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..."

A Wicked Idea...

Recently, I had the chance to see the play Wicked during a trip to London.  Besides being a delightful and entertaining production in its own right, what makes it instantly engaging with the audience is its identification with the movie, The Wizard of Oz.  The basic premise of the play is to expand on the original movie that is so familiar to everyone, by daring to ask the question: “What if the Wicked Witch wasn’t so wicked after all?”

What makes Wicked work so well is that it doesn’t try to change the classic movie, but rather expands on what we already know.  As a result, we have a larger perspective from which to examine the world of Oz, its characters, and the timeline before and after the original film.  And, once you have seen the play, you can’t help but wonder how it influences your thinking when watching the original movie again.

In the world of board games, chess has always been the “timeless classic” against which others are compared. It combines the ideal mix of simplicity and complexity, a true match of skill which has been played throughout centuries and around the world.

It is no surprise, then, that many people have created chess variants, which take elements of chess, and try to change certain features.  The draw is that these games, unlike other generic board games, appeal to what we already know and love.  The key is to do this without changing too much (or it won’t seem like chess), and yet making the world which it creates bigger.

Sovereign Chess came out of a simple question I asked after playing hundreds of games of traditional chess: 

What if there were more armies than just black and white? 

Of course, such variants have been created with three or four colors, but requiring three or four players as a result.  Since I wanted a world with a variety of colors--but with only two players--the way to manage the movement was by creating squares which, when occupied, controlled the pieces of that color.

With that simple question and answer, the world of Sovereign Chess began to create itself.  The size of the board, the location of pieces, how to adapt movement to suit the board, and so on.  My challenge, though, was to try to preserve as much of traditional chess as possible.  No new pieces, minimal changes to movement, and similarity in rules were the result. 

In this vein, I feel the biggest compliment I get about Sovereign Chess is not when someone says it “looks cool”, or it is “fun to play”, but rather when they say:

“This is just like the chess I played as a kid, but at a whole new level.”

In the next few blog posts, I am going to explain the many subtleties of Sovereign Chess, and explore some of the strategies, situations, and curiosities that have arisen among those who have played.

Thanks for reading about this game, and I hope you enjoy the new world which you are about to explore.

This series continues with "Using a Pie to Solve a Classic Gaming Question" >>

the struggles of the game...

So true.  Even true of Sovereign Chess!

Part of what I love about playing a thoughtful game is the capacity it has to take your mind away from the struggles and challenges of the day while simultaneously engaging it in something else. Sometimes, the struggles of the game end up informing the struggles of life.

Source

Original image: National Library of Scotland

Kids and Sovereign Chess

When we play test our game we find that kids really enjoy Sovereign Chess.  The colorfulness of the board is attractive and they like the creative thinking that comes from a new and different way to play chess.  If you know traditional chess, it's a snap to learn Sovereign Chess.

Lately, we've had a couple of opportunities to talk to some school chess clubs.  We wanted something easy and tangible to put in kids' hands.  As a result, we came up with coloring sheets where players could draw their own board and pieces, learn the elements of the game, and have something to take home and play with friends and family.  

We liked our sheets so much, that we felt we had to share them with you.  To download a copy of the PDF, click here.

A few helpful tips:

• Use your scissors carefully!
• We had a hard time finding crayons that made a "dark gray" vs "light gray."  We colored both armies gray and then put a dark line across the "dark gray army."
• Set up the board indoors and away from drafts.  Or: use some kind of putty, if you want.  One fan used bubble gum!
• We are happy to hear from you and what you think about this.  If you have a picture or a suggestion or a question, write us here: link