From: Michael Vanier BBB CALTECH EDU> Date: 7 feb 1999 Subject: No Subject Thanks to Larry Kaufman and Colin Adams for their interesting comparisons of the various shogi/chess games. I agree with Larry's general points about what makes a great game. Here are a few specific comments... > 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. I'm certainly not a good chess player, but I think it's safe to say that playing shogi is much more fun than playing chess for a novice. The drop rule permits one to create the position one wants in many cases, which means that many tactical themes that occur only rarely in chess can be "manufactured" using drops in shogi. I also think that the fact that pawns cannot capture forward in chess tends to create blockaded positions which sometimes makes it hard to get any attack going. What usually seems to happen in these cases is that pieces get exchanged and before you know it you're in the endgame. Thus chess games often become a war of attrition. This can't happen in shogi, and shogi endgames are vastly more interesting than chess endgames by any reasonable comparison. > 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. I haven't played Chu (yet; I'm eager to try), but I find it hard to imagine that a game played on a 12x12 board with 92 pieces could have less strategical complexity than chess, played on an 8x8 board. Perhaps you could elaborate here? Wayne Schmittberger has argued that the tactical complexity of Chu is so great that, in fact, strategy dominates tactics because it's hard to read many moves deep, and so the important thing for Chu players is to learn to intuitively assess the merits of a position, much as Go players have to. > Sorry I don't even know what > "tenjiku" shogi is, so no comment here. Check it out; it's pretty cool. George Hodges sells rule leaflets, and Colin's book has the rules. A tactical nightmare/paradise, depending on one's inclinations. > 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". I agree with your assessment from my experience. I think the only "flaw" in shogi is the standardization of the openings, and that something like "shuffle-shogi" will be necessary to keep the game from getting bogged down by opening theory. Has anyone played shuffle-shogi? I must add that most of what I've read on shogi seems to focus on tactics, giving the idea that the game is primarily tactical. I suppose this is true in the endgame, but it would be interesting to read more about shogi strategy beyond analysis of the opening. It's interesting that nobody has mentioned go except in passing. Even though this is a shogi mailing list, I'm fascinated by the contrast between shogi and go. Go seems to me to have much more varied openings than chess or shogi (even with standard josekis, the fact that there are four corners to play them in makes each game completely different) and enormous tactical complexity (albeit of a vastly different kind). The main area where shogi surpasses go is in the endgame, which (barring stupid blunders) tends not to be too tense in go, but of course is very exciting in shogi. Mike