This weekend the U.S. Champion GM Larry Christiansen will be honored
and everyone is welcome to be part of it (Live Events).

All the program here:

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/

Enjoy!

Greetings,

                 Does anyone know about a system of
                 play for "normal" chess called
                 "matrix chess".


                 What I know:

                 A man named Bernard Parham "invented"
                 it 30+ years
                 ago.
                 Where as "book chess" has been around
                 for a tad bit
                 longer. :)

                 Traditionalists frown on it.

                 It is a very aggressive type or style
                 of play.
                 Attack, attack... looking to mate as soon as possible.
                 Not afraid to use and bring out the queen early

                 The queen often comes out on the 2nd move.

                 e.g.
                 1. e4...e5
                 2. Qh5

                 Taught to pre-schoolers..."if you can count to 35..."

                 Look at the square which your piece now occupies, look
                 at the square you want to move to.

                 Check rank, file, diagonals for danger, check around
                 the clock for pawns and knights...

                 Then there are a handful of skills that go with it.
                 These I do not know.

                 I've communicated with his son via e-mail, but he
                 doesn't seem to be interested in promoting the topic.

                 In the mean time I've joined a couple of groups and am
                 casting a net as it were, in the hopes of finding
                 someone that knows something.

                 Does anyone have hard copy on this system or know
where I can find it?

                 I have phone numbers to Parhams school. That will be
my next step.

                 Also...it is not the matrix notation system found on a
variants
                 web page that will come up if you search on google,
for example.

                 thanks for your attention

Aside from the topic of chess variants-

We are all victims of spam.
I am new to this list.

Is there a listmaster with access who can be relied upon to check
occasionally within areas (such as "bookmarks") where marketers post
junk which has nothing whatsoever to do with chess or variants and
DELETE it?

Sunday, May 19, 2002 at noon EST.

Gothic Chess, the 10x8 variant that is quite  possibly
most-similar to chess, will be hosting an Open For All
play-by-post tournament. The event will be played at a minimum
of one move per day. Diagrams of every board position will be
provided as of midnight EST for all active games.

For those interested, more information is available at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/official_gothic_chess

This will be a PRIZE MONEY event.  For more information, feel
free to stop by.

It is my hope this will be deemed an "on-topic" event, and not
perceived as the drudgery of spam :)

Cheers!

I've noticed it too. It seems to be an epidemic lately on these
groups. Most of the spam concerns credit. I'm the owner of one club
that was hit twice in one week. Well, actually only once, as the 2nd
spam attempt failed because I recognized his user ID from another
club at which he spammed and deleted him before he/she could post.


--- In chessvariants@y..., "omegamani" <dsn8@j...> wrote:
> Aside from the topic of chess variants-
>
> We are all victims of spam.
> I am new to this list.
>
> Is there a listmaster with access who can be relied upon to check
> occasionally within areas (such as "bookmarks") where marketers
post
> junk which has nothing whatsoever to do with chess or variants and
> DELETE it?

If you want to experience deja-vous, compare the java applets for
"Russian Symmetrical Chess" & "Minister's Chess".

Chess Variant Applets
http://www.pathguy.com/chess/ChessVar.htm

The boards & pieces match like identical fingerprints.

Note that "Russian Symmetrical Chess" was invented by EF Burtsev in
1956.

Next, check-out the commercial web site for "Minister's Chess".

http://www.corinthiangames.com/

Note that Dr. Michael Corinthios credits himself as the sole
inventor of "Minister's Chess".  He even holds a few international
patents on it.

A few weeks ago, I sent the good doc an E-mail pointing-out this
discrepancy.  He never replied at all.

Is that the way an innocent man (who independently re-invented the
same game) would behave?

--- In chessvariants@y..., "omegamani" <dsn8@j...> wrote:
> If you want to experience deja-vous, compare the java applets for
> "Russian Symmetrical Chess" & "Minister's Chess".
>
> Chess Variant Applets
> http://www.pathguy.com/chess/ChessVar.htm
>
> The boards & pieces match like identical fingerprints.
>
> Note that "Russian Symmetrical Chess" was invented by EF Burtsev in
> 1956.
>
> Next, check-out the commercial web site for "Minister's Chess".
>
> http://www.corinthiangames.com/
>
> Note that Dr. Michael Corinthios credits himself as the sole
> inventor of "Minister's Chess".  He even holds a few international
> patents on it.

It is, alas, true that the same chess variant ideas get invented again
and again by people who lack any knowledge of the history of the
field.  As for the patents, this says more about the ignorance of the
patent examiners than anything else.

But aside from the board and the array -- both stunningly obvious --
the two games are actually rather different.  In Russian Symmetrical
Chess you may move a Bishop to the other color once per game, and
Pawns past the midpoint of the board move as non-retreating Kings and
only promote to captured pieces other than Queens.  Ministers Chess on
the other hand is a rather conservative variant.  The difference in
Pawns will lead to *very* differently played games.

(As an aside, I feel that the array used by the games is less than
optimum anyways, since the major effect of a symmetrical array is to
reduce the number of distinct openings by 1/2 (see Xiangqi opening
theory vs Orthochess opening theory).  Active Chess by G. Kuzmichov
provides an interesting counter example.  It's played on a 9x8 board
with an extra Queen.  After extensive experimentation and playtesting
by Kuzmichov and his students, they rejected the symmetrical array,
and stuck the extra Queen in a corner.  This appeared to give the best
play.)

> A few weeks ago, I sent the good doc an E-mail pointing-out this
> discrepancy.  He never replied at all.
>
> Is that the way an innocent man (who independently re-invented the
> same game) would behave?

Well, it rather depends on the tone of the message, doesn't it?  If it
was accusitory and hostile, it might well be ignored.  After all, life
is short and the world is full of people with hobbyhorses, and
sometimes the most graceful thing to do is to ignore them.

"... aside from the board and the array -- both stunningly obvious --
the two games are actually rather different.  In Russian Symmetrical
Chess you may move a Bishop to the other color once per game, and
Pawns past the midpoint of the board move as non-retreating Kings and
only promote to captured pieces other than Queens.  Ministers Chess on
the other hand is a rather conservative variant.  The difference in
Pawns will lead to *very* differently played games."
____________________________________________________

I noticed that there were differences in some special
moves.

It is difficult to argue whether such differences are
important or cosmetic since ANY difference in gameplay
CAN be important or cosmetic, depending upon its exact
nature & circumstance.

Nonetheless, special moves are 3rd and least upon my
list of the 3 defining characteristics of a unique
game.  I would classify these 2 items as merely variants
or sub-variants apart.

Do you agree?
_____________

The motives of Dr. Michael Corinthios are a mystery to
both of us.  After all, he has NOT explained himself.

> I noticed that there were differences in some special
> moves.
>
> It is difficult to argue whether such differences are
> important or cosmetic since ANY difference in gameplay
> CAN be important or cosmetic, depending upon its exact
> nature & circumstance.

But that is exactly what we as Chess Variant designers do.  But I can
assure you that the change to Pawn movement will produce quite a
different game.

> Nonetheless, special moves are 3rd and least upon my
> list of the 3 defining characteristics of a unique
> game.  I would classify these 2 items as merely variants
> or sub-variants apart.
>
> Do you agree?
> _____________

It is risky to generalize too much, but the first thing I look at in
a variant is the moves of the pieces.  There are 8 Pawns, so even a
small difference in their move can change the game considerably, and
this is not a small change.  If you would take the movement rules of
Russian Symmetrical Chess and apply them to the Orthochess array you
would have a distinctly different game -- in particular the endgame
would be changed almost beyond recognition.

> The motives of Dr. Michael Corinthios are a mystery to
> both of us.  After all, he has NOT explained himself.

Nor does he have any particular obligation to do so.  After all, he
doesn't know us from Adam.

i seem to be making a habit out of disagreeing with U, Derek.  The only
reason i would say no is because Burtsev's game goes further than the
Ministers.  The addition of another Queen and rank/file hardly rates as
stellar innovation, and in defense of the good doctor, if U were going to
blatantly steal from Burtsev's game U could definitely find something a
little more daring than just a second queen. (see below)


i think subs is probably the most appropriate -- on par with variants that
add marshals, archbishops, cardinals, chancellors, etc., and an accompanying
rank/file to accommodate it.  But then again, ANY change, no matter how
purely cosmetic or strategically centered, that results in different
possibilities for play, are variants.  Whether whole or sub-variant becomes
immaterial if the change is enough to notice.  Consider all of Betza's
various armies still engaging in essentially FIDE play.


(two of the cards in the Variants deck from Shogessi©)[Unable to display image]

Now these are blatant thefts!



-S-



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"I feel that the array used by the games is less than
optimum anyways, since the major effect of a
symmetrical array is to reduce the number of distinct
openings by 1/2."
_______________

I doubt anyone has really developed formulae for calculating
the optimum number of distinct openings for a given game.

In the abstract, should the number of distinct openings
be raised or lowered to approach the optimum number?

How can it be desirable to automatically, blindly double
the number of distinct openings (as you imply)?

Bilateral symmetry in the opening setups does render
any "right-handed" openings between the 2 players
absolutely congruent analytically to any "left-handed"
openings.  Nonetheless, do not mistaken this mirror-image
symmetry to mean that 2 congruent openings
(1 right-handed, 1 left-handed) are literally the same.

They are unique from one another.
They cannot be overlaid.
They are geometric inverses just as your left handprint
& right handprint.

Both right-handed & left-handed openings have to each be
dealt with, nonetheless.

0.5  X  2  =  1

OR

1  X  1  =  1

Note-  With rare exceptions, bilateral symmetry is destroyed
for the rest of the game after the 1st move (by white).

"It is risky to generalize too much."
______________________________________

You are quite right!

Still, our minds need definitions & structures to work.

I define unique games according to the board they are played upon.

I define variants according to the opening setups for a given board.

I define sub-variants according to the details of gameplay where a
given board & opening setup are identical.

Therefore, Russian Symmetrical Chess & Minister's Chess are sub-
variants ... by my definitions.

We should consider the possibility that Dr. Michael Corinthios has
accomplished nothing worthy of a bust sculpture.

> The motives of Dr. Michael Corinthios are a mystery to
> both of us. After all, he has NOT explained himself.

Nor does he have any particular obligation to do so.
____________________________________________________

My alarm over the identical boards & setups for Russian Symmetrical
Chess & Minister's Chess is quite understandable, not at all
irrelevant.

Of course he owes us an explanation.
Some people recognize no ethical accountability.

I must misunderstand you.
Do you actually approve of his stonewalling?

Derek,
I doubt anyone has really developed formulae for calculating
the optimum number of distinct openings for a given game.

In the abstract, should the number of distinct openings
be raised or lowered to approach the optimum number?

What?

        First, it's disingenuous to ignore the reference to the comparative
study of Xiangqi and Orthochess opening theory, and then attack an argument
based on what U believe to be a lack of support for it.

Secondly, then what are "openings", "books", or "gambits" references to?  And
i've debated U enough by now to know U can't possibly believe less is more in
this instance.  How could fewer possibilities for play be a desired goal for
a variant's design?  "Blindly doubling" appeals as a player, if for no other
reason than the amount of options it provides one to pursue on the board in
the course of games.

And please Gentlemen(? i'm assuming), correct me if i'm mistaken, but i think
the two of U are speaking in terms of two different things; or using two
different sets of criteria for enumerating the #'s of moves in your
respective definitions of opening varieties.  Does one of U perhaps make
reference to the moves of a single player, while the other speaks of a games
collective turn (ie., corresponding moves from each player)?  This would make
some small difference...

-S-


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

He means why should we care that much.  If you don't like it you can
ignore it.  However you are causeing such a stir, that you are
giving 'the good doc' as you so eloquently put it, a lot of
attention, including his game, then you seem to want it banished.
It's like people who make a huge controversy over something, because
of it supposedly being bad, then expect everyone not to be drawn to
it because of the latter.

-R

--- In chessvariants@y..., "omegamani" <dsn8@j...> wrote:
> > The motives of Dr. Michael Corinthios are a mystery to
> > both of us. After all, he has NOT explained himself.
>
> Nor does he have any particular obligation to do so.
> ____________________________________________________
>
> My alarm over the identical boards & setups for Russian Symmetrical
> Chess & Minister's Chess is quite understandable, not at all
> irrelevant.
>
> Of course he owes us an explanation.
> Some people recognize no ethical accountability.
>
> I must misunderstand you.
> Do you actually approve of his stonewalling?

..Yeah, this is the downside of the changes Yahoo made recently. I
even got a spam advertisement for some Yahoo group or other in my
personal e-mail mailbox (on a different ISP, not Yahoo). Spam is
modern-day junk mail: You gotta ignore it & discard it.
..
--david moeser (erasmus39)
--Censornati, Ohio - USA

"How could fewer possibilities for play be a desired goal for
a variant's design?"
____________________

I once designed a game entitled "Corner Chess 12 X 12" which crashed
the Zillions 1.0 engine, illiciting the error message "too many moves
generated".

[A subsequent version of Zillion was written which could handle this
game chock full of power pieces.  I have since scrapped the game,
anyway.]

You should not be overly-concerned about the theoretical depth
(distinct openings) of games with symmetrical arrays being, by par,
less by a factor of 1/2 than those with asymmetrical arrays.  The
total number of pieces upon the board, the size & shape of the board,
the percentage of total pieces which are of unlimited range (instead
of limited range) are all more efficacious to this quality.

The symmetrical games in my collection, at least, are not trivial
games (i.e., possessing easily-solvable depth).

> Still, our minds need definitions & structures to work.
>
> I define unique games according to the board they are played upon.
>
> I define variants according to the opening setups for a given board.
>
> I define sub-variants according to the details of gameplay where a
> given board & opening setup are identical.

But the rules of movement and capture generally have much more effect
on play than the board and setup.  Consider two games that use the
standard Orthochess array and board: Losing Chess and Italian
Progressive Chess.  Losing Chess in particular plays nothing like
Orthochess. Both of these games play far more differently from
Orthochess or each other than, say Ministers does from Orthochess,
dispite the common boards.

> Therefore, Russian Symmetrical Chess & Minister's Chess are sub-
> variants ... by my definitions.

I would consider the Pawn and Bishop moves to make them quite
distinct, myself.

> We should consider the possibility that Dr. Michael Corinthios has
> accomplished nothing worthy of a bust sculpture.

Well *I* consider Ministers rather uninteresting.  But not everything
in the world is designed with me in mind for some reason.

--- In chessvariants@y..., "omegamani" <dsn8@j...> wrote:
> "I feel that the array used by the games is less than
> optimum anyways, since the major effect of a
> symmetrical array is to reduce the number of distinct
> openings by 1/2."
> _______________
>
> I doubt anyone has really developed formulae for calculating
> the optimum number of distinct openings for a given game.
> In the abstract, should the number of distinct openings
> be raised or lowered to approach the optimum number?
>
> How can it be desirable to automatically, blindly double
> the number of distinct openings (as you imply)?
>

It seems to be a generally accepted principle in the design of
abstract games that the broader and deeper the decision tree, the
better.  I certainly believe this, and I think that a larger number of
distinct openings makes for at least a broader tree and that is a good
thing.

> Bilateral symmetry in the opening setups does render
> any "right-handed" openings between the 2 players
> absolutely congruent analytically to any "left-handed"
> openings.  Nonetheless, do not mistaken this mirror-image
> symmetry to mean that 2 congruent openings
> (1 right-handed, 1 left-handed) are literally the same.
>
> They are unique from one another.
> They cannot be overlaid.
> They are geometric inverses just as your left handprint
> & right handprint.
>
> Both right-handed & left-handed openings have to each be
> dealt with, nonetheless.
>
> 0.5  X  2  =  1
>
> OR
>
> 1  X  1  =  1

Have you ever read a book on Xiangqi openings?  The generally accepted
wisdom is that mirror image openings are functionally identical, since
you can respond to a mirror image of an opening with the mirror image
of the response and produce the same effective position in terms of
threats, ability to capture, etc.  Thus, a symmetrical setup reduces
the number of effectively distinct (in terms of effecting the play of
the game) openings.

> My alarm over the identical boards & setups for Russian Symmetrical
> Chess & Minister's Chess is quite understandable, not at all
> irrelevant.

I do not agree.  I think them both minor variants and board and setup
are so obvious as to merit no particular suprise over their
duplication.

> Of course he owes us an explanation.

And who are "we" such that he "owes" us an explanation?

> I must misunderstand you.
> Do you actually approve of his stonewalling?

Is he Stonewalling?  I rather suspect based on the e-mail you sent him
he's written you off as a crank and is ignoring you.  Unfortunate,
perhaps, but then life is often like that.

"Losing Chess in particular plays nothing like Orthochess."
___________________________________________________________

Very good point!

Clearly, a difference in the game-winning rule(s) can have a dramatic
impact upon gameplay even with identical boards & setups.

And who are "we" such that he "owes" us an explanation?
_______________________________________________________

Have you not heard of intellectual property, patent laws, copyright
laws, intellectual dishonesty & theft?

What do you imagine to be the topic I am talking about?

Sometimes you miss too many points, argue too much, to be regarded as
someone who communicates constructively.

--- In chessvariants@y..., "omegamani" <dsn8@j...> wrote:
> And who are "we" such that he "owes" us an explanation?
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Have you not heard of intellectual property, patent laws, copyright
> laws, intellectual dishonesty & theft?

I am fairly aware of intellectual property law, although I am not a
lawyer.  I have always felt that game patents are a rather poor
mechanism for protection of games.  As for intellectual dishonesty and
theft, I see no signs of theft.  The board and setup of Ministers are
obvious and rather trivial, and Russian Symmetrical Chess is a very
obscure variant, which until Ed made his applet seems to have only
been described in "The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants", a book
published in rather small numbers.  It is very likely a case of
independent invention, which is something that happens all of the time
(which would argue the any patents on Ministers probably fail the
required test of not being obvious).

> What do you imagine to be the topic I am talking about?
>
> Sometimes you miss too many points, argue too much, to be regarded
as
> someone who communicates constructively.

Funny, that's exactly the reaction I find myself having to you.

Whoops!  I forgot who I was logged in as to Yahoo.  The previous
message by "chessvar" should have been tagged "peteraronson".  Sorry
for any confusion.

"Is he stonewalling?"

Yes.

"I rather suspect based on the e-mail you sent him,
he's written you off as a crank and is ignoring you."

1.  You have not read the letter I sent Dr. Michael Corinthios.
2.  As you perceptively suspect, I demanded an explanation in a
business-like tone, implicitly regarding him as guilty until proven
innocent.  My letter was strictly factual instead of emotional,
however.  I sent a carbon copy (CC) to Ed Friedlander since his work
was specifically referenced.
3.  Two days later, Ed Friedlander wrote Dr. Michael Corinthios.
4.  You have not read the letter he sent Dr. Michael Corinthios.
5.  Ed Friedlander diplomatically asked for an explanation,
implicitly treating him as innocent until proven guilty.
6.  For weeks, Dr. Michael Corinthios has ignored both of us.
7.  Are both Ed Friedlander & I "cranks"?

"As for intellectual dishonesty and theft, I see no signs of theft."
____________________________________________________________________

Although I hold the opposite opinion, I respect your opinion as an
admissible possibility.  Neither one of us knows for certain how
Minister's Chess came about.

Only Dr. Michael Corinthios knows for certain and he is not talking.

" ... any patents on Ministers probably fail the required test of not
being obvious."
_______________

Yes.

This game is too similar even to conventional chess (which is public
domain).  For instance, all of the pieces used in Minister's Chess
are familiar to conventional chess.

Minister's Chess is a business.
Corinthian Games sells the physical board game.
The patents, however unoriginal & fraudulent (re: Russian Symmetrical
Chess- EF Brutsev 1956), protect Dr. Michael Corinthios' business
interest.

Thank U for ID-ing yourself Peter.  Any idea how many other people were
involved in that exchange with Derek?  i got lost in the cross-fires.  :-D

If Ministers only original claim is the second Queen and her rank/file, there
is no infringement on Burtsev.  If anything Ministers fails to meet Burtsev's
level of invention, thereby ensuring Russian Symmetry's safety
intellectually.  And since, by extension of that logic, the "good doctor"
(poor guy) has done nothing deserving blame, he need not respond (the
presumption is innocence until proven otherwise no matter how we may each
personally define it); nor be seen as reluctant whether the accusation is
justifiable or indeed a crank.  He must simply allow the evidence to argue
itself to all that will, without predisposition, examine it and find what is
plainly there to be seen...

(...gaze flintily over the jury while pausing for dramatic effect, and then
turning to expose my good side --)

The dissimilarities in these two games so far outweigh their commons, that
they are separate and individuated concepts sharing only their fundamental
theme, Chess variation.  The one being so simple as to be possible to arrive
at its invention by accident, the other distinguishable by its degree of
reinvention of the weakest of its parts.

(give 'em the slow steel once more, surreptitiously winking at the cute
steno-babe as i turn...)

The defense rests.

- U may all erupt into spontaneous, and unchecked applause now.  i also
accept adulation in the form of US currency to make it more convenient for
me. -

-S-


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good to see some enthusiastic messaging here!  Thanks omegamani for
the link to the Chess Variant Applets website (
http://www.pathguy.com/chess/ChessVar.htm ), which looks quite
interesting.

I agree with those who've said here that neither Minister's Chess nor
Russian Symmetrical infringes on the other's rights, legal or moral.
If I were Burtsev I'd be delighted to be able to buy the equipment
from Corinthios and use it to play Russian Symmetrical.  He could
even make a deal with Corinthios to buy up a lot of the latter's
unsold boards (I assume there will be a lot of unsold boards) and
sell them himself, with a set of Russian Symmetrical rules -- a much
less risky way of going into the chess-variant business, since
someone else did the large quantity manufacturing.

Anyway, I hope we can all wish the best of luck to any inventor who
actually hopes to make money by marketing a chess variant, since they
will surely need it.

I once thought of what must be one of the least-variant variants on
usual chess:  White is not allowed to castle except on the move after
Black castles, or the first move after Black has moved either his
King or both his Rooks.  If White isn't ready to castle on that move,
the window closes and he can't castle.

The idea is to place an encumbrance on White to balance the game,
which is why the proposed encumbrance is (I think) pretty subtle.
Spotting a Pawn would be too much (right?), so a subtle handicap
would be required.  But I don't play chess well enough to be able to
judge whether this would really result in a significantly more
balanced game; I presume it would mess up a lot of the opening theory.