From: Larry Kaufman WIZARD NET> Date: 17 feb 1999 Subject: Re: shuffle chess(or shogi) -----Original Message----- From: The Shogi Discussion List [mailto:SHOGI-L techunix technion ac il]On Behalf Of Manabu Terao Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 7:03 AM To: SHOGI-L techunix technion ac il Subject: Re: shuffle chess(or shogi) > I basically agree with this point (Kings on 5th file) but not with your > reasoning. I think the reason the King should be kept on the 5th file is > that it preserves the option of building a castle on either side. Of > course, this will depend on the position of the generals too, so perhaps > this restriction is unnecessary as well, or (alternatively) you could > stipulate that on each side of the King you would have to have one of each > of the minor pieces. Restrictions of this sort aren't done for > shuffle-chess and it's not clear to me that they're needed for > shuffle-shogi, although the lesser lateral mobility in shogi might make > them desirable. With these restrictions and the bishop and rook on their > original squares you would still have 24*24 = 576 possible opening setups, > which is quite a bit already. Disallowing the knight from the corner > reduces this to 18*18 = 324 setups, still quite a bit. And of course if > the position of the rook and bishop are allowed to vary this goes up > dramatically (by up to a factor of 72). > > What is important is that both players have equal chances. You can get > that and preserve the symmetry of the relative arrangements of the pieces > by having each player's setup be the same as the other player's, with the > board rotated 180 degrees. I'm not sure why minor pieces are located as above but I think both the symetry mentioned before and the order like above makes us feel the original set-up something beautiful, at least it's true for me. > > Imagine removing all the Pawns, you can find the Bishops are originally > > located to be exchanged quite easily in only one move. I think this easy > > Bishop exchangeability is one of the essential and critical factors which > > make shogi an attractive game. Shuffle shogi should keep this exchangeability. > > Again, I think you're trying to make shuffle-shogi a clone of shogi. Is > this really so important? I think we all would agree that the standard set-up for shogi is probably the best one, and is aesthetically pleasing. However once the game begins this quickly changes, so I don't know how important that factor is as against the great advantage of putting both players on their own from the beginning. I think the above proposed restrictions of requiring the king in the middle with one of each minor piece on either side, and no knights in the corner, are a reasonable balance between trying to keep the game similar to normal shogi and providing good variety. This assumes we also randomize the second rank, either both pieces or else keep the bishop as in normal shogi and randomize the rook (except of course not allowing it on the edge next to the bishop). With the bishop fixed this would give us 7x324=2268 positions, which should be enough; with both bishop and rook randomized the number would be large enough to make it unlikely that a player would ever see any particular starting position more than once in his lifetime. Note that even if the bishops are moved, the symmetry rule will guarantee that they still travel on the same squares and hence are potentially exchangeable, though not so easily as in the normal positions. I would also question the importance of easy bishop exchangeability; after all, I certainly enjoy bishop handicap shogi, and bishops are not likely to be exchanged in that game! Another correspondent wrote that games would have to be played in pairs. This is not true at all; the symmetry rule should mean that the first player's advantage should be no more than in normal shogi. Of course it is theoretically possible that some configuration might give the first player an enormous advantage, but I don't believe that at all. The space between the armies is too great for that to be plausible. Also, any proposal without the randomizing factor (such as just modifying the starting position or starting with pieces in hand, etc.) has no merit, because the new position would be just as susceptible to analysis as the normal starting position, and memorized theory would immediately become important. Yes. as a result. I did not know the idears of both shuffle chess and shogi until very recently and thinking about how to accept shuffle-shogi leads me to be making it nearly a clone of shogi:-) Wouldn't it be well accepted to create a shuffling shogi breaking the beauty of original set-up of shogi in just order to solve the problem of openings? I'm curious how the chess top players accepted shuffling chess. Have they accepted it well from the beginning or are they becoming positive step by step? Do they consider it a totally different game from chess or a chess-like game? Manabu Terao So far there have been no important shuffle-chess events, except for one eight game match between a grandmaster and a computer. However that will probably change this year. A couple years ago a match between two grandmasters was announced, with Bobby Fischer to be involved (perhaps as commentator), but the sponsorship fell through. Then last December a match was scheduled between the FIDE Champion (Anatoly Karpov) and the FIDE Women's Champion (Zsuzsa Polgar), but again it seems the sponsorship fell through, though I hear that this match may yet take place this year. Finally, just a few weeks ago Kasparov stated in an interview that he would be interested in playing a shuffle-chess match, though no such match has been announced yet. So it seems very likely that a match involving one of the last three World Champions will take place this year. Many grandmasters are opposed to the idea, not surprisingly since they have devoted their lives to the study of one particular starting position, but it is quite remarkable to me that the three World Champions all like the idea, considering that they are all on very bad terms with each other (Fischer calls the other two cheaters, and Kasparov and Karpov have been bitter foes for about 15 years). I think the recent tremendous influence of computers and databases on chess is what is giving shuffle-chess a push. I think anyone who plays shuffle-chess considers it a version of chess, not a totally different game, since the rules are basically the same. Many recent computer programs that play chess provide for shuffle-chess, as does the Internet Chess Club. Larry Kaufman