
A GeekDad’s 8-Year Old Daughter Reinvents Chess - nreece
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/04/geekdads-daughter-reinvents-chess/
======
hsmyers
The age of the daughter is not a surprise--- the number of children who learn
chess and happen to be 8 is actually quite large(and no I don't have a
citation, this is anecdotal). However of that group the number who the next
day or so invent fairy-chess with a Fisher(kind of) variation is probably
pretty close to 1! Were I the father, I'd be enormously proud and more than a
little stunned. Shaking that off, I'd begin to encourage this spark as much as
I could...

~~~
dpcan
Agreed. All my boys were playing chess at 5. However, they have no desire to
create a variation. Their #1 goal is to beat Dad.

------
hbz
Found a link to the rules in the comments:
[http://changizi.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/plastic-animal-
ches...](http://changizi.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/plastic-animal-chess-my-
daughters-chess-game/)

------
jodrellblank
_Chess is a revered institution. What kind of heretic plays chess once and
immediately presumes to do better?_

<http://lesswrong.com/lw/qs/einsteins_superpowers/>

------
donofrip
There has been some debate regarding PG's "naughtiness" criteria for founders.
Maybe irreverence would be a better word? To truly believe in their venture,
founders need to have a certain irreverence for how things are done today or
how the world is missing out on their idea.

------
johnwatson11218
I know I have mentioned this here before but while in college I played a
version of chess that used the dice from a game of Risk. If you didn't like
your opponents move you could challenge it by rolling the dice. The player
defending a the valid move would get the 3 white dice and the "attacker" would
get the 2 red ones. Just like in Risk the highest point total won. I think if
the defender lost the roll then they had to choose another move, if the
attacker lost the roll then they lost their turn. Anyway it led to matches
where you would try and get your queen behind the opponent's pawns and start
taking out large pieces.

The rules that the girl came up with remind me of some of the stuff I see in
modern video games medic, civilians, etc.

It also made me think about something I read recently that said that the
average I.Q. is increasing all around the world from generation to generation.

------
nametoremember
Kid makes up a new game. It's quite shocking really.

------
pbhjpbhj
>" _So, on the one hand we have my daughter’s irreverence to a great
institution (“bad girl!”)._ "

I don't understand how it's irreverent to make up your own game inspired by
another?

~~~
Contractor69
I think the point he's trying to make is that we're all so conditioned to
accept institutions without question ("we do it that way because we've ALWAYS
done it that way"). This is beaten into us (and creativity beaten OUT OF us)
as children, especially through the public schools. Clearly it's not
irreverent to innovate, but I can imagine the shock/horror of the mainstream
at the "reinvention" of chess.

~~~
balakk
While the point is valid, certain institutions do require some reverence and
respect. Chess is certainly such a game. I'm not saying one has to be a
Fischer to invent a new chess format; but unless the person has seriously
understood/appreciated the complexities of chess, I'll have trouble taking
them seriously.

Irreverence is good if it comes from deep understanding and knowledge or
genius - otherwise it just comes off as arrogance.

~~~
TillE
That's only true if you're trying to invent something _better_ , Chess 2.0. If
you're just trying to create something _different_ and fun with similar rules,
it's not really necessary to deeply understand the strategic balance of chess.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Exactly. She appeared to make something more complex (though I didn't look at
the rules). But perhaps it's something that allows here to make stories about
it better, or something that uses her favourite toys, or something that is
more fun for some other reason.

Now, if she'd said - that game is no good, it's not complex enough, it's not
challenging enough or somesuch (and wasn't a grandmaster) then I think she
would perhaps have been irreverent, though more likely ignorant.

------
Draft_Punk
I invented a chess variant that my friends and I have been addicted to for
years. Here's an overview and breakdown:

Overview: Team chess. The game is played using teams of 2 against each other.
Each individual sets up their pieces in their side of the board.

Phase 1: In the first phase each person draws a team from the hat. White1,
Black1, White2, and Black2.

Phase 2: Class draft. Using the order listed above, each person takes a turn
drafting a class of their color for their control. For example, when you draft
"rook", you personally control all of your colors rooks. Only 4 pawns are used
by each side. This process continues until all classes have been drafted.

Phase 3: Board position. Using the same order, each player takes a turn
selecting a side of the board.

Phase 4: Class placement. Using the same order, each player takes a turn
placing 1 class of pieces within their start zone. Because each side of the
board is used, pieces can not be placed into the corner cross sections to
begin. So a player's available spots would appear as follows: xxooooxx for the
first 2 rows of a player's side

Phase 5: Starting. A random player is chosen from the hat to begin. Order
continues in W1,B1,W2,B2 format from starting position.

Additional notes:

1) A king owner must have the opportunity to get out of check. This means a
king could be in check for 3 straight moves.

2) A pawn upgrades a piece to whatever it wants, but if a player upgrades his
pawn to a class he doesn't own after reaching the opposite side of his
starting position, his partner (that class owner) will take the piece's
control.

3) Pawns can start anywhere within the start zone and still move 2 spaces in
their first move.

4) A bishop owner can place his bishops on any squares in the start zone,
including the same color.

I'm sure there's a few more minor things I've left out, but that's the basics.
If anybody wants to help me build this into a web game, let me know. It's
incredibly addictive.

TL;DR - Team chess = awesome.

------
tokenadult
Is it in any sense news that people have developed variant forms of chess?

<http://www.chessvariants.com/>

<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FairyChess.html>

After all, isn't current Western chess itself a variant of the (possibly
Indian) game from which it originated?

<http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Chess.htm>

<http://history.chess.free.fr/history.htm>

If you know people from China, Taiwan, or Vietnam, you may have had the
opportunity to play Chinese chess,

<http://www.clubxiangqi.com/?F=rules>

which is definitely related to Western chess, but noticeably different in game
play.

After edit: I wonder about the first reply to this comment here, "so you post
this, which is hypocritical on the face of it," and how it fits with the HN
guideline

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g.
"That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 +
1 is 2, not 3."

Above in my original comment, I am of course expressing the opinion that a new
variant of chess is unremarkable. I am not slamming the eight-year-old girl
who invented the variant (and I appreciate the link in the reply that shows
her handwritten notes about the rules--putting the rules in writing at her age
is impressive to me). It just seems to me that part of the context of the
submitted article is a long and well documented history of many people in West
and East developing variants of the game of chess--including the variant that
has become the dominant international form of the game. And I raise the meta-
issues here because of pg's recently expressed concern

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2403696>

that HN has a problem with some of the comments submitted. I want my comments
to be top-quality (and, thus, appreciate correction from other participants
here), and I want to be aware of what generally desired behavior is here.

P.P.S. scott_s posted simultaneously with my editing the first time here, and
I appreciate his comment explaining succinctly what was dissatisfying about
what the submitted article emphasized. Yes, inventing variants of common games
(something I have observed dozens of children do over the years) is part of a
young person's process of developing creativity--"rewriting the rules" to dare
to try new ways of doing things.

~~~
stcredzero
Here's mine -- "Divorce court chess:"

    
    
        QBNRRNBK
        PPPP....
        PPPP....
        ........
        ........
        ....PPPP
        ....PPPP
        KBNRRNBQ
    

I've played this a number of times. It flummoxes chess experts, and it's
actually quite fun. Everyone speculates that it's a solvable game. Believe it
or not, but in my brief experience, development of the queen has been a big
part of this game.

~~~
msluyter
What are the castling rules in this variation?

~~~
stcredzero
Oddly enough, they're the same! (Or more accurately the standard ones are
easily adapted.)

EDIT: I think I see what you're getting at. The King moves farther when
castling with the far Rook.

