Gamers
Awards. And the game is in its second edition. It's one of the top selling
games at Funagain.com, and highly rated at
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2655
So far, it seems that a lot of people are excited about the game!
Personally, I don't find Chess boring. It's not a perfect game, but then what
game is? A game can be a challenge, it can be fun, it can even be instructive,
whatever one wants to make of it. If a game can accomplish that much, then I
think George Finnegan did well. I would be interested in what games you find
exciting, and what your reasons are.
Harvey
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>It is a fact that Chess rules complexity is on the high end among
>abstract games. IMO it has got about as much rules complexity
>as Attika, and higher than Ra. People consider that it has simple
>rules only because they learned it since they were small, just
>like Monopoly.
True enough. Just like Monopoly. This has happened to me, words
to the effect of:
"You can't do that!"
"Sure I can. It is called en passant."
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Landsrgame
<< Actually, that doesn't logically follow--it could be that I thought that
it's very likely that Ur-Chess is neither better nor worse than Chess. >>
I'll have to leave that to your knowledge of Ur Chess. I haven't tried the
game, so I don't know if I would immediately not like it, or if I would want to
keep playing it to see if I could get good at it.
<< After all, the third-row pawns are present in the East Asian games Chess
games--Xiang Qi, Shogi, and their relatives--but somewhere along the line, the
Western version decided to handle the question of distance beween the forces
differently, which in turn lead to pawn doublestep and en passant. >>
Correction is needed here. Xiang-qi (Chinese Chess) is played on a board of 9
x 10 points (9 wide, 10 along the files). There is a row of soldiers on the
fourth row of points.
Changgi (Korean Chess) is played on a board of 9 x 9 points, with a row of
soldiers on the fourth row of points.
Shogi (Japanese Chess) is played on a board of 9 x 9 squares, with a row of
soldiers on the third row.
Having said that (thank you David Parlett), I haven't played these conceptions
of Chess, so I can't follow with an analysis of what effect the positions of
the soldiers have. Since the games are very different from George Finnegan's
game, in how the pieces move, that too would have to be considered in the
analysis.
<< Given that Chess evolved over a period of hundreds of years, thinking of it
as "George Finnegan's Game" is misleading. It's really unlikely that someone
would sit down and create Chess from a blank board; Chess bears the adze-marks
of the folk process. >>
And someone built the pyramids, but no one seems to know how they did it. Our
inventor could have worked on his game Chess over many decades, letting the
various rules evolve as it seemed fitting, and as opponents across the board
made suggestions. It could happen.
<< Actually, I overstated the case there; I only know of one Chess aficionado
who hated it, but boy did he hate it. >>
Ha! I was going to say, "Both of them." I expect that Chess aficianados are
just that, they aren't interested in other versions because other versions
aren't at the tournaments.
Harvey
Chuang Shyue Chou
No.
> This might be the wrong question for r.g.b., since Chess in particular
doesn't
> seem to be popular in this newsgroup. On the other hand, some
German-style
I used to play chess. Two decades ago that is. Today, chess and games with
chess-like mechanics will not interest me.
The Doctor
If we just consider the realm of abstract games, I much prefer Quarto.
Much faster, much more fun and usually with a winner (getting a draw is
quite hard)
Drachen Delta is also a nice abstract game, which derives it's fun from
planning ahead and hidden information about the other player's turn
planning.
In other area's of gaming, I like Euphraat&Tigris, Carcassonne, Clans,
Alexandros, Pirates' Cove, El Grande, Intrige, Jyhad, Settlers C&K, etc.
Peter Clinch
> If Chess were invented today, would you play this game? Or, would you think it
> was too difficult? Would you expect its inventor to simplify the rules, or
> perhaps try again on a different game? Comparisons are welcome.
If I got to play it then I'd be happy to play it again, I think. The
problem with many of today's games is I just don't have the chance to
try them. I already buy them faster than I play them, and I have a tiny
fraction of what's available. Chess still stands up as an excellent
game, but whether I'd actually find that out by having enough reason to
play it among a whole pile of others is where it might fall by the
wayside, rather than because it's not much good.
It would (quite reasonably) be crtiticised for a pasted on theme, but
plenty of games in my collection have that and it doesn't bother me if
the play is good.
> This might be the wrong question for r.g.b., since Chess in particular doesn't
> seem to be popular in this newsgroup.
I think quite a lot of us play it, though probably not to the sort of
standard you'd find in chess-specific groups for the most part. Lots of
us actually like Monopoly as well, though we prefer alternatives in many
cases. I think Chess falls into the same "actually good, but not at the
top of my hit list" category.
> Imagine that George Finnegan just published his brand new game, Chess! What
> would you say to him about his game? Remember that you just got to play the
> game at a recent convention, or gathering of friends.
Something along the lines of...
"Really good game, but I think you'll have a problem finding a niche to
sell it into. There's really not much money in board games...
I don't really see why you've chosen the piece names you have, they
don't really relate in any meaningful way to what happens on the board,
so I'd either make the pieces slightly more abstract, or go the other
way and decorate the board as well as the pieces. Though I'll be happy
to play this, to be honest I prefer this other new one I just tried out:
it's called "Go", and though the name could use some work you should
give it a try!"
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Christopher Dearlove
Simons <fellon...@hotmail.com> writes
>Nah; En Passant, Castling and Stalemate are all fiddly; it's a while
>since I read Kevin's article but I'm fairly certain he points out more
>than these three (obvious) examples.
En passant and castling are certainly fiddly, stalemate less obviously
so. (In any game of this sort it's a natural question to ask "what if
you
can't move?" and having a simple answer is natural - although the
original Hive rules missed it.) Someone suggested pawn captures,
and if you've ever played Kriegspiel (the chess variant, not the AH
game)
that and promotions also belong on the list.
But chess is unlike almost any other game discussed in this group, it
wasn't designed, it evolved. No one person invented all of these - in
fact probably no one person invented any two, or even solely invented
any one. In all but one of the above cases the rule clearly adds to
the quality of the game. (As a comparison look in a beginner's guide
to Shogi. It has no castling move, but you'll find theory on casting
the hard way, thus indicating the need. Shogi can do that as there's
space behind the pawns, chess can't.) The odd one out in my view
(but I'm no expert) is en passant. Is there an expert out there who
knows either a standard - at any level - opening line or endgame
where en passant is important? (I'm not suggesting removing it of
course, I just think it's the historical anomaly left over when the
extended pawn move - OK, maybe that's fiddly too, but very important
- was added and seemed unnatural.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Paul
Like one of your other correspondents I like playing Hive, but if there were
hundreds of books out there defining the most perfect way of playing this
game then I wouldn't be bothered. That to me is the problem of chess, I'm
worse than someone else because I haven't spent months reading books on how
to improve my game.
Rgds, Paul
www.gameslore.co.uk
"Landsrgame" <lands...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031206224522...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> If Chess were invented today, would you play this game? Or, would you
think it
> was too difficult? Would you expect its inventor to simplify the rules,
or
> perhaps try again on a different game? Comparisons are welcome.
>
> This might be the wrong question for r.g.b., since Chess in particular
doesn't
> seem to be popular in this newsgroup. On the other hand, some
German-style
> games aren't exactly simple. Reviews might simplify a game to: the
ending
> doesn't work! So, pages of rules is no guarantee of a good game, nor is
it a
> guarantee of poor sales.
>
> Imagine that George Finnegan just published his brand new game, Chess!
What
> would you say to him about his game? Remember that you just got to play
the
> game at a recent convention, or gathering of friends.
>
> Harvey
> http://members.aol.com/landsrgame
>
>
Richard Bell
Landsrgame <lands...@aol.com> wrote:
>If Chess were invented today, would you play this game? Or, would you think it
>was too difficult? Would you expect its inventor to simplify the rules, or
>perhaps try again on a different game? Comparisons are welcome.
>
are only two kinds of people that play it: a small number of people that
I just walk all over them and a larger group (for all that I know) that rook
me into some kind of fools' mate. Despite being very intelligent and inclined
towards mathematics, I cannot be bothered to really learn how to play well.
I suppose that the embarassing problem of being solely to blame for my defeats
(no card draws, no dice, no random elements of any kind) may also contribute
to my antipathy for what I know to be an excellent game.
I have similar problems with GO.
David Goldfarb
Christopher Dearlove <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Is there an expert out there who
>knows either a standard - at any level - opening line or endgame
>where en passant is important?
Um, I'm not sure what you mean by "standard endgame". Anyway, I don't
know offhand of any main opening lines that involve an *en passant*
capture. OTOH, there are numerous lines of the French Defense where
White's e-pawn comes to e5, so a capture of the f-pawn on f6 could
become a part of the game.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"Think of me as a brief electromagnetic anomaly
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | who told you some true things for your own good."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Day of the Dead"
Graham Wills
lands...@aol.com (Landsrgame) wrote:
> Imagine that George Finnegan just published his brand new game, Chess! What
> would you say to him about his game? Remember that you just got to play the
> game at a recent convention, or gathering of friends.
I would not have played the game; I don't like abstracts much. If I
played it, I would probably suggest a player's aid because the moves are
a bit complex on first viewing.
- Graham Wills
Richard Dewsbery
> know offhand of any main opening lines that involve an *en passant*
> capture. OTOH, there are numerous lines of the French Defense where
> White's e-pawn comes to e5, so a capture of the f-pawn on f6 could
> become a part of the game.
Unless, of course, the enemy has studied his Agrippa, which I have :p
Richard
Kevin J. Maroney
>Correction is needed here. Xiang-qi (Chinese Chess) is played on a board of 9
>x 10 points (9 wide, 10 along the files). There is a row of soldiers on the
>fourth row of points.
>Changgi (Korean Chess) is played on a board of 9 x 9 points, with a row of
>soldiers on the fourth row of points.
>Shogi (Japanese Chess) is played on a board of 9 x 9 squares, with a row of
>soldiers on the third row.
Whoops, sorry, yes, that's what I get for posting from memory late at
night. In Xiang Qi, there's a line of pieces on the back rank, then an
empty rank, then the rank with the cannons, then a loose row of
"pawns".
In Shogi, the first rank is filled with pieces; the second rank has
two very powerful and fast-moving pieces; and the third row is a solid
line of "pawns".
Shogi doesn't really have "rooks" the way that the other chesses
do--there is a piece which moves like a Chess rook/Xiang Qi chariot,
but each side has only one. But in Xiang Qi and in Changgi, there is
an empty row for the chariots to move into to become "connected".
That's the key innovation from Grand Chess.
The Maverick
>
> It is a fact that Chess rules complexity is on the high end among
> abstract games. IMO it has got about as much rules complexity
> as Attika, and higher than Ra. People consider that it has simple
> rules only because they learned it since they were small, just
> like Monopoly.
"High among" does not equate to high complexity. For instance, card
game X may be on the high end of card game complexity, but this wouldn't
necessarily make it a complex game, in the grand scheme of things.
The Maverick
> In message <ba74e481.03120...@posting.google.com>, Anthony
> Simons <fellon...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>> Nah; En Passant, Castling and Stalemate are all fiddly; it's a while
>> since I read Kevin's article but I'm fairly certain he points out more
>> than these three (obvious) examples.
>
> En passant and castling are certainly fiddly, stalemate less obviously
> so.
If these fit someone's definition of "fiddly", then the term is even
MORE meaningless than I had supposed! ;-)
Peter Clinch
> If these fit someone's definition of "fiddly", then the term is even
> MORE meaningless than I had supposed! ;-)
I manage them easily enough too, I suppose, but OTOH they're routinely
left out of descriptions of play and introduced later (if at all with en
passant) so quite a few people teaching chess *do* seem to regard them
as "fiddly" to some degree.
I think from my personal idea of fiddly, EP is on the mark because it
adds an exception for not terribly much overall effect on the game. The
game works just fine without it, and it doesn't need the EP rule to work
well. Not *especially* fiddly, but fiddly nonetheless! ;-)
Sebastian Bleasdale
>The only reason that I do not play chess is that, from my perspective, there
>are only two kinds of people that play it: a small number of people that
>I just walk all over them and a larger group (for all that I know) that rook
>me into some kind of fools' mate.
>
>
>I have similar problems with GO.
Although Go at least has the advantage of a decent handycapping system.
Michael Abramowski
>
> If we just consider the realm of abstract games, I much prefer Quarto.
> Much faster, much more fun and usually with a winner (getting a draw is
> quite hard)
Quarto is an interesting game: First time I played it with my wife, we
drew. I thought: "This is a poor game. If you just play carefully
enough, you will always draw. Especially once you have played a few
games and know what to look out for." I was sceptical to play it again,
but fortunately, that first game has been the only draw so far.
Maybe it is similar to chess: once you have reached several years of
playing experience, you will always draw. But for us, Quarto is still
interesting to play.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Abramowski
>
> I manage them easily enough too, I suppose, but OTOH they're routinely
> left out of descriptions of play and introduced later (if at all with en
> passant) so quite a few people teaching chess *do* seem to regard them
> as "fiddly" to some degree.
>
> I think from my personal idea of fiddly, EP is on the mark because it
> adds an exception for not terribly much overall effect on the game. The
> game works just fine without it, and it doesn't need the EP rule to work
> well. Not *especially* fiddly, but fiddly nonetheless! ;-)
Maybe not much overall effect, but as far as I heard (ages ago, no
reference available), the problem was that if a pawn could be captured
by another by moving one step from their baseline, they were routinely
moved two steps forward to prevent them from being captured and bring
pressure towards the middle. En passant prevented this easy way out.
Of course, playing culture may have changed enough to warrant a
reconsideration of that rule. Being able to move your pawns two steps,
next to opposing pawns, might open up the game more.
Cheers,
Michael
Kevin J. Maroney
Finnegan is smart enough to have published versions of his games which
have the moves printed directly on the pieces....
Matthew Frederick
> Imagine that George Finnegan just published his brand new game, Chess! What
> would you say to him about his game? Remember that you just got to play the
> game at a recent convention, or gathering of friends.
George, your game might have worked once upon a time, but right now
it's got one _very_ serious and major flaw: the game SCREAMS analysis
paralysis. Players could understandably take _hours_, even _days_
trying to work out all of the consequences of their potential moves.
I recommend that you do some combination of these three things:
1. Reduce the number of possible moves each turn. Perhaps have certain
pieces have different "costs" to move each turn, and allocate action
points (though this, too, can cause it's own analysis paralysis
problems).
2. Find a way to restrict some of the consequences of each move, or if
that's not possible find a way to make the consequences less visible,
perhaps through the use of some hidden information or randomness. A
perfect information game really opens things up for analysis
paralysis.
3. Introduce some kind of timer, such that playing faster is better.
I really can't see how a game that can take days to play can possibly
succeed. You'd have to be a cultural icon to have any chance of that.
-- Matthew Frederick
Gerry Quinn
> Check out the amusing reviews at
>http://kumquat.com/cgi-kumquat/funagain/allreviews?;05511
>
>Robin, it got a rating of 3.3 out of 5, in eight reviews
The computer version was reviewed at GameSpot a few years ago, though
the original is no longer on the site:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~djm2/archives/sent.1999.04/chess
Gerry Quinn
Christopher Dearlove
<gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> writes
>In article <tLcLH1Cx$Q1$Ew...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk>,
>Christopher Dearlove <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Is there an expert out there who
>>knows either a standard - at any level - opening line or endgame
>>where en passant is important?
>
>Um, I'm not sure what you mean by "standard endgame".
Roughly speaking I would mean endgames where there are books
telling you the result rather than a line of play. KBNvK for example.
Thinking about it whilst many have pawns (KBPvK, special case
of R's P and wrong B draws, else KBP wins - assuming no immediate
losses) probably few have pawns which could be involved in e.p.
But some people have much bigger books. ("Book" shouldn't be
taken literally here.)
> Anyway, I don't
>know offhand of any main opening lines that involve an *en passant*
>capture. OTOH, there are numerous lines of the French Defense where
>White's e-pawn comes to e5, so a capture of the f-pawn on f6 could
>become a part of the game.
Impossible question, but I'll ask it anyway. Are there any lines with
Black playing f5 that aren't in the opening book because White
would capture e.p.? If so then e.p. matters, in some (not very strong)
sense of the word.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
Bleasdale <sbl...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>Richard Bell wrote:
>>The only reason that I do not play chess is that, from my perspective, there
>>are only two kinds of people that play it: a small number of people that
>>I just walk all over them and a larger group (for all that I know) that rook
>>me into some kind of fools' mate.
>>
><snip>
>>
>>I have similar problems with GO.
>
>Although Go at least has the advantage of a decent handycapping system.
People used to play handicap chess, and when I was a youngster we had
a handicap tournament at the local club I played at, which (unlike our
other tournaments) the club organiser (obviously much better than us)
also played in. 1 increment was 10 BCF grade points (No idea what
that is in Elo, but a 10 point difference should be a 60-40 result, 20
points 70-30, obviously breaks down above 40 difference.) The better
player got to play black and lost (for 1 to 9 increments) KBP, KBP&QBP,
QN, QN&KBP, QR, QR&KBP, QR&KBP&QBP, QR&QN, Q. Note all
that is from a very long ago memory. It's not 100% chess, but it has
the basics. (Opening theory is partially destroyed of course, but this
isn't entirely a handicap.) Without grades you can of course start
level and adjust each game from last by result until you stabilise.
As I understand it (i.e. I read it in a book) shogi players still do
something
similar.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
Maroney <k...@panix.com> writes
>Finnegan is smart enough to have published versions of his games which
>have the moves printed directly on the pieces....
On the other hand I've dabbled (no more) in playing shogi. When I bought
the game, which comes in Japanese ideogram and Finnegan-like forms,
I was advised (*) to buy the former as playing the latter would make the
former harder, but once the former is mastered, no problems ever again,
and that turned out not to be difficult (at least with my set, what I've
yet
to see is whether stylistic variation might fool me).
(*) By Mark Green of Just Games, who I suspect a lot of UK game players
remember as the best sort of games shop manager.
--
Christopher Dearlove
David Goldfarb
Christopher Dearlove <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <br65bi$1uf1$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, David Goldfarb
><gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> writes
>>In article <tLcLH1Cx$Q1$Ew...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk>,
>>Christopher Dearlove <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Is there an expert out there who
>>>knows either a standard - at any level - opening line or endgame
>>>where en passant is important?
>>
>>Um, I'm not sure what you mean by "standard endgame".
>
>Roughly speaking I would mean endgames where there are books
>telling you the result rather than a line of play.
There are so many possible positions involving pawns that few to none
of them are in such books. By the time you get to the endgame, nearly
all of the pawns will either have been captured or else moved at least
once; I suppose that *en passant* capture could arise, but it would
be a great rarity.
>> Anyway, I don't
>>know offhand of any main opening lines that involve an *en passant*
>>capture. OTOH, there are numerous lines of the French Defense where
>>White's e-pawn comes to e5, so a capture of the f-pawn on f6 could
>>become a part of the game.
>
>Impossible question, but I'll ask it anyway. Are there any lines with
>Black playing f5 that aren't in the opening book because White
>would capture e.p.? If so then e.p. matters, in some (not very strong)
>sense of the word.
Not that I'm aware of, but I haven't studied the French Defense in
any great depth. Usually Black tries to attack the pawn chain, so
the f-pawn goes to f6 and not f5 anyway. (And if Black did play f5,
White probably would not capture.)
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"I know you miss the Wainwrights, Bobby, but they
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | were weak and stupid people -- and that's why
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | we have wolves and other large predators."
| -- The Far Side
Eddy Bee
think it
> was too difficult? Would you expect its inventor to simplify the rules,
or
> perhaps try again on a different game? Comparisons are welcome.
>
doesn't
> seem to be popular in this newsgroup. On the other hand, some
German-style
> games aren't exactly simple. Reviews might simplify a game to: the
ending
> doesn't work! So, pages of rules is no guarantee of a good game, nor is
it a
> guarantee of poor sales.
>
What
> would you say to him about his game? Remember that you just got to play
the
> game at a recent convention, or gathering of friends.
>
> http://members.aol.com/landsrgame
This question is actually more complex than it initially appears because of
Chess' singular place in gaming history. For centuries, Chess has been
regarded as the foremost game of strategy in the western world. If Chess
did not exist up until today, then it is safe to assume there would have
been another strategy game, or games, that filled the void in its absence
throughout the years.
Since we don't know what this "other" game is, it's impossible to evaluate
how Chess would compare. Introduced today, Chess would probably be seen as
just another abstract piece-moving strategy game, amid a plethora of such
games. It would not have a particularly significant impact on the world,
nor would it capture the attention of great analytical minds like Kasparov
et al because they would already be too deeply absorbed in that "other"
game, whatever it might be.
Personally speaking, I don't like abstract strategy games to begin with.
The only such game I enjoy playing is Go, so Chess would not be of any
interest to me.
Would Chess introduced today be a popular game? Maybe, but it would take
many, many years for it to develop a following that would even begin to
compare to its actual popularity today.
My 2 cents,
-Eddy Bee
"Once a gamer, always a gamer!"
Landsrgame
<< This question is actually more complex than it initially appears because of
Chess' singular place in gaming history. For centuries, Chess has been
regarded as the foremost game of strategy in the western world. If Chess did
not exist up until today, then it is safe to assume there would have been
another strategy game, or games, that filled the void in its absence
throughout the years.
Since we don't know what this "other" game is, it's impossible to evaluate how
Chess would compare. Introduced today, Chess would probably be seen as just
another abstract piece-moving strategy game, amid a plethora of such games. It
would not have a particularly significant impact on the world, nor would it
capture the attention of great analytical minds like Kasparov et al because
they would already be too deeply absorbed in that "other" game, whatever it
might be.
Personally speaking, I don't like abstract strategy games to begin with. The
only such game I enjoy playing is Go, so Chess would not be of any interest to
me.
Would Chess introduced today be a popular game? Maybe, but it would take many,
many years for it to develop a following that would even begin to compare to
its actual popularity today. My 2 cents, -Eddy Bee >>
Now there's a take I hadn't considered! If Chess didn't exist, there would
have been another game in its place! Probably Rithmomachy!
That's probably the beginning of another thread. What game would have taken
the place of Chess? One that existed, and is known? Or, one that wasn't even
conceived because Chess was so dominant? Drat! What year did I leave my time
machine? (And how did I get back here without it?)
Change for your 2 cents. :-)
Harvey
Peter Clinch
> Now there's a take I hadn't considered! If Chess didn't exist, there would
> have been another game in its place! Probably Rithmomachy!
>
> That's probably the beginning of another thread. What game would have taken
> the place of Chess? One that existed, and is known? Or, one that wasn't even
> conceived because Chess was so dominant? Drat!
It is an interesting topic for conjecture. I think Eddy's probably
right, as "cultural touchstone games" do seem to pop in many places.
Mancala variants predominate in Africa, Tables games like Backgammon
around the Mediterranean, card games in many places, Go, etc.
Without Chess, quite possibly Go, given importing from the East seems to
be fair here. Or possibly a development of an existing one to give it a
more chess-like depth. You could probably have 9 Men's Morris "on
steroids" to make a more involved game.
Landsrgame
<< It is an interesting topic for conjecture. I think Eddy's probably right,
as "cultural touchstone games" do seem to pop in many places. Mancala variants
predominate in Africa, Tables games like Backgammon around the Mediterranean,
card games in many places, Go, etc.
Without Chess, quite possibly Go, given importing from the East seems to be
fair here. Or possibly a development of an existing one to give it a more
chess-like depth. You could probably have 9 Men's Morris "on steroids" to make
a more involved game. >>
He probably is right. The problem is being omniscient enough to know what
George Finnegan's ancestors would have done (George comes from a family of game
inventors, going back many generations).
Reginald Finnegan is attributed with writing (circa 1000 AD) that the Chess
arena represents kingdom against kingdom, in a bloodless engagement, an attempt
at civilized, intellectual competition. ;-)
Go would be an NIH game (not invented here). National pride might require a
new invention.
Basic games on a simple pattern, such as 9 Men's Morris, with one type of
piece, would not be involving enough (as you've noted). Perhaps an elaborate
maze, with more than one type of piece, and some Chess-like moves. The walls
of the maze would represent varying terrain, and would modify or restrict how
the pieces move. Too complicated?
Of course, a game that might have taken the place of Chess, wouldn't have to be
yet another variation of Chess.
Harvey
John Cartmell
<lands...@aol.com> wrote:
> Hi Eddy,
>This question is actually more complex than it initially appears because
> of Chess' singular place in gaming history. For centuries, Chess has
> been regarded as the foremost game of strategy in the western world.
A couple of centuries.
> If Chess did not exist up until today, then it is safe to assume there
> would have been another strategy game, or games, that filled the void in
> its absence throughout the years. Since we don't know what this "other"
> game is, it's impossible to evaluate how Chess would compare.
Well it supplanted Rithmomachy because R. had too many complexities added
to it. Without Chess those would presumably have been discarded. R. in its
basic form is better than chess.
> Introduced today, Chess would probably be seen as just another abstract
> piece-moving strategy game, amid a plethora of such games.
It would hardly exist. A game with complex rules and that required
numerous and differently designed playing pieces would not sell enough to
make manufacture economic.
[Snip]
> Now there's a take I hadn't considered! If Chess didn't exist, there
> would have been another game in its place! Probably Rithmomachy!
And I wrote the above before seeing this paragraph! ;-)
And it's a game with St Thomas More's seal of approval [that's the good bit
about dead saints - they don't demand a percentage when you use their
endorsements] ;-)
www.finnybank.com look for games then Rithomomachia.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Peter Clinch
> A couple of centuries.
Depends how liberal one is with "foremost", but Kings and Popes were
recorded as playing it, and indeed giving it regal protection, well
before then.
> It would hardly exist. A game with complex rules and that required
> numerous and differently designed playing pieces would not sell enough to
> make manufacture economic.
Stratego is an example suggesting it might not be *that* bad for it,
though I don't think it would be any more significant than Stratego is
now if it only appeared now.
Landsrgame
Hi John,
<< Well it (Chess) supplanted Rithmomachy because R. had too many complexities
added
to it. Without Chess those would presumably have been discarded. R. in its
basic form is better than chess. >>
A bold assertion! What advantages does revised Rithmomachy have over Chess?
Harvey
Landsrgame
Hi Doc,
<< Drachen Delta (Dragon Delta) is also a nice abstract game, which derives
it's fun from planning ahead and hidden information about the other player's
turn planning. >>
From reading some reviews, a lot of people would agree with you. However, some
say that it definitely doesn't work with just 2 players. Can a 2-player Dragon
Delta game be made better?
Harvey
Landsrgame
> << Well it (Chess) supplanted Rithmomachy because R. had too many
> complexities added to it. Without Chess those would presumably have been
> discarded. R. in its basic form is better than chess. >>
> A bold assertion! What advantages does revised Rithmomachy have over
> Chess?
Clearly its the game for philosophers! It requires an agility with numbers
as well as an eye for spatial interactions. It's not enough to win numbers
or space - you have to capture pieces in order to augment your forces and
produce a winning team - and be prepared (and capable) of changing your
tactics when your opponent makes the required capture impossible. It's a
truly interactive game of minds!!
One gross disadvantage of (International) chess is that it's booked out.
Too much has been written and studied and it's no longer a game that is
played 'on the board'.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
The Doctor
>
> Reginald Finnegan is attributed with writing (circa 1000 AD) that the Chess
> arena represents kingdom against kingdom, in a bloodless engagement, an attempt
> at civilized, intellectual competition. ;-)
I think this is exactly the point that made it popular.
Chess was the first game with a strong theme.
Not compared to todays standards, of course. But back in those days...
//Doc.
--
Kom spelen, 28 Maart 2004, Noorderspel, Groningen. www.noorderspel.nl
begin really_scary_virus.exe
Landsrgame
It works fine with two players.
It's just more predictable, and becomes a bit like a game of chess or checkers.
//Doc.
--
"Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen." - Loesje
Landsrgame
P x really_scary_virus e.p.
Harvey
The Doctor
> Doc replied by email:
I'm sure I would have replied here if I wanted to. Mail is mail for a
reason.
//Doc.
--
Kom spelen, 28 Maart 2004, Noorderspel, Groningen. www.noorderspel.nl
begin really_scary_virus.exe
The Doctor
Did you have anything to say?
//Doc.
--
Kom spelen, 28 Maart 2004, Noorderspel, Groningen. www.noorderspel.nl
begin email_is_private.com
Landsrgame
> Harvey
<< Did you have anything to say? >>
Hi Doc,
Just trying to be funny with the above notation.
Actually, I was wondering about your comment that "Chess was the first game
with a strong theme." If we include all abstract games, from any country,
there may be other games that preceded Chess that also had a strong theme.
Racing around a track, or trapping an opponent's game pieces, or eliminating an
opponent's game pieces, or counting games, etc., would not appear to have a
strong theme. Rithmomachy apparently came after western Chess, but it could be
argued that the beauty in patterns of numbers, and in patterns of placement,
still does not represent a strong theme. The game is certainly unique, a new
invention, but the game pieces do not represent anything animate. Is the
complexity of playing with two elements (two unrelated patterns) enough to be a
strong theme?
"Go" may be the exception. The theme is to surround and capture territory.
Perhaps a stronger theme than racing, or counting, etc.
Harvey
Landsrgame
> << Well it (Chess) supplanted Rithmomachy because R. had too many
> complexities added to it. Without Chess those would presumably have been
> discarded. R. in its basic form is better than chess. >>
> A bold assertion! What advantages does revised Rithmomachy have over
> Chess?
Clearly its the game for philosophers! It requires an agility with numbers
The Doctor
>
> Just trying to be funny with the above notation.
Oh wait, it was a chess notation. Ah. Oh well. I don't understand those
anyway.
Haha.
> Actually, I was wondering about your comment that "Chess was the first game
> with a strong theme." If we include all abstract games, from any country,
> there may be other games that preceded Chess that also had a strong theme.
I can't think of any, not even with your examples.
Go does not qualify in my book. Sure, getting territory by surrounding
it with your men, well, not too impressive. All men are equally strong
in that game, en they penetrate the lines to go surround someone anyway.
Nah, not at all good theming.
Chess does fine, with Knights, Soldiers(pawns), Queens, Kings, each with
their own strengths and perhaps weaknesses (due to position).
A nice approximation of a conflict between two kingdoms.
There must be something pre-dating this, because how would the inventors of
this game have come up with it? But I can't say it ever came to my
attention.
//Doc.
--
Kom spelen, 28 Maart 2004, Noorderspel, Groningen. www.noorderspel.nl
begin really_scary_virus.exe
The Maverick
>
> I think this is exactly the point that made it popular.
> Chess was the first game with a strong theme.
>
> Not compared to todays standards, of course. But back in those days...
I don't know about that... most of the abstract games back then
probably had themes as strong as Chess. Due to a lack of popularity,
these themes may have been lost to history. But I have a hard time
thinking that the earliest board games all did not have some sort of
theme rather than "let's shuffle some rocks around"...
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
Chris Camfield
[snip]
>There must be something pre-dating this, because how would the inventors of
>this game have come up with it? But I can't say it ever came to my
>attention.
I wondered if maybe the Romans had anything which wasn't abstract, and did a
web-search. "Latrunculi" may have been a predecessor to chess, but it is
considerably more abstract than chess:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/roma/latruncu.html
Peter Clinch
> I don't know about that... most of the abstract games back then
> probably had themes as strong as Chess. Due to a lack of popularity,
> these themes may have been lost to history. But I have a hard time
> thinking that the earliest board games all did not have some sort of
> theme rather than "let's shuffle some rocks around"...
Though of course the Mancala family are *exactly* shifting some rocks
around!
Looking around most of the early games I can find out about are fairly
abstract. Tables games, starting with Senet and moving onto Backgammon
and family, are abstract races. The Royal Game of Ur looks pretty abstract.
Tafl, played by the Vikings, and later Fox and Geese, are early games
with a theme of sorts: like Chess, not much by today's standards, but
certainly something there with themed pieces. These date back to before
AD400 in some cases, and Tafl and variants were perhaps amongst the most
popular European games before Chess arrived and gained ascendancy in the
11th Century.
David Parlett's "Oxford History of Board Games" is a good read IMHO,
taking games by category and going into their development (or what is
known of it) over time. But as Mav says, many games have probably just
disappeared.
Gerry Quinn
>Chess does fine, with Knights, Soldiers(pawns), Queens, Kings, each with
>their own strengths and perhaps weaknesses (due to position).
>A nice approximation of a conflict between two kingdoms.
>
>There must be something pre-dating this, because how would the inventors of
>this game have come up with it? But I can't say it ever came to my
>attention.
What about the Scandinavian game where one king starts in the centre and
tries to get off the board? Pieces move like rooks, and you capture
opponents by placing a piece on either side.
Indeed, what about Fox and Geese? Or early race games?
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Screensavers and Games for Windows
Download free trial versions
New arcade-puzzler just out - "Volcano"
John Cartmell
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Tafl, played by the Vikings, and later Fox and Geese, are early games
> with a theme of sorts: like Chess, not much by today's standards, but
> certainly something there with themed pieces. These date back to before
> AD400 in some cases, and Tafl and variants were perhaps amongst the most
> popular European games before Chess arrived and gained ascendancy in the
> 11th Century.
> David Parlett's "Oxford History of Board Games" is a good read IMHO,
> taking games by category and going into their development (or what is
> known of it) over time. But as Mav says, many games have probably just
> disappeared.
Also to be taken into account is that 'Chess' and 'Tafl' weren't games but
families of games. We don't know all (or probably most) of the games of
Chess and though many may have been similar to International Chess many,
with lost rules, may have been very different. We know of *no* game of Tafl
as *all* the rules have been lost though some (most?) rules of one variant
has been recovered. For Tafl, the Ur game and Byzantine Chess I've taken
the liberty of taking the board and producing a new game within the known
rules. None will be 'as they were played'. That's lost. But even if by
chance they are the same rules as one variant they cannot be the whole game
family as each game varied from one location to another and one time to
another - and possibly existed as different variants at the same place and
time eg I can imagine different sizes of Tafl board being played by the
same people according to time & space available.
John Cartmell
> >Chess does fine, with Knights, Soldiers(pawns), Queens, Kings, each
> >with their own strengths and perhaps weaknesses (due to position). A
> >nice approximation of a conflict between two kingdoms.
> >
> >There must be something pre-dating this, because how would the
> >inventors of this game have come up with it? But I can't say it ever
> >came to my attention.
> What about the Scandinavian game where one king starts in the centre and
> tries to get off the board? Pieces move like rooks, and you capture
> opponents by placing a piece on either side.
Tafl was not just a Scandinavian game (and it certainly had a genesis
distinct from Chess). The family of Tafl games spread from America? to
Russia but I don't think it travelled south. Chess was Indian and Arabic
before entering the Romance countries. Rithmomachy held sway between the
high point of Tafl and that of Chess - and draughts fitted in somewhere!
All different and very few with rules that we know except in snatches until
we get to the variants popular in the late 18th & 19th century. Tafl we
(mainly) lost along with much of Rithmomachy, all the early/middle chess
and draughts.
Whether *any* started with a strong theme - we don't know. We only know the
*much* later versions of any of these games. We *do* know that the
societies that made these games popular was quite different from our
society and games almost certainly played a more prominent role in their
society.
> Indeed, what about Fox and Geese? Or early race games?
I'd be willing to suggest that what we generally see as race games were
quite late - produced at a time that games were developing a nursery 'feel'
replacing the adult games from earlier times.
The Maverick
>
> Though of course the Mancala family are *exactly* shifting some rocks
> around!
How do you know? It is just as likely that the theme has been lost over
time due to the generic nature of the components, as opposed to chess
which retained its war theme because of the stylized components.
The Maverick
>
> Whether *any* started with a strong theme - we don't know.
But we can make an educated guess. I would suspect that the first board
games were themed in some manner, and not totally abstract... But I
don't know what the experts on the ancient history of games would have
to say about this.
The Doctor
> John Cartmell wrote:
>
>>
>> Whether *any* started with a strong theme - we don't know.
>
> But we can make an educated guess.
We can, but since you hate them so much in other threads, why make one here?
//Doc.
--
Kom spelen, 28 Maart 2004, Noorderspel, Groningen. www.noorderspel.nl
begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt
John Cartmell
> >
> > Whether *any* started with a strong theme - we don't know.
> But we can make an educated guess. I would suspect that the first board
> games were themed in some manner, and not totally abstract... But I
> don't know what the experts on the ancient history of games would have
> to say about this.
Are there any? I don't think I've found those making archaeological reports
go out of their way to consult anyone who understand games - and I'm
waiting for the Sumerian version of Monopoly to be discovered. ;-)
Eric Nielsen
> Too much has been written and studied and it's no longer a game that is
> played 'on the board'.
Since you don't play chess, how would you know? Why would postal chess,
where references are allowed, even exist if all the answers were in books.
Stephen
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> cry in a loud voice:
>In article <3FE0823...@volcano.net>,
> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
>> John Cartmell wrote:
>> >
>> > Whether *any* started with a strong theme - we don't know.
>>
>> But we can make an educated guess. I would suspect that the first board
>> games were themed in some manner, and not totally abstract... But I
>> don't know what the experts on the ancient history of games would have
>> to say about this.
>
>Are there any? I don't think I've found those making archaeological reports
>go out of their way to consult anyone who understand games - and I'm
>waiting for the Sumerian version of Monopoly to be discovered. ;-)
I understand that in 15th Century England they played a game a lot
like Kingmaker, but as a live-action role play.
--
Stephen
Into my heart an air that kills from yon far country blows:
What are those blue remembered hills, what spires, what farms are those?
That is the land of lost content, I see it shining plain,
The happy highways where I went and cannot come again.
The Maverick
>
> We can, but since you hate them so much in other threads, why make one
> here?
No, your "uneducated" guesses were the hang up.
The Maverick
>
> I'm waiting for the Sumerian version of Monopoly to be discovered. ;-)
LOL! Monopoly - The Tower of Babel edition? ;-)
Peter Clinch
> But we can make an educated guess. I would suspect that the first board
> games were themed in some manner, and not totally abstract... But I
> don't know what the experts on the ancient history of games would have
> to say about this.
So where does the education in the guess come in? You might be right,
but there isn't much evidnece of well themed games dug up from the past
so far. Parlett's history doesn't have any beyond those mentioned
already, and he's quite liberal with his references at the end of every
chapter so it looks as if he has done his homework.
He actually suggests that the the Royal Game of Goose (very much a
latecomer compared to other things already mentioned) was in some ways
the first attempt at deliberate flavouring at the design stage in the
modern sense through thematic squares (it's effectively a forerunner of
Candyland, AFAICT).
Peter Clinch
> How do you know?
I was describing the current games in common play. There are dozens and
dozens of variations of the pit and pebble games all across Africa,
often regional and tribal specialities, and none appear to have any
theme that I've come across.
> It is just as likely that the theme has been lost over
> time due to the generic nature of the components, as opposed to chess
> which retained its war theme because of the stylized components.
It's *possible*, yes, but as for "just as likely", well, how do you
know?. Given there's so many different Manacla games across a whole
continent it strikes me as a bit of a leap of faith to declare it "just
as likely" the theme has been lost from every one as not, just from a
feeling and no research.
The Doctor
> The Doctor wrote:
>
>>
>> We can, but since you hate them so much in other threads, why make one
>> here?
>
> No, your "uneducated" guesses were the hang up.
I canno help your lack of education of course, but my guesses were well
educated. I also cannot help that you do not know how well educated I am
in knowing facts about the things I claimed.
Quite like you, i know my figures are correct, though mine are from
experience and yours seem to be a complete fantasy.
Could be true of course. Some fantasies are quite accurately close to
reality, some even seem more real then reality itself. It is often
reality that makes less sense then the most bizarre fantasy.
Hmm. Right.
John Cartmell
> > But we can make an educated guess. I would suspect that the first
> > board games were themed in some manner, and not totally abstract...
> > But I don't know what the experts on the ancient history of games
> > would have to say about this.
> So where does the education in the guess come in? You might be right,
> but there isn't much evidnece of well themed games dug up from the past
> so far. Parlett's history doesn't have any beyond those mentioned
> already, and he's quite liberal with his references at the end of every
> chapter so it looks as if he has done his homework.
> He actually suggests that the the Royal Game of Goose (very much a
> latecomer compared to other things already mentioned) was in some ways
> the first attempt at deliberate flavouring at the design stage in the
> modern sense through thematic squares (it's effectively a forerunner of
> Candyland, AFAICT).
What isn't properly appreciated is how *little* we know. There have been
games for 4, 6 10 thousand years and more (possibly?) and we have rules for
some games from the last couple of centuries with fragments from earlier.
the Ur game is special because it is an apparently complete board at an
extra-ordinarily early date - but we have precisely *no* rules for the
game. To a very large extent the concept of 'rules' as we understand them
is a Victorian concept and it's only in the last 150 years that we have
standardisation of board game rules, sports game rules and the like.
Speculation on the precursors of games is based on nothing. I have no idea
of the precursors of chess - except that they possibly existed in India
*before* the earliest date of mention of the game (ie there could have been
a themed game - or a sports game - or a public sex demonstration that
developed into 'chess' over a couple of millennia up to a thousand years
ago).
The Maverick
>
>> It is just as likely that the theme has been lost over time due to the
>> generic nature of the components, as opposed to chess which retained
>> its war theme because of the stylized components.
>
> It's *possible*, yes, but as for "just as likely", well, how do you
> know?. Given there's so many different Manacla games across a whole
> continent it strikes me as a bit of a leap of faith to declare it "just
> as likely" the theme has been lost from every one as not, just from a
> feeling and no research.
How many customs and habits do people of various cultures engage in,
that have passed down over time as custom and habit without regard to
the reason that the custom/habit started (i.e. saying "bless you" after
someone sneezes, etc.) It is not exactly an unheard of phenomenon...
The Maverick
>
> my guesses were well educated.
Sorry, making your handle "The Doctor" does not count as education...
The Maverick
>
> Speculation on the precursors of games is based on nothing.
That's like saying speculation regarding prehistoric man is based on
nothing. An anthropologist would beg to differ...
Gary Barker
> How many customs and habits do people of various cultures engage in,
> that have passed down over time as custom and habit without regard to
> the reason that the custom/habit started (i.e. saying "bless you"
> after someone sneezes, etc.) It is not exactly an unheard of
> phenomenon...
Some of our histories do actually go back far enough to know some of these
things though. And I think I can claim that this is an educated guess:
Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 AD) started the practise of saying "God
bless you" because sneezing was an indication that you may have contracted
the plague. Who knows, perhaps it worked, after all the plague did end.
GazB
--
Is it just me or does anyone else want to see less mindless chatter and
more swinging through trees?
Landsrgame
<< Whether *any* started with a strong theme - we don't know. >>
<< But we can make an educated guess. I would suspect that the first board
games were themed in some manner, and not totally abstract... But I don't know
what the experts on the ancient history of games would have to say about this.
>>
<< Are there any? I don't think I've found those making archaeological reports
go out of their way to consult anyone who understand games - and I'm waiting
for the Sumerian version of Monopoly to be discovered. ;-) >>
Hi John.
Considering the lack of paper, no printing press, no mass communication, and no
freedom of speech, what strong themes would have been appropriate?
Creating a game that criticized a king would be a dead-end job.
Creating a game that revealed secrets of a trade would make one an outcast, at
the least. Or, the game would continue as another secret within the trade.
Rules of games were not written in stone. If animal skin was used to record
the rules, did any survive? Was it simply oral tradition that passed along
rules, and is that why there are "families" of games?---Here is a board and
some pieces (from some far off place), let's make up some rules.
Harvey
Joshua Adelson
> Who knows, perhaps it worked, after all the plague did end.
No, it did not--it still posts here under the nomme de plume "The Maverick."
Pope Gregory the Great could not have anticipated back in the sixth century
that years of infidels sneezing without covering their mouths would virally
mutate the Scoleri clan into a raving band of incoherents, the avatar of
which dwells primarily in this newsgroup. Merry Christmas, Pope Gregory,
you inefficient twit.
John Cartmell
> > Speculation on the precursors of games is based on nothing.
> That's like saying speculation regarding prehistoric man is based on
> nothing. An anthropologist would beg to differ...
Hardly. We have modern man (=modern games) *and* modern relatives (no game
equivalent) *and* more remains *and* I'd argue with the anthropologist
about the 'rules' (eg behaviour, diet, evolutionary triggers) as most text
books appear to have these badly wrong (ie without evidence).
The Maverick
>
> Some of our histories do actually go back far enough to know some of these
> things though.
Sure. I was just using a common example of something that is passed on
without the original reason. Without recorded history to fall back on,
it seems pretty safe to assume that the reason would have been forgotten
long ago.
The Maverick
> "Gary Barker" incorrectly asserted
>
>> Who knows, perhaps it worked, after all the plague did end.
>
> No, it did not--it still posts here under the nomme de plume "The Maverick."
LOL! A laugh riot!
At this rate we can rest assured that a family member of yours will put
us out of your misery for the New Year! ;-)
Peter Clinch
> How many customs and habits do people of various cultures engage in,
> that have passed down over time as custom and habit without regard to
> the reason that the custom/habit started (i.e. saying "bless you" after
> someone sneezes, etc.) It is not exactly an unheard of phenomenon...
It's *possible*, yes, but as for "just as likely", well, how do you
know?. Given there's so many different Manacla games across a whole
continent it strikes me as a bit of a leap of faith to declare it
"just as likely" the theme has been lost from every one as not, just
from a feeling and no research.
Pete.
Peter Clinch
> John Cartmell wrote:
>> Speculation on the precursors of games is based on nothing.
> That's like saying speculation regarding prehistoric man is based on
> nothing. An anthropologist would beg to differ...
It's nothing like it, and an anthropologist will tell you that. We know
from evolution that the precursors of modern man will be something like
modern man. Games have a less obvious evolution coming (probably) from
random play. If it's random play, it's very difficult to pin down what
it was, what with it being random.
Some folk have made some pretty serious efforts to look into the history
of games, and as John has pointed out, they haven't come up with much
yet. Are you *really* vain enough to think your "educated guesses" are
either (a) actually educated in the field concerned or (b) "at least as
likely" as the people making a serious job of it?
Parlett's Oxford History draws on pervious efforts, though he changes
methodology of grouping. He adds a group of "themed games" absent from
previous significant efforts like Murray's "A History of Games other
than Chess", and notes it is a modern one. Perhaps you should bypass
the folk of r.g.b and go straight to the Oxford University Press and
point out to them that they're commissioning and publishing rubbish?
The Doctor
>
>> my guesses were well educated.
>
> Sorry, making your handle "The Doctor" does not count as education...
Neither does 'The Maverick', now does it?
But I don't think we should go down this lane. It would quickly prove
Godwin's Law if we continue down this path.
It should suffice that I tell you I am well educated in this matter,
since all we have to stake your claims on is your word. We are expected
to take your word for granted, yet when nanother assures you of the same
for themselves, you try to ridicule the name used?
Would that mean you are running out of arguments?
John Cartmell
The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote:
> It should suffice that I tell you I am well educated in this matter
Your education is not really relevant. Can you give *reasons* for your
educated guess?