From: Larry Kaufman WIZARD NET> Date: 7 feb 1999 Subject: No Subject Since there seems to be so much interest in comparing various games in the chess/shogi family, I thought I would add my 2 cents worth, though I do feel that the attention given to games that are only mildly related to shogi has been a bit excessive in this list, considering that probably a million games of shogi are played for every game of these variants. First of all, my credentials. I am the only person in the world to have earned a 2400 rating in both chess and shogi, being an International Master in the former and an Amateur 5 Dan in the latter. I was once thought to be the strongest non-oriental player in the U.S. of Shang-chi (Chinese chess), and have played roughly ten games each of Junk-ki (Korean chess), Chu-Shogi, and Grand Chess (the modernized version of Capablanca's 10x10 chess), enough to have some feel for the good and bad points of each. In my opinion the key points to consider in comparing the games are the frequency of draws in games between masters (less is better, though perhaps a small percentage of draws may be preferred by some to none at all), rough equality of chances of the two sides, the importance of memorizing opening theory (less is better), variety of play (a major objection to checkers and some might say to Go), history and tradition (very desirable), game length (not too short or too long, though this is subjective), strategical principles (more are better), and early interaction between the two sides (desirable, as if you can just do your own thing without looking at the other player's moves, the game lacks interest). Let's start with chess, the most widely played game (geographically) of the family. It ranks very highly on history and tradition, game length, strategical principles, and early interaction. Unfortunately the draw percentage is too high (around 50% at high levels), and this is mostly due to the nature of the game rather than to lack of fighting spirit. The chances of the two players are quite unequal, white winning about 5 games for each 3 won by black at high level. Memorized opening theory is way too important at high level, though ideas like shuffle chess could solve this problem. Variety of play is not bad but could be much better. So chess gets 4 1/2 good grades out of 8. Shuffle chess would score the same, gaining a point on memorized theory but losing it back on history and tradition, of which it has none. Now consider Chinese chess, the version of chess played by the largest number of people world-wide, I believe. It also ranks very highly on history and tradition, game length, and early interaction. I'll give it a medium score on strategical principles (there's plenty of strategy, but less than chess, I feel). The draw percentage is perhaps a bit lower than in chess, but still too high (the restriction of the elephants and ministers to their own camp is the main reason for the draws, I believe). The first player has a substantial edge, though perhaps a bit less than in chess. Memorized theory is a big problem, as in chess. Variety of play is about like in chess. So I'll give Chinese chess the same 4 1/2 score as chess got. Korean chess is a relative of Chinese chess. It scores a bit lower on history and tradition, and a bit higher on the memorized theory problem, with other scores about the same. Let's also give it 4 1/2. Okay, how about Chu-shogi, the topic of much discussion on this list. It certainly has history and tradition, though most of it is lost to us now, so let's give it 1/2 for this. I suspect that the percentage of draws among masters would be very low, though I don't believe there are any masters in the world now to test this hypothesis. Similarly I cannot imaging that the first move could be more than a trivial advantage, perhaps 51-49%. Memorized opening theory is obviously not a problem; even if it existed, it is very unlikely that this would ever be a decisive factor in such a complex and long game. Variety of play is obviously enormous; in fact I'll only give it 1/2 credit because the variety of moves of the different promoted and unpromoted pieces is far more than anyone would ever need to enjoy the game, and simply serves to lower the standard of play by making it difficult to ever become proficient with all the different pieces. Game length is much longer than most people would consider desirable, though the game is certainly of playable length. Early interaction certainly can occur, though the space between the camps minimizes it, so I'll give Chu half credit here. As for strategical principles, in my opinion there are not so many here, as the tactical element seems to dominate the game, but I'll give it half credit, mostly due to my not being expert enough to say for sure. So I give Chu 5 points, the best score so far, with the reservation that one would have to devote an enormous amount of time to the game to acquire any real proficiency. I do enjoy playing the game on occasion, but since I have not played enough to know the moves of the promoted pieces without reference to the manual, both my skill and my enjoyment go way down late in the game. As for the larger relatives of Chu, I must agree with Colin Adams that they are clearly less playable than Chu without offsetting advantages, and so I find the constant discussion of these "games" to be rather silly. I am quite in agreement with George Hodges in the opinion that the really large versions were not really meant to be played at all. In particular versions in which pieces demote on promotion would simply be drawish and boring. Chu shogi already has too many pieces, probably the reason it died out, so even larger versions must simply be a joke. Sorry I don't even know what "tenjiku" shogi is, so no comment here. As chu is to shogi, Grand chess is to chess. The larger board and extra pieces (bishop + knight and rook + knight) add a whole new dimension to the game. I'll have to give it a zero for history and tradition (a few games by Capablanca don't qualify it here). I believe the draw percentage would be very low among masters (I haven't had one yet), and the advantage of first move small enough. Memorized theory doesn't exist, though it could become a bit of a problem if the game became popular, so I'll give it 1/2 here. Variety of play is good, more than chess without reaching the point of overkill as with Chu, but perhaps still a bit less than I would like, so I'll give it 3/4. Game length seems about right to me, a bit more than chess but nothing like Chu. Early interaction is the same as in chess, and the strategical principles should be similar. So Grand chess, despite its meager following, scores an amazing 6 1/4 out of 8 on my criteria, by far the best so far. It really is an excellent game and deserves a bigger following. Now for shogi, as it is currently played by millions of Japanese and a few thousand Westerners. History and tradition are there in abundance, comparable to chess. The draw % (about 2% in pro play, 1% in amateur) is minimal (some might argue it's too low!). The advantage of first move is minimal (about 52-48%). Variety of play is nearly ideal (ten piece types, including promoted rook and bishop, versus six in chess). Memorized theory is a big problem, nearly as much as in chess, though the chances of turning around a bad opening are better in shogi, so I'll give it 1/4 (maybe we need shuffle-shogi !). Game length is ideal. Early interaction is adequate, though a bit less than in chess, so I'll give it 3/4. Strategic principles are quite ample, perhaps on a par with chess. So shogi gets 7 out of 8, making it clearly the winner of this "competition". Shogi is not a perfect game. Some criticisms include the rather arbitrary moves of some pieces, the occasional draw due to there being no good way to start the fight in certain openings, the very unaesthetic need to resolve impasse games by point count, and the fact that many games begin with both sides moving into identical fortress formations before any interaction occurs. Also the strength of the Left Anaguma castle is felt by many to be a spoiler in shogi, as for a while it seemed to relegate the ranging rook openings to the dustbin of history, though the recent success of Fujii with his anti-Anaguma system seems to puncture a big hole in that criticism. Despite these criticisms, I think the evidence is strong that shogi is the best game in the entire chess family, and with the risk of offending Go players (a game which I also play and respect greatly), perhaps the best game of all. Larry Kaufman