Enter Your Reply

The Comment You're Replying To

Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Mar 11, 2003 08:46 PM UTC:

OK, here are some comments on Knights for you (my opinions only, of course): <ul> <li>Takeover Knights. These are interesting, if somewhat powerful. But they would certainly give Lùotuoqí a distinctly different flavor. <li>The Footsore Camel. This piece is a lot harder to develop than a Knight, but attacks half again as many squares. However, even though this piece is not colorbound or color-changing, I'm fairly sure K + WnL vs K is a draw, although K + 2WnL vs. K might be a win for the side with the 2WnL. <li>The Teleporter. This is too passive a piece for my tastes. If you're going to make two pieces unable to capture, they ought to do more to make other pieces able to capture, in my opinion. <li>The Lazy Camel. I don't like the fact this piece is colorbound, although if the Bishop is replaced by a color-changing or color-free piece, that may be OK. But this piece is too slow moving for my tastes, even so. <li>The Mule. Hmm. Fairly powerful, though still color-changing. This would be OK. According to Ralph Betza, this is a Rook-strength piece (although I figure there ought to be a slight deduction due to being color-changing and not able to mate without help of another non-King piece). <li>Knight + Lame Camel. The pure Knight + Camel is very powerful, but Knight + Lame Camel wouldn't be as bad in the opening and midgame. In the endgame this would be worth nearly as much as a Cardinal. Overall, I bet this piece is worth a bit more than a Rook. <li>The Kamikazi. I'm not sure this piece can be sensibly defended against. I couldn't recommend this piece without a fair bit of playtest. <li>Terminators. This piece is like the Kamikazi, but worse. <li>The Samurai. This is an amusing piece, but I suspect they wouldn't stay in the game very long. And what if both Samurai theaten the same piece? Does the noncapturing Samurai have to seppuku? Or (less likely, but possible), both Samurai threaten different honorable pieces? </ul>

Edit Form

Comment on the page L

Name or UserID: Password: if signing in with UserIDRating: Comment or question:
Format:

Conduct Guidelines

This is a Chess variants website, not a general forum.: Please limit your comments to Chess variants or the operation of this site.
Keep this website a safe space for Chess variant hobbyists of all stripes.: Because we want people to feel comfortable here no matter what their political or religious beliefs might be, we ask you to avoid discussing politics, religion, or other controversial subjects here. No matter how passionately you feel about any of these subjects, just take it someplace else.
Avoid Inflammatory Comments: If you are feeling anger, keep it to yourself until you calm down. Avoid insulting, blaming, or attacking someone you are angry with. Focus criticisms on ideas rather than people, and understand that criticisms of your ideas are not personal attacks and do not justify an inflammatory response.

Quick Markdown Guide

By default, new comments may be entered as Markdown, simple markup syntax designed to be readable and not look like markup. Comments stored as Markdown will be converted to HTML by Parsedown before displaying them. This follows the Github Flavored Markdown Spec with support for Markdown Extra. For a good overview of Markdown in general, check out the Markdown Guide. Here is a quick comparison of some commonly used Markdown with the rendered result:

# Top level header: `<H1>`

> Block quote 
>
> Second paragraph in block quote

First Paragraph of response. *Italics*, **bold**, and ***bold italics***.

Second Paragraph after blank line. Here is some HTML code mixed in with the Markdown, and here is the same `HTML code` enclosed by backticks.

## Secondary Header: `<H2>`

* Unordered list item
* Second unordered list item
+ New unordered list
    * Nested list item
- An URL by itself:
    + https://www.chessvariants.com
- A text link:
    - [The Chess Variant Pages](https://www.chessvariants.com)

### Third Level header `<H3>`
	
1. An ordered list item.
1. A second ordered list item with the same number.
2. A third ordered list item.

~~~
Here is some preformatted text.
  This line begins with some indentation.
    This begins with even more indentation.
And this line has no indentation.
~~~

![Alt text for a graphic image](/graphics.dir/cvp-logo-draft8.png)

A definition list
: A list of terms, each with one or more definitions following it.
: An HTML construct using the tags `<DL>`, `<DT>` and `<DD>`.

A term
: Its definition after a colon.
: A second definition.
: A third definition.

Another term following a blank line
: The definition of that term.

Top level header: `<H1>`

Block quote

Second paragraph in block quote

First Paragraph of response. Italics, bold, and bold italics.

Second Paragraph after blank line. Here is some HTML code mixed in with the Markdown, and here is the same HTML code enclosed by backticks.

Secondary Header: `<H2>`

Unordered list item
Second unordered list item

New unordered list
- Nested list item

An URL by itself:
- https://www.chessvariants.com
A text link:
- The Chess Variant Pages

Third Level header `<H3>`

An ordered list item.
A second ordered list item with the same number.
A third ordered list item.

Here is some preformatted text.
  This line begins with some indentation.
    This begins with even more indentation.
And this line has no indentation.

A definition list: A list of terms, each with one or more definitions following it.; An HTML construct using the tags <DL>, <DT> and <DD>.
A term: Its definition after a colon.; A second definition.; A third definition.
Another term following a blank line: The definition of that term.

Comments

L. The list of official nominations for the variant-by-committee.

George Duke wrote on Tue, Aug 28, 2007 10:28 PM UTC:

The main Commenters and proponents for various favoured forms here in early 2003 were Glenn Overby, Doug Chatham, John Lawson, Peter Aronson, and Jianying Ji. On 8x8 Pawns became Eaglets (unpromoting), Knights were replaced by Mules also colour-changing, Bishops Diagonal Bypassers, Rook additional power of one-path Camel, Queen = Tower of Hanoi, and Kings unable to castle have full-spectrum two-step leap initially. (Rook here is similar to what 'FatallyFlawedM/C' thread is developing with respect to Mao and Moa breaking down Knight's move to go respectively with R & B)

L. Lynn Smith wrote on Mon, Jul 14, 2003 07:54 AM UTC:

Here's my idea about the Tower of Hanoi.

1. Limited to 8 stones
2. May either merge or break, but not both during a move.
3. Can capture when breaking.
4. Eaglets promotion is dependent upon the specific size of the Towers and
promotes only to that size.

Reasoning:

1. Having the starting size as the maximum is logical.  There needs to be
a limit so that players can develop some modicum of strategy.

2. Preventing the Tower from both breaking and merging in the same move
means that the individual pieces will block the movement of each other
without fully merging.  So a player in order to increase the power of a
blocking Tower must either fully merge with it or take two moves to
preform a partial merge.  This can easily result with the use of the
Cube.

3. Since the full Tower piece could take that particular cell, the partial
Tower should also have that right.

4. Promotions should be rare.  By having promotion to Towers as specific,
this would definitely limit them.  If the players were allowed to create
full Towers from non-specifec partial Towers then the game would devolve
into a Tower War.  And allowing the Eaglet to promote to 1 stone from
non-specific partial Towers would quickly consume them, and again devolve
the game into a Tower War, only less so.

BTW, I like the Rook with the camel step.  It's simple and fits the
overall theme of the game.  Too much spice can spoil the soup.

📝Glenn Overby II wrote on Mon, Jul 14, 2003 03:08 AM UTC:

I like Doug's thoughts. The proposed alternative of allowing any two Towers to promote an Eaglet to a one-stone Tower also has some merit.

John Lawson wrote on Sun, Jul 13, 2003 04:33 PM UTC:

There's another logical possibility also:

Eaglets may NOT promote to Towers of Hanoi.

But I think it would be more fun if they can.

Doug Chatham wrote on Sun, Jul 13, 2003 12:23 PM UTC:

Oops,forgot one issue. 5. Eight is the maximum height of a Tower of Hanoi.

Number of ratings: 1, Average rating: Excellent, Number of comments: 58

Enter Your Reply

Top level header: <H1>

Secondary Header: <H2>

Third Level header <H3>

Top level header: `<H1>`

Secondary Header: `<H2>`

Third Level header `<H3>`