- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Modern Morals of Chess

I believe Shogi has many similarities to crazyhouse regarding how the pieces can transform their movement later in the game, right?

I believe Shogi has many similarities to crazyhouse regarding how the pieces can transform their movement later in the game, right?

@Craze said in #2:

I believe Shogi has many similarities to crazyhouse regarding how the pieces can transform their movement later in the game, right?
As to transformation, all shogi pieces except king and gold general can promote to gold general, which moves like a king but not diagonally backwards. Like in Crazyhouse captured pieces change sides and can then be 'dropped'. I believe Crazyhouse is winning for white because of the drastically increased piece power on the same size board. I believe 10 x 10 Capablanca is ideal, probably randomised for good measure.

@Craze said in #2: > I believe Shogi has many similarities to crazyhouse regarding how the pieces can transform their movement later in the game, right? As to transformation, all shogi pieces except king and gold general can promote to gold general, which moves like a king but not diagonally backwards. Like in Crazyhouse captured pieces change sides and can then be 'dropped'. I believe Crazyhouse is winning for white because of the drastically increased piece power on the same size board. I believe 10 x 10 Capablanca is ideal, probably randomised for good measure.

Great back reference to B. Franklin. I had only seen the Wikipedia page. One would like the game so much to let the other know that there was an immediate mistake there, without waiting for a take back request. Did I read wrong?

For me, it is about 2 persons trying to find out within some ruleset what any game has is store for the common sensory experience of both players.

I still have to read the blog. I just could not inhibit that impulse of sharing. Will now look at both blog and link.

I think my enthousiasm was about B. Frankin article last paragraph. And general conclusion about why one might want to play chess. The blog does not seem to be extending this perpective. Or ablitiy to look at rule set and existing forms as a range of "moral" choices, than can co-exist in ones various chunks of times where spend with something chessy. But now I still still read it. (got past the submit to current state of the real chess dominating strategies, bottleneck). Still hope for something more of my neck of the submerged iceberg (populatoin of lichess uses or chess game lovers, not necessarily read chess, but still serious chess).

I have zero knowledge of shogi. I only got curious about the core ruleset differences, and visualize each individual pieces (including alll of them) mobilitie figures with some fork of lichess having the teaching features in common.

I do agree about the overpowering trend in standard chess, the small board, and the simplificatino of the mobilitiy figures. My overall impression (but rememeber never played a single, even fake, game of shogi, just did the site teaching program) is that there are a lot more quirks and dimeansions to work in, and that this overwhelms from the get go, any veilleity that turn by turn sharp turns of fate would be the currency of knowledge to be shared (money or fuss or credential glory, some kind of soical power currency).

I do like though the sensation that we can discover things on our own at some scale for some emerging logic still permeating from the simplication of the mobility figures. The only common quirkiness of that sort left in standard compared to the co-descendant shogi, is the pawns in standard.. All other figures in chess have symetric mobilitiy figures (the whole set of target points before one makes a decision to move the thing, to be clear, not just the post move figure taken).

So, it might be that the blog is right about shogi having alrady generalizable advice found in its history, and it might be because of more distributed power of single moves over the set of types moving on board, the size of board, and hence the depth of the game as well. But it does not follow from the constrast with core rule set of chess, that this is the reason for chess non-proverb and weakly generalizable rules of action being accumulated to this date, do not work ... although saying this, has me swaying in the other direction. What if it is....

Ok.. even if it is a good argument, the overpower single piece single move trun of events on a a dime.. and single move criticality at many corners per square board space or time quanta, something like that.

I think, there are other reasons for the non-emergence of usable statements... I could have many suggestions.
monetization, or the need for chess experts and knowers to make a living off of chess. Perhaps the sociology of shogi demographics in history might shed some light. Having a whole life time consacrated to such non necessary task (this is not like a life of farming), in order to at least individuals to gather some wisdom and moreover be able to share that posthumously (or as far as that, requirement for accumulation from one tournanment cohort to another generation of them, whatever age measure we take, eventually some turnover, means communicability, or wide age overlap, idk).

I think that while in shogi the more extensive cardinality of core ruleset might have more information to make more stable emerging logic widely applicable. In chess it might not be that there are no emergent logic (strategy direction of the scaffold dichotomy, more like an line with degrees), but that it depends more on the specifics information of the positoin (possibly using the same powerfulness per unit square (and depth) argument).

The position specifics per less numerous things we can influence with higher outcome odds sensitivity compared to shogi. Means more aspects of the board have to be put into the proverbs nature. These can't just be action rules based on 3 bin phase of the game. Each position might be part in the worst case scenario, which is actually the current on (or I exagerate, but pretty close). That diversity is just counted in numbers not in distance (and hence volume, without word abuse to mean amount). Like the number of starts in the universe versus the number of molecules in the ocean. The latter, having other ways to look at its size. While the universe can only be counted in that analogy about chess.

But I agree with blog that this might be the trap standard chess fell into at population and historical level and in the "real chess" most visible and cultured about slice (what is the proportion of real chess playes on lichess, btw? of which I am not, I mean that which the lobby is presenting in all its things verbal and communication. That all blog authoring about chess, keep assuming when going serious about the chessboard. Some do have some fleeting thoughts about the mere possiblity that one could be serious about chess, and not being in their obvious constraints of purpose or interest ni chess life. Could that real chess slice domination over chess motivation be another reason, we are stuck in a game of knowledge imbalance, that relies of some generalized notion of trap at depth?

Great back reference to B. Franklin. I had only seen the Wikipedia page. One would like the game so much to let the other know that there was an immediate mistake there, without waiting for a take back request. Did I read wrong? For me, it is about 2 persons trying to find out within some ruleset what any game has is store for the common sensory experience of both players. I still have to read the blog. I just could not inhibit that impulse of sharing. Will now look at both blog and link. I think my enthousiasm was about B. Frankin article last paragraph. And general conclusion about why one might want to play chess. The blog does not seem to be extending this perpective. Or ablitiy to look at rule set and existing forms as a range of "moral" choices, than can co-exist in ones various chunks of times where spend with something chessy. But now I still still read it. (got past the submit to current state of the real chess dominating strategies, bottleneck). Still hope for something more of my neck of the submerged iceberg (populatoin of lichess uses or chess game lovers, not necessarily read chess, but still serious chess). I have zero knowledge of shogi. I only got curious about the core ruleset differences, and visualize each individual pieces (including alll of them) mobilitie figures with some fork of lichess having the teaching features in common. I do agree about the overpowering trend in standard chess, the small board, and the simplificatino of the mobilitiy figures. My overall impression (but rememeber never played a single, even fake, game of shogi, just did the site teaching program) is that there are a lot more quirks and dimeansions to work in, and that this overwhelms from the get go, any veilleity that turn by turn sharp turns of fate would be the currency of knowledge to be shared (money or fuss or credential glory, some kind of soical power currency). I do like though the sensation that we can discover things on our own at some scale for some emerging logic still permeating from the simplication of the mobility figures. The only common quirkiness of that sort left in standard compared to the co-descendant shogi, is the pawns in standard.. All other figures in chess have symetric mobilitiy figures (the whole set of target points before one makes a decision to move the thing, to be clear, not just the post move figure taken). So, it might be that the blog is right about shogi having alrady generalizable advice found in its history, and it might be because of more distributed power of single moves over the set of types moving on board, the size of board, and hence the depth of the game as well. But it does not follow from the constrast with core rule set of chess, that this is the reason for chess non-proverb and weakly generalizable rules of action being accumulated to this date, do not work ... although saying this, has me swaying in the other direction. What if it is.... Ok.. even if it is a good argument, the overpower single piece single move trun of events on a a dime.. and single move criticality at many corners per square board space or time quanta, something like that. I think, there are other reasons for the non-emergence of usable statements... I could have many suggestions. monetization, or the need for chess experts and knowers to make a living off of chess. Perhaps the sociology of shogi demographics in history might shed some light. Having a whole life time consacrated to such non necessary task (this is not like a life of farming), in order to at least individuals to gather some wisdom and moreover be able to share that posthumously (or as far as that, requirement for accumulation from one tournanment cohort to another generation of them, whatever age measure we take, eventually some turnover, means communicability, or wide age overlap, idk). I think that while in shogi the more extensive cardinality of core ruleset might have more information to make more stable emerging logic widely applicable. In chess it might not be that there are no emergent logic (strategy direction of the scaffold dichotomy, more like an line with degrees), but that it depends more on the specifics information of the positoin (possibly using the same powerfulness per unit square (and depth) argument). The position specifics per less numerous things we can influence with higher outcome odds sensitivity compared to shogi. Means more aspects of the board have to be put into the proverbs nature. These can't just be action rules based on 3 bin phase of the game. Each position might be part in the worst case scenario, which is actually the current on (or I exagerate, but pretty close). That diversity is just counted in numbers not in distance (and hence volume, without word abuse to mean amount). Like the number of starts in the universe versus the number of molecules in the ocean. The latter, having other ways to look at its size. While the universe can only be counted in that analogy about chess. But I agree with blog that this might be the trap standard chess fell into at population and historical level and in the "real chess" most visible and cultured about slice (what is the proportion of real chess playes on lichess, btw? of which I am not, I mean that which the lobby is presenting in all its things verbal and communication. That all blog authoring about chess, keep assuming when going serious about the chessboard. Some do have some fleeting thoughts about the mere possiblity that one could be serious about chess, and not being in their obvious constraints of purpose or interest ni chess life. Could that real chess slice domination over chess motivation be another reason, we are stuck in a game of knowledge imbalance, that relies of some generalized notion of trap at depth?

@Craze said in #2:

I believe Shogi has many similarities to crazyhouse regarding how the pieces can transform their movement later in the game, right?

Indeed... still, if you look at engine crazyhouse games, as @themiddleway indicates the pieces are far too powerful for an 8x8 board. If shogi is a war, chess is a battle, and crazyhouse is a skirmish:
https://youtu.be/15XOqX3t52w

@Craze said in #2: > I believe Shogi has many similarities to crazyhouse regarding how the pieces can transform their movement later in the game, right? Indeed... still, if you look at engine crazyhouse games, as @themiddleway indicates the pieces are far too powerful for an 8x8 board. If shogi is a war, chess is a battle, and crazyhouse is a skirmish: https://youtu.be/15XOqX3t52w

@themiddleway said in #3:

As to transformation, all shogi pieces except king and gold general can promote to gold general,
Rook and Bishop do not promote to goldgeneral obviously. They turn int king+rook moves and bishop+king moves pieces.

@themiddleway said in #3: > As to transformation, all shogi pieces except king and gold general can promote to gold general, Rook and Bishop do not promote to goldgeneral obviously. They turn int king+rook moves and bishop+king moves pieces.

For people who like shogi and crazyhouse should try Hive, a game with no more than 10 years of theory and many strategies to search still.

For people who like shogi and crazyhouse should try Hive, a game with no more than 10 years of theory and many strategies to search still.

Shogi is known as more tactical compared to chess

The blog wrote this in quotes, I disagree:

"Chess is less strategic and more tactical than shogi, with opening memorization playing a large role......"

Perhaps it should be the other way around since draws are rare in Shogi.

Shogi is known as more tactical compared to chess The blog wrote this in quotes, I disagree: "Chess is less strategic and more tactical than shogi, with opening memorization playing a large role......" Perhaps it should be the other way around since draws are rare in Shogi.

A typical chess game lasts about 40 moves (80 plies). Draws in chess are a result of stalemate being a draw rather than a win, and perpetual check being a draw rather than a loss.

A typical chess game lasts about 40 moves (80 plies). Draws in chess are a result of stalemate being a draw rather than a win, and perpetual check being a draw rather than a loss.