Senet • Hacker News Board

Re: Senet

#71

Post by mikepurvis » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #47

zests wrote: post #4

I love ancient board games. It's amazing to think about chess and how rules have been changed slightly over time for 1000 years. The game has since been stable for about 500. The computer era is revolutionizing the game again and maybe will usher in new popular variants (Fischer random, no castle chess) as our understanding of the game evolves.

Richard Garfield (mathematician and designer of Magic the Gathering and others) used to give a talk about randomness in games. He talked about the history of chess, and how there used to be a lot more variants of the game (some even being a 4 player game with dice!), and over time competitive players naturally will want to remove random elements from the game. But on the other hand, some amount of wild unpredictabili…

In many games, it's pretty clearly part of the design that the random elements are there to provide rubber-banding— particularly in games with more than 2 players, where sometimes you try to win without looking too much like it, so you avoid getting ganged up on (think: the robber in Settlers).

Re: Senet

#72

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #47

zests wrote: post #4

I love ancient board games. It's amazing to think about chess and how rules have been changed slightly over time for 1000 years. The game has since been stable for about 500. The computer era is revolutionizing the game again and maybe will usher in new popular variants (Fischer random, no castle chess) as our understanding of the game evolves.

Richard Garfield (mathematician and designer of Magic the Gathering and others) used to give a talk about randomness in games. He talked about the history of chess, and how there used to be a lot more variants of the game (some even being a 4 player game with dice!), and over time competitive players naturally will want to remove random elements from the game. But on the other hand, some amount of wild unpredictabili…

Yeah, add health to pieces and use dice to determine what happens when pawn takes the queen: roll 5 and your queen wins, but with 1/3 health.

That would really suck.

Re: Senet

#73

Post by anthk » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

thrower123 wrote: post #35

I remember as a kid having a shareware sampler that had some very nicely done videogame versions of Senet, Hnefatafl, the Royal Game of Ur, and some sort of a Pueblo board game . Peak late 90s skeumorphism, complete with little rendered win/loss cutscenes. Unless I can find that CD, it's probably gone forever though

I think you have these at https://wiby.me by searching "Windows 98".

I can´t remember the URL right now, but there was a game collection full of items with "real life mimicking" pieces.

Re: Senet

#74

Post by Revery42 » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:30 PM UTC

zests wrote: post #4

I love ancient board games. It's amazing to think about chess and how rules have been changed slightly over time for 1000 years. The game has since been stable for about 500. The computer era is revolutionizing the game again and maybe will usher in new popular variants (Fischer random, no castle chess) as our understanding of the game evolves.

I'm actually working on a rogue-like chess game as an independent project right now! It got me thinking and researching more deeply about variant chess. My favorite so far is Fog of War.

Re: Senet

#75

Post by iamjake648 » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:30 PM UTC

tallies wrote: post #20

iamjake648 wrote: post #9

I can't remember the exact book, but contained in a book about Ancient Egypt, there was the rules, paper pieces and a sample board for this game - we used to play it all the time as kids. My grandpa helped us make a wooden set of pieces and a board before he passed, it was a a great little intro to woodworking project.

Egyptology?

yup, that's the one!

Re: Senet

#76

Post by capableweb » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

lllllll0 wrote: post #66

primus202 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read "It's All a Game" by Tristan Donovan and the chapter on chess was definitely one of the most fascinating. There are so many little bits of human history frozen in amber by the rules. I had no idea the game had middle eastern origins for instance. The rooks used to be war elephants hence how they "charge" across the board in straight lines (they were adapted into rooks as the game was Europeanized). Also the re…

> I had no idea the game had middle eastern origins for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chess#Origin Chess originated in India, not the Middle East.

Seems like the precursors might have originated from India but what would evolve into what we today call "Chess" seems to have been taking shape in Persia (Iran).

Re: Senet

#77

Post by joemi » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

zests wrote: post #4

I love ancient board games. It's amazing to think about chess and how rules have been changed slightly over time for 1000 years. The game has since been stable for about 500. The computer era is revolutionizing the game again and maybe will usher in new popular variants (Fischer random, no castle chess) as our understanding of the game evolves.

I highly recommend Xiangqi and Shogi. They both feel very chess-like but also very different. They're a little tricky to learn to play if you're not familiar with Chinese characters (Xiangqi) or Japanese characters (Shogi), but once you get familiar with the characters used in the games, it's easy enough.

Shogi is really neat in that captured pieces can be returned to the board by the capturer. You don't have different colored pieces, but directional pieces to show which side they belong to.

Xiangqi is my favorite of the two. To me, it feels like a better depiction of war than Chess. The equivalent of Chess's king stays in a small area, there's a river separating the two sides of the board which some pieces can't cross, there's a catapult for interesting ranged attacks. Maybe I've just grown a bit bored of Chess over all the years and Xiangqi is just relatively newer to me, but Xiangqi feels a lot more fun to play, IMO.

Re: Senet

#78

Post by BeefWellington » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #59

dvirsky wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistically, white wins more than black.

Because white goes first. The phrasing and context becomes important. There are two statements that are true but without them as context you end up with a misleading notion: First player wins more than second in chess (because there's a slight advantage). White goes first in chess. Therefore, white wins more than black in chess. However, that conclusion (what you present) is valueless without the context. If you reve…

First player advantage seems to be consensus but I wonder how much of an effect piece layout has for players playing second.

If you reversed the king and queen placement for both players would the advantage be as great?

Re: Senet

#79

Post by JohnJamesRambo » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #43

zests wrote: post #4

I love ancient board games. It's amazing to think about chess and how rules have been changed slightly over time for 1000 years. The game has since been stable for about 500. The computer era is revolutionizing the game again and maybe will usher in new popular variants (Fischer random, no castle chess) as our understanding of the game evolves.

It's amazing to think about chess and how rules have been changed slightly over time for 1000 years. Medieval chess was a very different game. For the most stark example, the queen did not get her modern move until around 1450. The game has since been stable for about 500. And yet something as basic as, "white moves first" was first suggested in 1857.

What did the queen do before then?

Re: Senet

#80

Post by InitialLastName » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

BeefWellington wrote: post #78

Jtsummers wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because white goes first. The phrasing and context becomes important. There are two statements that are true but without them as context you end up with a misleading notion: First player wins more than second in chess (because there's a slight advantage). White goes first in chess. Therefore, white wins more than black in chess. However, that conclusion (what you present) is valueless without the context. If you reve…

First player advantage seems to be consensus but I wonder how much of an effect piece layout has for players playing second. If you reversed the king and queen placement for both players would the advantage be as great?

Unless there are hidden psychological effects (which good players will attempt to surmount, as a matter of course), mirroring the board placement will make no difference.

There is no asymmetry of moves other than the starting position of the king and queen, so all strategy will simply be mirrored if the king and queen are mirrored.