TwoKings on ICC (wild9) was a interesting variant. The king closest to the a1 square is royal while the other is essentially in effect a commoner (non-royal king).
Back on the topic: I'd vote for Chess18.
Most people have enough of memorizing theory for the standard set-up. I highly doubt that the elite are able to build up a repertoire for these 18
Perhaps we will all one day be Shogi players.
please distinguish theory between opening and chess.. They have little to do with each other, the way people seem to use it in the different context. there is chess theory point of view about chess opening knowledge (say databases with some assessment at depth). But opening theory is not really theoretical in the sense of full game chess.
and theoretical chess would not work either..
words on perpetual motion beyond meaning exasperate me.
I tried Shogi, online just to get a sense of the exotic.. too many similar mobilities.. too many generals. too many squares.. needs bigger brains.
I feel like the mobilities are not as contrasted. too many generals (or their alter egos before promotion) with similar but different zones of influence, with a hole here or there. too big a board, and maybe i did not get it right but the pawn can only advance or be blocked.. Feel like trench chess. But i only played to get a taste against a machine. I am sure given the combinatorial calculations needed even at 1 ply level, that lifelong expertise buildup and lifelong consecration of daily activities would be required to palliate our small brain factor on the exhaustive calculation size. There must be an art and long experience trail to work on. I just find it too much combinatorics.. and not enough long range swings.. but I am really speaking superficially. just wanted to feel the basic rules differences first.
I might have the same objections about any game that would increase the static combinatorial load from having more squares with more material.
i don,t feel like the 8x8 and current 5 moblities classes that seem parsimonious and mutually distant in mobility spatial figures (their immediate reach figure on the 2D board, could be any size for that aspect), have been explored enough about their position diversity at any depth including the depth=0.
although if the initial complexity was rapidly inhuman, maybe we would get the same lost feeling and loss of long sequence and narrow tree training learning or preparation specific strategy at many games level.
but i think that is not really a subtle solution. shall i insist on using a subset of 960 but non-random . itself big enough as parsimoniouis complexity slope notch?
or maybe we do want social contests of calculation nature. i do not know.. maybe finally shogi could be about more real theory, but hard to work out from bottom up.. and the caseology even there would be increased.. more enumeration less spatial intuition. maybe that is a kind of chess sport too.
10x10 board. or star trek 3D chess (as if chess was not already mutidimensional beyond 2D with 32 material movers...)
