Chess was invented in 1959 by Mr Chess. It’s quite the game.
That running joke first appeared in the pages of the oft-miraculous early-noughties Future PC magazine 101 PC Games (Miraculous because it should have been terrible, but somehow, by dint of the sheer editorial vision of Lee Hall, was actually terribly awesome). One of their pieces of page architecture was a tiny bubble where you had to include a relevant fact to do with the game. Jim and Walker competed to see who could get the most ludicrous “fact” into it. I have no idea whose mind it ejected from – probably Jim’s, I suspect – but “Mr Chess invented Chess in 1959″ was my favourite. It’s a gag which speaks to the station of chess. It wouldn’t be nearly as funny as “Mr Ludo” or “Mr Backgammon”. It’s funny because it’s Chess.
In other words, unlike any other game in the box, Chess is an icon. Unlike any other game in the box, it works brilliantly as a videogame – in fact, I’d argue it was one of the first. And unlike any other game in the game, it speaks to videogames – and many of the subtler things which makes Chess compelling to sub-Kasparov intellects are present in many videogames. And, as such, it’s the game I’m going to return time and time over in these essays as a point of comparison. In a completely unfair way, note why Chess is Chess and Ludo is not Chess.
Fucking Ludo.
We’re getting ahead of ourselves – though worth stressing, by the end of his exercise I want a DEATH TO LUDO movement formed, driven by the proper levels of homicidal fury. Chess was the first game we reached for, set up and dived into. Over our initial moves, we bemoaned our lack of any real strategic knowledge. Somewhat disingenuously, I was doing this while fluffing a four-move mate, which I then explained how I’d fluffed – saying it was about the only early attack I knew – before then twisting it into another mate on similar lines. Which was somewhat cruel, to say the least, and I suspect earned negative karma which helped lead to the string of exciting, crushing defeats that awaited me in the future, on other bloody boards. In the spirit of summer, I took back the final move and played from there, which blossomed into a game which was interesting for the both of us. While I was the slightly more experienced player, by going for such an aggressive opening, I was playing from severe positional weakness, making things really more interesting. And those early gambits gone, I was left with playing chess the way I – and, I suspect, most non-serious chess players play. As in, as a tactical rather than a strategic game.
I don’t have the brain to see the moves in the future. So I played knowing the strength of pieces. This series of exchanges leads to me being a bishop up. I play this, it threatens the Queen. If she fucks up, I’ve got a major edge. In other words, attritional chess. You play until your opponent can’t stop you winning the game rather than playing for the win itself. I think, looking across most strategy games, that’s the difference between amateurs and the skilled. The memorizing of build orders is really just akin to my silly early checkmates – it’s not really skill, at least in a way which is of interest. As you learn, unable to see the conclusion, you play the steps. I mean, that’s how we all play RTS, yeah? I mean, us. Not you. You’re good. Us. The ones who do okay with our friends but lose when we go wild on the net.
(Still, even with our skills, I was amused to see the personality shining through. My Lady played a wonderfully annoyingly deceptive game. Where my attacks were pretty brutal stomping things, her finest moments elegantly set up strikes with a piece blocking the way, then moved the intervening piece to subtly reveal the threat. Which I probably missed. I vaguely know there’s a name for it (Opposite of a pin or something?), but it impressed me. Point being: It’s a game where expression was possible, even at lower levels. How people played said something. It was human in a way that – say – playing tic-tac-toe isn’t.)
I won though. By brutal steamroller attrition. It felt good. The lady felt good losing. It wasn’t just the red wine we found in the flat and drank with little fear. It’s a good game, y’know?
But here’s a reason you don’t often hear when hailing the beauty of chess: It has good graphics.
I was always somewhat enchanted by chess. Part of it is the monolithic cultural part of it – the cold-war proxy of the Fischer/Russians 70s and all that – but it’s a game which works as decoration as much a game. My parents, late in our childhood, brought a fancy board. As far as I’m aware, it’s never been played with. Who cares? It’s beautiful. But, relevantly to videogames, its beauty is one which adds drama and meaning to it. It bears no relation to any battle that has ever been fought, its interactions as abstract as possible – but they become visceral and emotionally meaningful just by the shape of the pieces and the names they carry. They are more than their ludic content – they represent something else, they inspire, they ask us to create narratives from.
Walker, when playing DS Game Slitherlink, talked about how he started to personalise the numbers of the game:
“More peculiar is the anthropomorphism I’ve developed when I view the numbers. Numbropomorphism as someone suggested (I rudely forget who, so fail to award credit). 3s are greedy, boisterous, and definitely male. They bully the other numbers, barging their way through queues and spilling pints. 2s are the very opposite, prim and polite, sensible, and certainly female. They are business-like, efficient and tidy, but remarkably clever. They tolerate the 3s, but find the 1s tiresome. And indeed the 1s are tiresome. Needy cowards, they feebly sit in the way, refusing to help.”
Walker describes it as madness. I say that madness is part of almost every modern videogame we play, and we don’t notice because the steps are eased by the graphics. Even with chess, in seconds we’re aware of a knight and bishop’s personality. The point of any kind of non-abstract representation in a game is to do that, and to elevate the rules. Jim used to say “Graphics over Gameplay” to upturn the oft-stated truism and argue that graphics are gameplay – and in a real way, without a visual part of the game, the game is unplayable (Bar solely sound-based games, of course). Chess shows that graphics elevate a game, even on the most basic level of play. Pawns, Knights and Queens are more fun than pieces 1, 2 and 4.
Good work, Mr Chess.
Related Stories:
Meat Circus – That’s just wrong. Chess is unsolved, and it’s not a trivial problem. ANY game with a finite number of legal positions could be solved by an infinite, non-deterministic (or a deterministic one, if I’m thinking this through right) Turing machine, IIRC.
Also: Russians are awesome!
KG
That was so NGJ it was painful. That was meant to be a compliment. :) Great read as always Kieron.
@Kieron: Did you try any mods with Chess or the other games? Shot glass chess! Win a piece, take a shot. What’s not to like?
There is an asymmetric version of chess that came out recently called Shuuro, in which you construct chess ‘armies’ using a points based system. There’s also terrain on the board.
Yes it takes some ideas from wargames, maybe because it is designed by Alessio Calvatore who also works for Games Workshop.
I played it twice and spammed bishops for victory.
Most AI chess engines don’t really “play chess”.
There are 2 (broad) ways you can make a chess AI. It can try to actually emulate the way humans think about chess (ie teach the AI how to play chess and the strategies that humans use). Or it can just number crunch every possibility and pick the best outcome.
Most chess engines (including the ones that can beat Grandmasters) are the number crunching kind. They aren’t really playing chess. Its like if you build a Robot that “plays football”. But it was just a cannon that shoots the ball at the goal at 1000 mph. It might be good at scoring goals, but its not really playing football.
Also: Magnetic chess + wine from glass tumblers. Very classy.
Ludo is at least better than frustration. Who the hell thought that putting the dice under a plastic dome so you can’t even cheat was a good idea?
I’m rubbish at chess, I probably should learn to play properly at some point.
So what score would you give Chess, out of 10 like?
Is it better than Killzone 2 !?!
Man, I forgot to give it a mark. I was totally going to give
them all a mark.
(Chess is a 10. It is much better than Killzone 2.)
KG
i have a LOTR mod for my chess……CLASSY!
No way is Chess a 10.
No co-op mode? No tutorial? It doesn’t even properly support widescreen.
8/10 MAXIMUM.
Death to your objective review school!
KG
Does chess have a bullshit last boss who can turn invisible? If not, way better than KZ2.
NY game with a finite number of legal positions could be solved by an infinite, non-deterministic (or a deterministic one, if I’m thinking this through right) Turing machine, IIRC.
Correct. One branch for every single possible move. Plus, as a nondeterministic TM can be made into a deterministic one, correct on both fronts.
Chess computers do play with some intelligence though. I don;t know who said computers can;t do pattern recognition, but I certainly think not. If I remember correctly (no link, sorry) in the last match between Kasparov and one of the newer supercomputers, Kasparov left a trap for the computer which was able to recognise it and avoid it. I think chess is such a studied problem because it’s considered (at least in western culture, fom what I’ve seen) to be the ultimate sign of a clever person – if you can play chess well you’re obviously brilliantly smart.
Sneaky edit: Co-op chess? two people on each side not allowed to confer would be manic and hilarious as each tries to enact their own strategy. Partner good people with bad people for extra funtimes – grandmaster with a cat and so on.
Anyone wanting to play Go online: I’d suggest KGS, my nick is the same as here, leave me a message if you want to play.
As to the depth thing, I believe it’s important only because games of which one knows the solution tend to diminish both player’s enjoyment a lot, for some reason :D
Edit: You sure there is no co-op chess? There is co-op go, so there has to be also co-op chess! Else we can invent it and call it RPS Chess, if the Hivemind has nothing against it.
Chess needs a story mode, achievements, and unlockable bonus pieces.
I would quite like to see a single-player Chess campaign where you start off with just a single pawn and a king and you gradually get introduced to new units.
Someone should actually remake Chess according to modern game paradigms: co-op, achievements, pointless single player story section designed to sell the multiplayer section which will later be supplemented with a micropayment system and auction house.
You could bang some rusty nails along the edges of the board for the DRM effect. Did it really take over 100 posts
This could actually be a lot of fun! Each team’s better player would have to guage the ability of his/her partner (preferably by the moves they make, rather than prior knowledge), in order to determine how much they can afford to expect of them. Some pairs would be able to silently co-operate in playing out complex strategies, while in other cases the better player would basically have to play it like a regular game in which their every second move was randomised.
If it doesn’t already exist, I seriously reckon this would make for a great web-based game. Might even try to implement it myself, though I’d have a lot of learning to do.
I also like Jim’s idea, and am tempted to take up his challenge. It would be a semi-joke game, in which the broad concept is satirical and irony abounds at a lower level, but the game is fully realised and intended to be as fun as possible.
@Andrew Dunn: In fact I learned to play Chess with a chess course book for children (quite proper as I was 6) that used that method.
Chess DLC, unlockable units, player-made maps.
Folowed a little too closely by Ch2ss, throwing the Ch1ss community into disarray.
I find myself reminded of a little thing from McKelvie and my dim and distant SAVE POINT past.
KG
There actually are chess games with a single player story mode. Like this one for the psp for example:
http://www.gamersinfo.net/articles/1543-online-chess-kingdoms
There was also one for the PC, where you would indeed start the campaign with just a few pieces and gain new pieces along the way, until you finally had a full set of chess pieces. I think this was meant as a tutorial mode.
Of course, none of these games featured achievements, coop mode, dlc or a level editor, so I guess there still is room left for innovation…
Chess vs Zombies. Horse Armour DLC for the Knights. A mod enabling rooks to move diagonally. Off-map artillery.
Chess fanfic!
Adrian Dunn, fourth Pawn of the Line, inched nervously across the field. About him, everything was still. He glanced behind him, back to the line. There was his majesty, the King himself, looking from here terrifyingly exposed all of a sudden.
Adrian was the King’s Pawn. His duty was to stand ahead of his majesty, to be the first line of defence for the crown. So why was the King sending him away? Out here, alone in an empty field, at the mercy of the Black Army.
Opposite him, directly opposite, there was a rustle of movement in centre of the Black front line. Out stepped a figure, marching straight for Adrian. The enemy soldier was dressed in dark Pawn’s regalia, short-sword in one hand and a large iron shield in the other. As he drew close Adrian fancied he could see himself in the eyes of his enemy. A familiar figure indeed.
The enemy stopped just a foot from Adrian’s position. Their shields met with a soft clang that broke the quiet and echoed around the field. Adrian met the gaze of his counterpart, and offered a weak smile.
“Pawn to King-Four for you, too?” he said.
Little known fact: Mr Chess brought out Chess 2 in 1960 which caused tens of people to send angry telexes to each other.
He shelved his plan and the new Iron, Race car, Shoe and Top hat pieces were sold on to a Mr Mono J. Poly, a polish immigrant from Shropshire.
Actually, by 1960 Mr Chester Chess had been made Lord Chess for his services to interactive sculpture.
The next obvious step is a crossover: Chess vs Go; Battle of the Boardgames.
Out of Chess and Go, I much prefer Go; I find it a more abstract game. Chess always seemed so cluttered to me.
(Also, I wasn’t any good at it :S)
If you do want to give Go a try, then http://www.gokgs.com is a good place to start; there’s a fantastic tutorial on there, and there’s always people playing.[/gratuitous plug]
NITE IS OP NERF PL0X
Amazons is a chess/go hybrid that is pretty interesting. It seems to lend somewhat well to a narrative interpretation. I think the thing is for westerns, board games need conflict that resolves with in a short period rather than a ‘posturing for advantage’ long lead up. In chess, there is generally some capturing even early on, whilst Go is totally about balancing forces over time.
This is a common elemental difference in many game genre. The best example I can think of is Bushido Blade vs something like Tekken or Street Fighter. In BB everything is decided really quickly once engagement occurs, so there is a large sense of a stand-off until positioning is optimal. Whereas Tekken/Street Fighter is more about finessing multiple attacks and counters in successions. (correct me if I’m wrong; haven’t played these in years)
I’ve played a lot of competitive chess in my life. I captained my school team, played at university, played for a while for the second oldest chess club in the world (on their first team only once, but played on the second team for a year or so). I haven’t taken it seriously for seven or eight years now, but I still remember the basics of most of the openings. Playing for fun these days, I tend to gravitate to the King’s Gambit where available; optimal it ain’t, but it’s a lot of fun.
Chess, to me, necessarily incorporates both the pattern-matching and the looking ahead. Your long-term strategy is intimately connected to pattern-matching; doubled pawns are weak, supporting pawn chains are comparatively strong, controlling the centre is important. Pieces are moved firstly to develop them to better squares, secondly to begin focusing pressure on a vulnerable point and thirdly in the service of a well-thought-out plan with a clear and definite goal. It’s sometimes possible to see forced mates or ruinous loss of material four or five moves ahead; only a subset of the pieces can meaningfully be brought to bear on a given section of the board at any moment, and if you can keep forcing threats the array of possible responses is tightly constrained. However, to get to the positions where it’s possible to explode into a game-ending combination, you need to be able to trust your pattern-matching strategic judgement.
Chess and its ilk make PC strategy games look sad, because most of them are not meaningfully strategic in anything like the same sense. They may feature larger statespaces, they may feature a greater variety of pieces, but these things are not by themselves sufficient to ensure that there are a breadth of subtle strategies. (To illustrate how this can be the case: there is a chess variant called Maharajah, in which the black king has the powers of the queen and knight but no army. It is therefore capable of checkmating the white king by itself, and is correspondingly hard to checkmate. The statespace it has is quite considerable, but a simple heuristic is enough to win the game. White need only ensure his pieces are protecting one another and that his king is safe while queening as many pawns as possible to attain an inevitably crushing position.) Subtler strategies often spring most readily from simple and flexible rules, tinkered with until they yield a balanced variety of strategic options. Of course, you then also need to write an AI capable of dealing with human pattern-matching, and it all gets a bit more complicated… much easier to ditch the balancing and attempts at sophisticated AI, and go straight for the gimmicks.
Its been ages since they brought out a patch for chess. The last one that let you double-move the pawns on their first move was good, but n00bs always accuse you of cheating if you use the en-passant attack that came with it.
I really hope that box has some Go stones in it…
The neatest thing about ‘go’ is that it’s tactical element is about as simple as possible. Much more so than chess.
This lets players more quickly begin to develop past simple attrition (purely tactical) play into strategic thought.
That’s where the fun is.
Me and a freind way back in the day used to be chess nuts (no pun intended) and one night found ourselves without a chess board and completely off our faces on acid. So for about three hours we played ‘mind-chess’ where you play on imagined boards. I tell ya, something broke in my brain that night.
I had no idea Prussian soldiers used to do this for kicks as well.
We later developed a form of chess that would fill an entire room with a thousand sided board but still the same amount of pieces. I kind of regret in a way that computers turned up and stopped us having to entertain ourselves in such a manner. ahh well, ………….sigh
@Thingus
Which is your KGS nickname?
Wow, we really are this geeky on RPS, aren’t we? That’s why I love this place so much. ^.^
Culprit: man, I loved Bushido Blade. Fantastic party game – skilled players would win most often, but if you got your timing wrong for a moment a lucky swing would have you dead. Great stuff…
Chess 2:
http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/
Haven’t played chess for bally ages, in fact probably not since I was at secondary school, really should try and get a game in sometime. I think I subscribed to the clumsy attritional school, although with markedly less success than Kieron found.
@ John:
One of my favourites that, the John Heroicka! caption still makes me giggle.
I checked the demo some time ago and I thought it was a little unbalanced. The white pieces were far quicker than black ones and they always ocuped the center first. They should patch it.
And in multiplayer mode it only accepts two players each time? two players? nowadays? come on! They should release a version where every piece could be controlled by a individual player! Or a map with more squares, for 64+ players.
And what’s about that “capture the king” thing? what’s wrong with the good old “capture de flag”? We want flags, not kings!
I’m amazed how many Go players there are here, I thought we were much rarer than this.
As for the depth issue, I’d agree with Keiron on the limit of the human intellect issue. Both Chess and Go are easily deep enough to satisfy most human players, so it isn’t really an issue if Go is techically much “deeper”.
Where I’d say Go has the big advantage is the accessibility of strategy to the avergae player. I’ve played a fair amount of Chess, but my strategic skills are very limited, and most games end up being pretty much a tactical game of attrition, which gets dull after a few games. In Go, on the other hand, I’m easily able to think about strategic issues, making it a much more interesting game to play. In Go you still have the tactical fun (“If I go there then you’ll go there, and then I can go there, but then you can there”), but that’s mainly restricted to the mini-games when fighting over the life/death of groups on the edge. What makes Go great is that those fights are less signigicant, so you can mess up a move, lose one of those fights, but still win the game if you play well strategically. (Just realised I’ve just said the same as Adam T, sorry!)
Also Go has the great ability to play fun games between players of different abilities, using the very natural handicap system. Chess between players of different skill levels is almost inevitably just a humiliating annihilation of the weaker player, not that much fun for either of them. It’s a shame more computer games don’t have good handicaps, but I suppose it’s really hard to set one up which doesn’t ruin the game (I remember Warcraft 3’s: ouch, playing with lower hitpoints than normal made micro hard work!). Perhaps TF2 has the best solution: no handicap, but it somehow manages to make it great fun to play even if you’re a bit rubbish.
In summary, yay! Go! And yay for RPS doing board games! :)
I’m guessing redpanda never played the Hunted map in TFC.
Also TF2 is supposed to be a max of 24 players but a lot of servers bump it up to 32, beyond that it becomes ridicul-arse (check the scoreboard on a full server with more than 24 slots, only the top 12 on both teams will be visible & any server with more than 24 players has the “increased_maxplayers” tag).
Just to big up myself, I play Go at work during breaks with some of the co-workers, it’s awesome & way more fun than chess. The lovely glass chess set we have sits unused gathering dust these days. Looks nice though.
@redpanda:
I know you’re not being serious, but: it’s astonishing how many “user community patches” exist for chess. The Chess Variant site includes multidimensional chess variants (for at least 5 dimensions…), and various new pieces and extensions. Strangely, none of these are as popular as the original…
(And, yes, there are various co-op extensions.)
I think Chess is more accessable than Go because its clearly combat – and the skills you need are military ones, strategy, tactics, concentration of force, tempo, space and time – whereas Go’s delights always struck me as more ephemeral…
@ Fede I’m not permanently registered, but usually go (mandatory comedy drums) by the name of Thingus.
I also spent a lot of time in the early noughties trying to sneak in absurd references and jokes into 101, though most of them are forgotten or too feeble to receive a second airing.
My favourite routine was making up imaginary RTS games: Call Centre Despot and Sim Pope being about the only two I can remember.