Post by Cesco Reale on Nov 27, 2011 5:55:25 GMT -5
Chess for Three â€“ Problems and proposals
Hello, I have just read the rules of your interesting (and very nice looking) chess variant. I invite you to read a comment I posted in 2008 about the Luberzaâ€™s variant. www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=19541 I guess that problems 1 and 3 exist also in your variant, and rule 1 could be interesting to solve or reduce these problems. By the way, I am the program manager of â€œTutto Ã¨ Numeroâ€, Festival of Mathematical Gamesâ€ www.tuttoenumero.it/, where I organize every year a combined tournament of many abstract games (old and new ones). You could bring us your game and present it! You can see some pictures here: www.tuttoenumero.it/italiano/2011-2/?show=gallery&nggpage=7. I can be contacted via email also through that site. Best regards, Cesco Reale
Regarding Problem 1: I find aggressive play more fun & effective. Yes, C is happy that A lost a Knight taking B's Queen, but if you sit on the sidelines waiting for the other teams to destroy each other, you're not controlling the game, which you need to do to win. Problem 2 is not a problem, as the game continues until 2 teams are checkmated, plus a team cannot take over another teams pieces. (However, you can take a dead (checkmated) team's piece to occupy a square for strategical positioning) I don't find “Problem 3” a problem. It's free market capitalism working. More often I find that some threatened pieces may be allowed to exist as their position may benefit a team that could capture them. But I've never seen 2 teams actually coordinate play over time against a 3rd team. Your suggested Rule 1 : May be fun & fine for Shogi, but NOT for 3 Man Chess at all. It would be a completely different game from Chess if you could “transform” into other pieces. Suggested Rule 2: This is already built into 3MC. Suggested Rule 3: Just happens to already be clarified in the 3MC rules, & is the only time a King can actually be captured (but doesn't have to be.) Its quite simple & illustrated in a graphic on the rule page at www.3manchess.com.
Post by Cesco Reale on Feb 6, 2012 18:04:15 GMT -5
Hello, actually I spoke only about problems 1 and 3, and rule 1: "I guess that problems 1 and 3 exist also in your variant, and rule 1 could be interesting to solve or reduce these problems."
Clif said: "but if you sit on the sidelines waiting for the other teams to destroy each other, you're not controlling the game, which you need to do to win."
The problem 1 is exactly that. You don't need to control the game in order to win. You don't have interest in attacking, it is better to wait.
About problem 3, if I understood correctly your words, you confirm that it exists, then you can like it or not, but the game does not necessarily lead to the victory of the best player.
About rule 1, maybe there is a misunderstanding: there is no transformation: if you capture a piece it becomes yours and then at your round, you will choose if you want to do a normal move or to put wherever on the board one of the pieces you have captured (like in the famous variant chess "Bughouse"). Of course it would be a completely different game from Chess, but also 3 Man Chess is a completely different game from Chess. One could test the rule and see if 3MC becomes more or less funny, if one likes the idea or not, but I just say that, in case one wants to solve problems 1 and/or 3, I could not see a better solution. Of course I would be interested to read about other possible solutions.
Chess for Three. Problems and proposals In the internet site Chess Variant Pages it is possible to find some chess variants for 3 players, and the more classical variant on a single board is the Jerzy Luberda's one : www.chess-for-three.com/ The idea of the chess board is brillant, but the rules of Jerzy Luberda have some problems. (Let's say that A is much stronger than B, that is much stronger than C)
Problem 1: nobody has interest to attack. A prepares a very good attack against B, for example A takes B's queen loosing a knight; it is not worth it, because comparing with C that did nothing, A has a knight less.
Problem 2: Kingmaker effect. Let's say that A did a very good attack against C, using many pieces and a good strategy, and B is just trying to exploit the situation with one piece; if A is about to checkmate C, very often can happen that C must decide between be checkmated by A or by B. So, a player that has no more chances to win will decide the winner. This problem is present in the standard game where the first that captures a king wins (http://www.chess-for-three.com/), or in the variant where who captures a king takes over the eliminated player's pieces, continuing with stronger forces (second option in the paper rules of the game).
Problem 3: cooperation against the strongest. If A has an advantage comparing with the other two, B and C will probably cooperate, even if speaking is not allowed, until A will be not anymore the strongest. Now B has the best situation, so A and C will cooperate against B, and so on. So, the final victory is almost random, even if A plays very well, most probably he will not succeed to win.
After several tests with various players, I can say that a good set of rules to avoid or reduce the above problems is the following.
Rule 1. You need to have 2 (or better 3) sets of pieces for each color. When a player captures a piece (unless a king), he changes it with another identical of his color and puts it by his side of the board. At his round, he will choose if he wants to do a normal move or if he wants to put wherever on the board one of his captured pieces, like in Shogi (japanese chess). If a promoted pawn is captured, it becomes again a pawn, like in Shogi. In this way the problem 1 is solved, because in the above example A will loose a knight, but will gain a queen. The problem 3 is still present, but is reduced, because for the strongest player it is easier to gain quickly forces. (To read an interesting way to try to solve the problem 3, see the rules proposed by Jonathan Rutherford: www.chessvariants.org/multipla.../3-handed_chess.html)
Rule 2. The goal of the game is to be the last player in game and who captures the first king has no advantage. In this way the problem 2 is solved, because even if the first checkmater is random, then he will have to fight with the remaining player, and without having an advantage for having checkmated. When a player looses his king, his pieces remain on the board without moving anymore but they can still be captured by the other players. (This rule 2 is the first option proposed in the paper rulement of Jerzy Luberda. It should become mandatory, instead of optional).
Rule 3. The kings must be captured (not checkmated) and you can always leave or put your king in check. This is a less important rule just to make the things easier, otherwise it is not obvious when a move is allowed. (For example A moves the king, then B moves a piece leaving A's king menaced by a piece of C. Whose is the illegal move ?)