If Tolkien knew about Sovereign Chess and THEN wrote his trilogy...

A tongue in cheek way to look at some core elements to the game.

The Fellowship of the First and Second Rings

The starting position of a Sovereign Chess board consists of two rings, so to speak. The first ring is the outermost ring (rows 1 and 16, columns a and p) - consisting of Kings, Queens, Bishops, Knights and Rooks. 

The second ring (rows b2:o2 and b15:o15, columns b2:b15 and o2:o15) - consisting of 48 pawns and 4 Knights.

The fun in drawing a correlation here between Sovereign Chess and Tolkien's original work is that, in the game, every piece has the potential to work FOR you, achieving your aims. Every color has the potential to be "in fellowship" to your overall goal of winning the game. Simultaneously, there is an OPPOSING power at work (your opponent) seeking to also use these pieces to work against you (much like how Tolkien's fellowship was in tension with itself).

The Sixteen Towers

 This image is largely just making a simple play on Tolkien's "The Two Towers"- simply by counting the number of rooks on a Sovereign Chess board. But, it DOES reflect the variety of colors and opportunities that can be had at game's start!

There's also room for two observations that could be made here.

One is that ALL colors are shown. Meaning, if I am the White army, there is possibility for my controlling the Black Rooks in a game (and vice versa). Mind you, there are special criteria for this, but you won't find this in traditional chess.

The second observation is this: in Tolkien's narrative, Saruman begins by helping the Dark Lord take over Middle Earth and ultimately betrays Sauron by serving his own agenda (the "Two Towers" allied v. divergent). In Sovereign Chess, since colored pieces are not "your" pieces, but rather: pieces that serve you as long as you control them and can then be cast aside - or even "betray" you. The tension is this: do you work to save a colored piece under your control? Or seek it's capture (ala "kamikaze") for the greater good and so it might not be used against you?

The Return of the King

This last image is a lot of fun and centers around a very unique feature to Sovereign Chess: REGIME CHANGES

In Tolkien's work, "The Return of the King," there are several regime changes that might be highlighted. The Steward of Gondor is unseated. Sauron is defeated. Shadow is dispelled. 

In Sovereign Chess, the regime change illustrated in this image is that of "Coup d'Etat". Upon reaching the promotion line on a Sovereign Chess board, a player may choose to replace a pawn of their color to a King. The initial King is then immediately removed from the board.

Using Gray Matter to Clear Up Gray Areas About Gray Pieces

From the time I created Sovereign Chess, I wanted to keep the game as simple--that is, as close to traditional chess--as possible. Of course, like any chess variant, something had to be fundamentally different, and for me it was the idea of color. With pieces of different colors came squares of similar colors to control them, and those rules evolved into the chief mechanic of the game.

As I decided how to arrange the colors around the board artistically, I quickly decided that the pieces in the corners would be gray. First, they contrasted with the more colorful pieces on the sides, but second, they were much further away from the center of the board, and thus harder to develop.

One way to offset this handicap was to give the gray armies (Light-gray, or "ASH", and Dark-gray, or "SLATE") two queens each, instead of the one queen given to all other colors. This was easy to accomplish, since each gray occupied two corners, and having queens on all four corners would give the board a sense of symmetry.

After that, I placed a pawn on the square diagonal to each corner, thus creating a ring of pawns on the “second ring” of the board. While this lent its own visual appeal, it created two issues: 

First, without a special rule, it would be impossible to move a gray pawn, thus freeing the pieces behind it, unless the game had progressed so far that other colors around it had vacated neighboring squares. So, I devised a rule that a gray pawn could move diagonally one or two squares as its first move, and then orthogonally after that. Although most players saw that was a “patch” to make the grays easier to play, they accepted it, and moved on.

Second, of the two remaining squares in each corner, my desire was to represent each of the three remaining major pieces (rook, bishop and knight). My choice was to have the ASH pieces own two rooks and two bishops, while the SLATE pieces owned two rooks and two knights. This seemed to be the best way to have all of the major pieces be represented in at least one of the gray armies, but the decision led to an asymmetry in the board and, potentially, an imbalance in the gameplay.

Additionally, I created the rule of “Conversion”, where a gray piece could change color to one of the player’s pieces, depending on its movement to one of the center black or white squares. While this rule was designed to give extra incentive to bring the gray pieces out to the center, it was hard to explain, harder to actualize, and rarely ever used.

While these rules were in force for many years, the clunkiness of unusual rules and asymmetry were always gnawing at my brain (coincidentally, my “gray matter”). But recently, at a Los Angeles game convention (OrcCon 2013), an expert player and good friend made a simple suggestion that cleared up many issues.

“Lose the gray pawns,” he said. “Put knights on those squares instead. Surround each queen with a rook and bishop. That way, you can get rid of the ‘special rule’ for gray pawns, and make the game more symmetric.”

The sadness for me was breaking up the “ring of pawns” that had made up the inner loop of the board, but the benefits were worth it. I was able to lose the special rule about gray pawns. If a player controlled either gray army, she could move the knight and free up a queen in the same fashion as all of the other colors. Also, each of the gray armies now had two of each major piece.

While I was at it, I eliminated “Conversion”, without much loss (and much less rule confusion).

The result was a setup that was more natural, more symmetric, and which made the game even simpler to someone who loves traditional chess, without losing any of the key gameplay elements which make it difficult to dominate.

We have changed the rules on our website, and other sites which host information about the game (BoardGameGeek, ChessVariants, and others). We have yet to change our videos, so look for new ones in the upcoming months. 

Most of all, try the new setup and let us know what you think! We love to hear stories of how players use the gray pieces to checkmate their opponents!

Remember, show your TRUE COLORS!

Everyone I taught wanted "one more game": An Interview With Game Table's Chris Frazier

We recently had the chance to catch up with Chris Frazier, a developer for The Game Table, an online game playing experience that develops games for Desktops, Tablets, and Mobile Devices.  Chris recently sat down with his relatives over the holidays and decided to share with them about Sovereign Chess, teaching them the fundamentals and playing all-out matches with his family.  Of course, we were thrilled and had to ask him about what his experience was like.

Sovereign Chess:  “Thanks for your comments about teaching Sovereign Chess, both on Facebook, and on the website.  I wanted to follow up on how it felt to teach the game to your family:  was it easy to teach, or was it tricky?”

Chris:  “Very easy.  I think the hardest part was getting people past the word CHESS.  Once everyone realized that the game you're playing is chess strapped to a scramjet, the barrier to both interest and learning was gone.  The whole idea of squares of color is just so obvious that you don't really even need to explain it.

When I was teaching I played fairly recklessly, so I lost a bunch to keep it fun.  That lead to more than one game per person, and the second games always showed new [aspects] to the game that neither I nor the other player would have imagined.”

Sovereign Chess:  “What rules seem easiest for them to understand?  Was there anything confusing?”

Chris:  “Blocked squares of color were the one part that we'd forget about in the first game and rely on in the second.  Black and white squares weren't confusing in practice but one friend just wondered what the point was; then I blocked the center and [the purpose became very obvious].”

Sovereign Chess:  “Did you try to teach them about some of the more advanced rules like converting gray pieces and regime changes?”

Chris:  “[I explained these rules later, when there was context.]  I focused on building and managing control chains and building up effective attacks without leaving yourself open.  When I mentioned about regime changes, everyone said, ‘Oh… you can teleport.  Cool.’”

Sovereign Chess:  “Did you learn anything in the course of teaching it, or watching others play?”

Chris:  “Twice I attempted to promote without controlling the center and that was where [strategically, I would lose my advantage].  Controlling the center becomes more essential than it first appears at the beginning of the game.”

“For basic gameplay, seeing it played is the most obvious way to learn, especially if the people playing understand some of the classic [traditional chess] opening moves, which - I learned the hard way - are completely different in your game than regular chess.”

“The rules for regime change don't show up until midway through the match, so you may have to refer to the rules to even know they're coming.”  

“Also, from a gaming developer standpoint, I'm actually hit by how important playing face-to-face is.  I originally imagined this game to be a desktop + network play style of game, but now I’m seeing that face-to-face or having a “pass-and-play” option is essential for the types of games we want to work with.”

Sovereign Chess:  “And, how did everybody like the game?”

Chris:  “LOVED it.  Everyone I taught wanted, ‘one more game.’  That's something special.”

Sovereign Chess:  “Thank you for that!  Were there any confusing aspects to the rules for you?  An area that might be clarified?”

Chris:  “I'll think about that.  I tend to be dense when it comes to reading rules - I still think D&D 3.5e rules for grapple are impossible to understand - so the fact that your rules seem clear to me might be a good sign!”

Sovereign Chess:  “Thanks again for including Sovereign Chess in your holiday fun!  We are truly honored.  I think we share a belief that not only are games social, but they can truly add to a festive, family experience.”

Chris:  “Exactly.  Our [Game Table] team keeps talking about how one of our goals is to be part of making memories for families and friends.”

Sovereign Chess: Modern War as Modern Art

I have always loved chess--the quintessential game of strategy between two players, involving intellect, vision, strategy and sacrifice, with the backdrop of war as a prevailing theme. It is a game of "perfect information", as nothing is hidden on the board, and where luck has no place. It is a game which transcends culture, language, age, income and gender, and where both players begin on equal terms. 

However, visually, the game can seem a bit stark, usually played between two sides that are classically black and white. While the pieces are easily contrasted for the purposes of gameplay, the standard pieces and board (usually of black and white squares) can seem a bit tired.

Knowing this, inventors throughout history have jazzed up the board, with unusual shapes for the pieces, or ornate designs or figures. More recently, sets have had "themes" (Jedi vs. Sith, Giants vs. Dodgers, Union vs. Confederate, e.g.), and even the basic chess board can be populated with armies of different colors, so that a game pits blue vs. red, green vs. purple, or pink vs. yellow.

However, beyond wanting the board to "look" more colorful, I also wanted a new layer of complexity to the classic game. Chess is a game of A vs. B, two armies and two armies alone, locked in battle. For centuries, this was the typical look of conflict. Yet, as a child of the Cold War, I grew up in a world of two "superpowers" (U.S. vs. USSR) who rarely met in direct confrontation, but rather through other venues: Vietnam, Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba, and so on. Our conflicts are no longer as simple as two kingdoms, directly facing off, preparing a charge.

In many of these more modern cases, battles have been  fought by proxies of the two superpowers, rather than the countries themselves. Even nations that served one side may switch allegiances years later. Moral or ethical judgments aside, this is the new face of conflict that we see today.

So, in creating a chess variant that modeled today's reality of war, I wanted to introduce armies of different colors which represented "neutrals" that could be controlled by either player during the game. After looking at board sizes and how to position pieces, I settled on a 16x16 board that included pieces of ten different colors, besides the traditional black and white pieces that each player began with.

As far as gameplay, the trick was how to effectively incorporate these "armies of color" into the game in an interesting manner. 

The key, I realized, was how to establish control of these pieces, and with this in mind, I created "squares of color" in central locations on the board.

In doing so, I wanted to follow some basic principles:

1. I wanted to make each color equally accessible to either player. So, I had to create two squares of each color, and place them in symmetrical locations on the board.
2. Since each player could try to control the same color, I decided that when one square of a certain color was occupied, the other could not be. Therefore, only one player could control a color at a single time.
3. To try to gain control of a color used by your opponent, you could either capture the piece he had on that square, or influence him to move his piece off, and try to occupy the other square. 
4. A player could control multiple colors by occupying multiple squares, or by controlling a "chain" of colors. For example, if a player was on the red square (thus controlling the red pieces), and then moved a red piece onto a blue square, then he would control both red and blue. However, if the opponent captured the piece on the red square, then the opponent would also control red and blue.
5. As an added incentive when a player occupied a square of color, I instituted a rule that the other square of the same color was "blocked" to the opponent. Not only could he not occupy it (Rule #2), but he could not even pass over it. I later informally dubbed this the "Switzerland Rule", in reference to Switzerland's domination over its own air space during WWII.
6. Pieces that were not controlled by either player could not be captured. This prevented the wanton destruction of "innocent" pieces, and focused the strategy on the active pieces in the game.
7. It became clear that the rules of control prevented a piece from being on a square of the same color. However, I wanted to add in the concept of "regime change" (to be discussed in a future post), and as a result, added two black and white squares in the middle of the board. In doing so, I had to add the rule that, "A piece can not sit on a square of its own color," so that the black and white pieces acted exactly as the other colors--a decision which had significant strategic ramifications later in the growth of the game.

There were more developments down the road, but these rules laid the groundwork for the control of colors that has become the hallmark of Sovereign Chess. In the attempt to checkmate your opponent, you can gain leverage by activating other colors during the game. Some players nurture this advantage, protect these pieces, and try to extend their influence to other colors and regions of the board. Some players control a color, use the pieces to kamikaze their opponent, destroy that army, and move on to control different colors. Some players have strategies that…well…you'll just have to see.

But most of all, when people see the game for the first time, it is appealing to them visually. When they learn what they can do with the colors, their imagination expands. And after they play a single game, they are hooked.

Next time, we'll look a bit deeper at the concept of “control” in Sovereign Chess, and the different ways to expand your influence and defeat your opponent.

Colorfully Yours,

This series will continue with a future article (link will update) >>

<< See the earlier post in this series "Using a Pie..."

Using a Pie to Solve a Classic Gaming Question

When getting together to play a board game with friends or family, there are many challenges to actually starting the game. First, you need to decide what game to play, perhaps Sovereign Chess. Then you may need to set up the board and organize the pieces.

But the final decision you must make before embarking into the game itself is a simple one: Who Goes First? This may seem like a trivial decision, and for some games it is. For example, if the rules guarantee that each player gets a set number of turns, then the order of those turns may be less of an issue.

However, for some games, going first can be a huge advantage, so the process of choosing who begins the contest can have a significant impact on the result.

Two games in which this especially holds true are Go and Chess. In Go, since black always plays first, the white player receives komi (extra points) which, when added to their territory, even out black's advantage. In most competitive Go matches, the komi includes a half-point (e.g. 4 1/2 or 5 1/2 points), which has the extra benefit of avoiding a tie between the players.

In chess, however, there are no means to even out the first-player edge (in this case, white). Historically, studies have shown that in large samples of professional chess matches, white wins approximately 37% of games, while black wins about 29%, with the remaining games being drawn. Between two casual players, this advantage may not feel as dramatic, and in large tournaments, games are usually organized so that each player plays half on each side of the board. The inherent trouble of “going first” reveals itself when two players compete against one another in an elimination type of format.

For example, in the 2012 World Chess Championship, between Viswanathan Anand of India and Boris Gelfand of Israel, a 12-game series was proposed. Each side was white for six matches, and black for six matches. After the series was tied 6-6, four "rapid games" (with less time allowed) were played. At this stage, Anand won one of the matches, with three drawn, and became World Champion. However, if those matches had left the score still tied, then a round of two "blitz games" would have been played, and if tied, repeated up to a total of five rounds. 

Finally, if the players were still tied, then a single sudden-death "Armageddon game" would have been played. In this format, the white player gets 5 minutes to make all of their moves, and the black player gets 4 minutes. However, if the game ends in a draw, then black "wins" the match, and thus, the championship. [It is interesting that, unlike Go, there does not seem to be a handicap which evens the advantage between the players. Rather, the final solution is to increase white's superiority, but force him to win the game, not play for a draw.]

In taking a closer look at chess, one can see how this advantage exists. In a significant number of professional (and even casual) games, a typical opening is Pd4 or Pe4, in which white reaches out to immediately stake his claim to the middle of the board.  While some more obscure openings may begin with a different move, these are often seen to be significantly weaker, and so are rarely developed. Except for a major blunder on white's part, he also has the upper hand in the course of play, and strong players can keep control of the flow long into the middle game, while the black player's priority is defensive, often playing for the draw.

Without radically changing the rules of chess, how can one get around this advantage? The answer, as the title of this post suggests, lies in a classic problem of two people who want to divide a pie between themselves as evenly as possible, without a third person to act as referee. This is often called a "divide and choose" scenario because the solution is straightforward--the first person divides the pie into two pieces, after which the second person chooses which piece they desire.

In the field of economics, we would say that this system gives the first person the "incentive" to act fairly, as he knows he will probably get the smaller of the two pieces left after his division. But of course, he could cut the pie in such a way that one part has more fruit, and the other part has more crust, thus forcing the second person to choose which inequity he prefers.

In chess, the "Pie Rule" would have the first player making a move as white. Then the second player has a choice: 

• "Accept" the move, in which he takes over as white, with the move already made. Then the first player moves as black, or

• "Reject" the move, with the second player playing as black, and play proceeding normally.

So the question that needs to be asked is:

"How would the 'Pie Rule' affect traditional chess?" 

From the outset, I see a few immediate ramifications.

First, I think there would be a great expansion in the variety of chess openings seen in games played among professional players. Of the twenty possible opening moves for white, they can be loosely divided into the following three categories:

Strong: Pd4, Pe4

Moderate: Pb3, Pc4, Pf4, Pg3, Nf3

Weak: Pa3, Pa4, Pb4, Pc3, Pd3, Pe3, Pf3, Pg4, Ph3, Ph4, Na3, Nc3, Nh3

The first player would have a strong disincentive to play Pd4 or Pe4, as the second player would quickly accept it and take the edge given to white with one of these moves. One of the "weak" openings would most likely lead the second player to reject it, leaving the first player in a vulnerable position as well. Thus, the strong incentive would be to play one of the "moderate" opening moves which leaves either side on about equal terms. As their popularity grows, we would see more games with a greater variety of openings which arise from these moves.

Second, players would be a bit less focused on memorizing long sequences of openings or defenses. Traditionally going into a game, the first player (white) has a detailed plan of attack, and the second player (black) usually has two strong defenses--one against Pd4, and another against Pe4. With the "Pie Rule", the first player knows the opening move by white, but does not know if he will be attacking with it, or defending against it. The second player, of course, does not know white's first move, but after seeing it, can decide whether or not it is to his advantage to take it. 

Finally, there is the natural "head game" that can come up between two competitors. For example, the first player moves the white knight to c3, considered above as a "weak" opening move. His opponent has to wonder, "Is there a new opening that he sees with that move, or is he trying to trick me into accepting it?" In essence, this is the "game within a game" that establishes the parameters by which the rest of the match is played. 

One reason I incorporated the "Pie Rule" into Sovereign Chess is because I wanted to resist the urge of players to develop deep lines of openings.  I wanted to urge players against the same three or four strong openings (Pd4, PL4, or Pi4, for example).

What I wish for is that players are encouraged to…well…play chess. Do you accept or reject that notion?

Next time we will look at how colors change the landscape of a chess variant in Sovereign Chess.

Sincerely,

This series continues with "Sovereign Chess: Modern War as ..." >>

<< See the earlier post in this series "A wicked idea..."