From: Colin Paul Adams COLINA DEMON CO UK> Date: 6 feb 1999 Subject: The larger Shogi variants We were having such a good "fight" over the discussion on whenever Tai and Taikyoku Shogi were playable games or not (or even games at all), that it seems a shame to let the subject die down. So this is my views on what makes a good large-Shogi variant. CHU I cannot imagine that anyone who has thoroughly learned and played Chu Shogi would disagree that it is one of the world's great (in all senses other than number of people playing) intellectual games. Some of the features that make it such a great game are: 1) Tempo. The inability to exchange Lions in normal circumstances (the only two circumstances I know of where this is possible are: a) Combinative mating attacks in the endgame, where you temporarily ignore the threat to your Lion to launch a mating attack, and the opponent has a defence which involves giving his own Lion back two or more moves later. b) Sacrificing a Copper General (or similar low-ranking piece) to force a two-for-one exchange of the Lions. The sacrificer must get something out of this to make it possible - such as exposing a Bishop pin of a Dragon King in front of a Free King when the Copper General is captured.), coupled with the fact that Lions are better attackers than defenders (best illustrated by the mating problems - B45 I think), means that the game becomes a race to mate the enemy King. Feature (1) is perhaps insufficient to provide a really great game (it could simply be a forced win for Black, for instance). The next factor is: 2) Variety. All the different pieces have their own non-redundant roles, and mastery of all of then is necessary to play the game well. 3) Opening Tension. The opening set-up is a problem for the player. Because of the time factor, it is important to deploy your pieces with minimum delay. There is not an optimal deployment possible (various conflicts arise), so the players have difficult choices to make about opening move sequences. The sequences chosen have implications for the subsequent strategy followed by that player. For instance, one of my favourite strategies for Black is to pile up the vertically moving pieces on the right edge, and try to promote a Flying Ox. This immediately constrains many of your choices for the other pieces involved, and you have to move some of them to sub-optimal squares in order to allow the principal attackers to get to their places. No matter what strategic plan you develop, you will always find there are problems of this nature. In addition, you have to watch what your opponent is doing, and react accordingly - just carrying out your opening deployment regardless, will find you in trouble. in short, the opening is difficult. 4) Tactical Complexity. As shown by the historical endgame problems, the ending of a Chu Shogi game is fraught with tactical complexities, which can tax the strongest of players. But even in the middle game, although on the surface it may look like a simple pawn-pushing expansion, there are ALWAYS great tactical problems lurking in the background. This produces a complex interaction between tactics and strategy that I believe is necessary for any game of the class of stylised war-games (such as Chess, and Go) to be considered a great game. Someone mentioned Draughts (though being a rebel colonial :-), he said Checkers), as an alternative to playing Taikyoku Shogi. The inference was that this is an inferior game. Although Draughts is a very complex tactical game, its only strategy being to get a King in the double-corner, it is generally looked upon as inferior to Chess (and Go, but then, isn't everything). 5) Duration. To play Chu to a high standard, it is necessary to have quite a long time in which to play. But about one day suffices to prevent the game from being ruined by silly mistakes (i.e. overlooking obvious tactical blunders). Therefore it is practical to play Chu to a high standard. Other people might well draw up a different list, but I think this is sufficient for my purposes. Now since the other large Shogi variants may be considered to be of the same class of game as Chu, I shall consider each of these games in the light of these criteria, and ask: How does it measure up to Chu, and why might one want to play any of these games rather than playing Chu? (A possible answer to the later would be variety, but I will not accept that as a sufficient reason, as it would then imply boredom with Chu, or exhaustion of its possibilities, which I cannot admit as being conceivable. DAI Dai Shogi differs from Chu in three significant aspects: 1) A larger board. 2) Lions can be freely exchanged. 3) The addition of several non-entity pieces (such as Knight, Cat-Sword, Evil Wolf, Violent Ox - have I missed any?). Feature 1) affects Duration, Opening Tension and Tactical Complexity, all for the worse. Feature 2) diminishes Tempo to the point where it is almost insignificant. Feature 3) unnecessarily makes the problem of deployment of the pieces more awkward, for no good reason. Feature 2) can be eliminated by introducing Chu Lion rules. but I can see no compensation for the defects of features 1) and 3). In short, there are no valid reasons for playing Dai rather than Chu (other than doing it once to see for yourself), but this does NOT hold vice-versa. TENJIKU As Tenjiku Shogi is a development of Chu Shogi, I am forced to consider it here, but the nature of the game is so very different. I shall not go into details here (the interested reader is referred to the replacement for the Book of Tenjiku, due out in March of this year), but I will briefly mention how it stands up to the five features that make Chu such a good game: 1) Tempo. This is far more critical than for Chu in both the opening phase (where it is all too easy to lose the game), and in the endgame (where its importance is overwhelming). in the middle game it is of lesser importance, but still present to some extent. 2) Variety. Here it is not quite up to the 100% perfection of Chu. There are more pieces present, but not all of them necessarily add to the game (I am thinking of the knight, for instance). Still, even with the Knight, it is not possible to dismiss it as an unequivocal minus to the game. Tenjiku scores very well on this category. 3) Opening Tension. Absolutely critical. It is a severe problem in Tenjiku. It is possible that this is too great a factor, and that Black would overwhelm White. I try to deal exhaustively with this issue in the replacement to the Book of Tenjiku, and I believe I just about succeed in showing that White can in all cases get a playable game. This may be open to question. Only extensive playing of the game can ultimately decide the question. I am not afraid of taking White. 4) Tactical Complexity. Almost beyond belief. Tactics tends to overwhelm strategy. But this is a genuine tension. Strategy in Tenjiku is difficult to formulate, as it is hard to see through all the tactics. But this is a matter of the players ability, not a theoretical problem. Not a game for the weak-hearted. 5) Duration. This IS a bit of a problem, as the game can be very short, or very long. Two or Three days is probably necessary for a really high-class game of Tenjiku Shogi, but a bigger problem is to find players of any class at all. Are there good reasons for preferring Tenjiku to Chu? definitely! And Vice Versa? Yes. DAI-DAI I am now getting or weaker grounds, as apart from one game of Maka-Dai-Dai, played on "incorrect" rules, I have not played the larger games, and so I am only going on the rules, and other peoples opinions. Still, here goes. As I see Dai-Dai, the addition of hook movers prevents even the adoption of Chu Lion rules from adding tension to the game (Lions can still be exchanged fairly easily, by making use of the hook movers). And I can see no redeeming features. And the game just gets too long. There is no opening tension, as the pieces are too far apart. MAKA-DAI-DAI Ditto Dai-Dai, but more so. TAI Probably a certain draw. Otherwise Maka-Dai-Dai but much more so. TAIKYOKU Here the addition of Fire Demons (if you were to play them with burning capability) raises possibilities, but the opening setup, combined with the size of the board, seems to mitigate against this hope. Possibly a different opening setup, with the pawns much nearer to each other, might make a decent game possible, but I doubt it. The duration factor will always be a problem, and I doubt if there could be any compensatory factors. -- Colin Paul Adams Preston Lancashire