[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by AntoineFourriere
Polypiece Chess. Each time a piece moves, all pieces of that type on both sides change their move. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I believe it would be very useful for Immobilizers when they are mixed with Orthochess pieces. A Queen/Immobilizer or an ImmobilizerW/ImmobilizerF (with ImmobilizerW paralyzing enemy pieces which are adjacent by a side and ImmobilizerF paralyzing enemy pieces which are adjacent by a corner) should lead to a more balanced game. If each side had two such pieces, it would bring an exit for frozen immobilizers. (If each side had only one of them, it would be much easier to free frozen pieces, but that would already be true if only the moving piece changed its path.)
Shogi 
. Optimized ZRFs for Japanese Chess and some recent variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating](modified comment)
<BR>I haven't yet studied the ZRF extensively, although it is Excellent if it works, and final-version-will-be-Excellent if it doesn't, but I wish to mention that in my soon-to-be-released Chess on a Larger Board with not-so-few Pieces Dropped - a 12x8 version with the later drop of supernumerary baroque pieces which do not find their place in the starting setup -, I use such macros as
<BR>(define 1000-points (
<BR> (verify (not-in-zone? full-zone))
<BR> add add add add add add
<BR>))
<BR>where full-zone is the game board and the squares carrying the pieces to be dropped, but <I>not</I> some extra bogus squares, such as
White-Throne, WhiteKingMoved or OFF, which carry no actual piece.
<BR>The (1000-points)s or (10000-points)s are embedded in a low-priority (bogus-moves) move-type which enables Zillions to discard them at once
while adding their value to the piece values.
<BR>Otherwise, Zillions would value my Can(n)on - a flip piece - more than a Queen, or a Halfling-Withdrawer just like a Halfling-Advancer.
<BR>(The drop of a piece also creates a bogus piece Mark, which incites Zillions to drop the pieces when it has nothing better to do.)
<BR>I wrote two hours ago that extra piece types change the value enhancement brought by such macros, because before I introduced my latest piece, (1000-points) required ten adds in lieu of the current six, and Zillions valued the Orthochess Pawn at 6000 points as opposed to the current 8000, but now I believe that the main reason is that I suppressed some extra bogus squares. Anyway, not-on-board? instead of (not-in-zone? full-zone) doesn't work.
(verify (not-in-zone? full-zone)) always discards <I>any</I> bogus move, whether there is a move priority or not.
<BR>I have just asked Zillions to search the same position for one minute, with and without the line
<BR>(move-priority normal-move bogus-move)
<BR>and I got nearly the same depth:
<BR>8/277000 with the move-priority and 8/268000 without the move-priority.
<BR>So the move-priority doesn't seem very useful, after all.
Pocket Polypiece Chess 43. Game with off-board pocket where all pieces of a type change when one piece of a type is moved normally. (7x6, Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I wrote that the Windmill 'revolves around one of its eight neighbors'. I meant that the Windmill revolves around one piece of either color on one of the eight neighbor squares, not that the Windmill revolves around a neighbor square even when that square is empty.
To Nicholas Kuschinski: Thanks for your comment. 1)I agree that checkmate seldom happens early. 2)A piece on the Pocket is somewhat grounded, and I do not feel that it is such good tactics to hog the Pocket. Indeed, when I tried to give Black first use of the Pocket in exchange for White's opening move, it didn't seem to help. However, if you should prove right, I would switch to Cube Pocket Polypiece Chess, which gives a player the right to re-enter the Pocket only when his opponent has done so, but with the extra rule that a player may also enter the Pocket indefinitely once his opponent has no polypiece left (or perhaps once he has managed to send his King on the last rank, which is a useful trick to remove whatever bothers the endgame). The Pocket is certainly necessary to give mate with several combinations.
Outer Space Chess. Space-themed game with hyperspace and regular space boards. (2x(5x8), Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Oddly, my comment on your game quite matches yours on mine. There is a lot of imaginative stuff. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent the day to devise an incomplete zrf to implement your rules. But I'm afraid that White has an extraordinary advantage, as suggests: 1. Galaxy 2c - 2b = Galaxy2 1... Planet 1d8 - 1e6; Galaxy2 on 2a 2. StarCluster 1c3 - 1c4; Galaxy3 on 2b 2... Planet 1e6 - 1d4; Galaxy3 on 2a 3. Spaceship 1c2 - 1c3; Galaxy4 on 2b 3... Planet 1d4 - 1e6; Galaxy4 on 2a 4. Galaxy4 2b - 1d6 = Galaxy 4... Galaxy4 2a - 2b = Galaxy5 (forced) 5. Galaxy 1d6 - 1e7 5... Galaxy5 2b - 1d3 = Galaxy (forced again) 6. Galaxy 1e7 - 1d8 6... Nebula 1c8 x 1b8 7. Galaxy 1d8 - 1c8 7... Nebula 1b8 x 1a8 (regardless of the twice-in-a-row limitation) 8. Galaxy 1c8 - 1b8# Well, it should be OK if you limit the five-turn rule to pieces which enter the Hyperspace, but having said that, I can understand why a player would send a Galaxy or at least a Spaceship on 2b, but I wonder why he should bury them on 2a or 2c.
Pocket Polypiece Chess 43. Game with off-board pocket where all pieces of a type change when one piece of a type is moved normally. (7x6, Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]To Michael Nelson: Thanks for your comments. 1)I agree that the Pawn pocketing variant is poor, not only in regard to the Pocket hogging issue, which I feel is a double-edged sword when the hog is a Bishop/Rook, Knight/Alibaba or Falcon/Windmill, but because Pawn promotion becomes too easy. 2)Indeed, I may be wrong, and Nicholas seems to concur with you, but I feel that keeping the Pocket for twenty turns forces you to play with an inferior army for an awful lot of time. (When I used 'grounded' in my reply to his comment, I only meant 'inactive'.) 3)The time-limit variant looks nevertheless interesting, but I prefer my modified Cube version. 4)As for 'A piece in the Pocket is affected by flipping, but a move to or from the Pocket doesn't cause flipping', this leads to synchronicity when the pocketed piece is back, which I don't like too much. 5)But maybe 'A piece in the Pocket is affected by flipping, a move to the Pocket flips only the other pieces and a move from the Pocket doesn't flip anything' would be best of all, because it would give asynchronicity to the pocketed piece, and in the same time would give a fighting chance to fend off the threat of a pocketed piece and to recapture the Pocket by sending there a piece of the same family (although you can already send a threatened officer into the Pocket).
Rook Mania. Game where all pieces have different sorts of Rook-like moves. (7x7, Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The game is certainly interesting - I welcome in particular the Basilisk and the Coordinator -, but it may need refinement with the help of Zillions, which is not good at evaluating capture modes, however. (Zillions also believes a Pao to be worth a Rook, when XiangQi masters think it is worth only half a Rook, though on a less crowded board.) I believe you're right to limit the custodian capture to a pair of Pawns. Robert Abbott has long complained that the Pincer Pawns are too strong in Ultima, whose armies are certainly stronger than they are in Orthochess or in your game. Still, if the capturing force of one Pincer Pawn amounts to nothing, the capturing force of two Pincer Pawns is also less than threatening, and the players would decline to capture the last pair of Pincer Pawns. Robert Abbott also wanted to use a pair of rookwise-moving Coordinators, which would capture by coordination with each other. Why not decide that the Pawns are Pincer Pawns until they are reduced to three units, Coordinators - working with each other - when they are reduced to exactly two units, and something else, maybe uncapturable and uncapturing - but probably not unimmobilizable - Rook, or Withdrawing Rook, when there is only one left?
Pocket Polypiece Chess 43. Game with off-board pocket where all pieces of a type change when one piece of a type is moved normally. (7x6, Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Michael, Your set of rules provides a nice variant, say three-strike pocket polypiece chess, but I don't find anything wrong with a win for King + 3 Officers vs. King + 2 ill-placed Windmills, or even King + Rook + Pocket Knight vs. King + 2 ill-placed Windmills. When they were Falcons, I should have catered for that problem.
Outer Space Chess. Space-themed game with hyperspace and regular space boards. (2x(5x8), Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]If my understanding of your rules and my implementation of them in a Zillions file is correct -- anyway, it prevents Nebulae from crossing controlled squares, including the squares which are controlled by the other Nebula, but I haven't been able to take into account that same limitation for that other Nebula, to limit the Nebula-controlled-square limitation -- I reach the following conclusions: 1)The Nebula is the least mobile piece. Indeed, I have never seen a Nebula move more than one square: there is always a friendly piece which prevents the Nebula from crossing anything. Without a pack of friendly pieces, the Nebula would be immediately captured. 2)The Galaxy is quite mobile. It is also very useful in protecting a diagonal against a Spaceship. Maybe slightly too useful. 3)2a and 2c never attract a Galaxy or Spaceship, and 2b, hardly ever. Your new rule doesn't prevent a Galaxy or Spaceship to hog the hyperspace on 2b, but it doesn't seem to matter. The Galaxy and Spaceship are simply too valuable in the regular space. 4)It seems a Planet is not significantly stronger than a Star Cluster. 5)Your game is playable as it is, and even enjoyable, which is not so easy when there is rifle capture, but only in the regular space. Maybe your black hole on 2b should be replaced by a gigantic black hole in 2a-2b-2c, which could only be entered on 2a and exited on 2c or the reverse, or maybe Galaxies should be able to send a neighbor -- any neighbor or just a Galaxy or Spaceship? -- on 2a or 2c to the price of going themselves on 2b, or maybe some eleventh piece should be added to each army, I don't know, these are just ideas that I throw out, I haven't really thought about it.
1)'Nebulae are permitted to land ON squares controlled by other pieces, just not move THROUGH them'. That is what I understood when I playtested your game. Since all the neighbor squares of a Nebula are controlled by friendly pieces, it follows that the Nebula moves every other time as a Wazir. (If they weren't controlled, the Galaxy would soon capture the Nebula.) 2)I indeed tried to copy the British Chess macro. But since the Nebula is immune from capture, (verify (and empty? not-attacked? not-defended?)) doesn't work, and I had to write a verify for each square on the Nebula's path, with the enemy Nebula controlling the squares as a Rook. 3)Zillions often loses by playing 1.. Star Cluster 1c5. For instance: 1. Galaxy 2c - 2b = Galaxy2 1... StarCluster 1c6 - 1c5 ; Galaxy2 on 2a 2. Planet 1d1 - 1e3; Galaxy3 on 2b 2... Planet 1b8 - 1c6; Galaxy3 on 2a 3. Galaxy3 2b - 1d6 = Galaxy; Galaxy on 1d6 3... Planet 1d8 - 1e6 4. Planet 1e3 - 1d5 4... Galaxy 2a - 2b 5. Planet 1d5 x 1c7 and a slow win for White.
Growing and Shrinking: Playing with the Size of Chess Pieces. Playing with the Size of Chess Pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]My incoming variant, Chess on a Larger Board with not-so-few pieces dropped, tries to graft on my favorite 12x8 pattern a variety of rather different pieces, like David Howe did in Chess on a Longer Board with a few Pieces Added, which features the Wall.
My two-square piece is a Golem (nothing to do with Golem Chess). When another of my pieces, the Wizard, is taken by a Pawn, the Pawn and the Wizard form a two-square diagonal piece, whose both parts, which must remain connected, move first on the symmetrical square on the same rank, which need not be empty, and then one square diagonally. (Thus the Golem's path is both side-changing and color-changing.)
A Golem has up to nine moves. For instance, a Golem on c2 and b3 (the files are indexed from y to j because the starting array on the eight central files is duplicated from Orthochess) may move as:
c2 to g3, and b3 to f2, f4, h2 or h4
c2 to g1, and b3 to f2 or h2
c2 to h3, and b3 to f2 or f4
c2 to h1, and b3 to f2.
The Golem captures by replacement, and is captured when either of its parts is captured. (Which comes fast, because it is created anywhere on the board, and is not as well guarded as the Wall, but otherwise the owner of the Wizard wouldn't allow the formation of an enemy Golem.)
Of course, the Golem could have been devised to move first on the symmetrical square on the same rank, and then one square orthogonally. There would still be nine moves, and the Golem's path would be colorbound. (Actually, it is nearly colorbound. It has to cross the center files before reaching a square of the opposite color on the same side of the board.)
My two-square piece is a Golem (nothing to do with Golem Chess). When another of my pieces, the Wizard, is taken by a Pawn, the Pawn and the Wizard form a two-square diagonal piece, whose both parts, which must remain connected, move first on the symmetrical square on the same rank, which need not be empty, and then one square diagonally. (Thus the Golem's path is both side-changing and color-changing.)
A Golem has up to nine moves. For instance, a Golem on c2 and b3 (the files are indexed from y to j because the starting array on the eight central files is duplicated from Orthochess) may move as:
c2 to g3, and b3 to f2, f4, h2 or h4
c2 to g1, and b3 to f2 or h2
c2 to h3, and b3 to f2 or f4
c2 to h1, and b3 to f2.
The Golem captures by replacement, and is captured when either of its parts is captured. (Which comes fast, because it is created anywhere on the board, and is not as well guarded as the Wall, but otherwise the owner of the Wizard wouldn't allow the formation of an enemy Golem.)
Of course, the Golem could have been devised to move first on the symmetrical square on the same rank, and then one square orthogonally. There would still be nine moves, and the Golem's path would be colorbound. (Actually, it is nearly colorbound. It has to cross the center files before reaching a square of the opposite color on the same side of the board.)
Chess on a Larger Board with not so few Pieces Dropped. Game with an interesting mix of Orthochess and Exotic pieces, some of which start in-hand. (12x8, Cells: 96) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Oops! The Elephants do not know the meaning of clockwise and contra-clockwise. Sorry about that.
1st World Open Chess Variant PBEM Championship. Tournament proposal open for public comment before creation.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would suggest to draw randomly the games for 'choice 1' among all the recognized variants. (I feel strongly about that.) I would also suggest a draw of six recognized variants. Thus, if Marseillais Chess and Italian Progressive Chess, or Hostage Chess and Chessgi are both recognized and selected, so be it. Besides, I don't believe a player should have to be skilled in only four variants to win the Championship. (But if there are only four variants, maybe once Marseillais [Chessgi] is drawn, Italian Progressive Chess [Hostage Chess] cannot be drawn.)
'No player may use a machine for active assistance in analysis.' Does this mean we cannot use Zillions at all, or simply that we may not have Zillions search the better move, but are allowed to enter all moves manually for both sides, and if so, only the moves effectively played to see the current situation, or also the moves we intend to play or believe our opponent will play, as we would with a physical chessboard in correspondence play (but then, Zillions could tell us that a move we wrongly foresee would be illegal, unless we write a zrf which would allow each piece to go anywhere on the board and has no winning condition)?
Chessopoly. Board with a hole in the middle where pawns move clockwise. (12x12, Cells: 128) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]If the setup were symmetrical, Black would have a sure draw available. But logically, Black should choose who gets the outer royalty. It seems better to have one's Knights closer to the enemy King, and one's Bishops not hampered by the inner frontier. (Upgrade my rating to Excellent if it isn't.)
Contest to design a chess variant on 43 squares. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have just cast mine too. Maybe Glenn could write on July 1st to any candidate whose vote is missing, instead of disqualifying him immediately?
PromoChess. Everything but the king can power up. Mix of Japanese/Western/fairy pieces. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]9x9 fits both Knight and Camel, and the promotion rule is a nice way to allow Marshals and Januses (Jani?) without having to start with blockbuster armies. (I like the Janus more than the Marshal, so if that idea had occured to me, I would have decided promoted Rook = Rook + Bishop = Queen promoted Bishop = Bishop + Knight = Janus promoted Knight = Knight + Camel = Wildebeest promoted Camel = Camel + Silver = augmented Omega Wizard well... promoted Pawn = Gold, and promoted Silver = Silver + promoted Pawn = Commoner) It seems this game will find a bracket before I enter the PBEM design and play!
Maxima. Maxima is an interesting and exiting variant of Ultima, with new elements that make Maxima more clear and dynamic. (Cells: 76) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]LOTS of excellent ideas, the equine King, its cylindric ability, fewer Pincer Pawns, the second way to win, and a piece which is immune to Immobilization. But why should that piece be the Mage, and not the less powerful Guard?
Panal: a hexagonal chess. A double-royal piece variant on a 61-hex board. (Cells: 61) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I suspect the Gunne's shooting variation renders the game unplayable. (Rifle capture is like red pepper, it tastes good, but there should be very little of it. It sent my first game, Bilateral Chess, way off balance.) I would suggest to allow rifle capture by the Gunne only when it is adjacent to its own King, for instance.
Invent-and-Play: Opponents Wanted. Members-Only The list of designers (and their games!) who want to participate.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Take Over Chess. Jump across pieces to take them over from your opponent. (7x7, Cells: 41) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I haven't tested the game, and am a bit afraid that the two-way capture makes the pieces too powerful. But the game looks promising, to say the least. So I give it a rating of Excellent as it is, or, if need be, with some twisted rule which decides at any time whether the piece captures by replacement or by jumping, or with your suggested rule that capture by jumping is possible on an adjacent piece. (I believe you're right to pit the 64-square version for PBEM.)
Invent-and-Play: Opponents Wanted. Members-Only The list of designers (and their games!) who want to participate.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Jacks and Witches 84. Variant on 84 squares with special pieces and special squares. (12x8, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for the comments, Roberto. (I may not be able to respond to later comments before next month, but they are welcome.) No, I hadn't your idea, because when two Witches stick together, the resolution is coming quick, and that clumsy hole in the board lowers the risk of a somewhat infortunate early decision. (Maybe I should have ruled that both Witches remain immobilized until the end, once they enter in contact.) Certainly, on a 96-square board, or preferably 108-square board, I would give each side two Witches. On an unrelated matter, I did't want to use full Murray Lions, but maybe I should allow them a two-square capturing jump when the prey is the Witch. When Witches are involved, the Knight is stronger than the Lion. (The tampered evaluation of my ZRF doesn't take this fact into account.)
Omega chess . Commercial chess variant on board with 104 squares.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I am in the same situation. I also can't play alf-Grand Chess, alf-courier... This seems connected to the fact that when I try to open the boards with Paint under Windows XP, I get only a black image. I haven't had the same problem with later(?) boards, e.g. for Chess on a Longer Board with a few pieces added. Regarding Glinski, it concerns only the hex6x6gs.bmp file. (I could open the Francis Monkman courier2 file from courier1.zip with Paint and tweak it to get a 12x8 board for Jacks and Witches.)
Ultima. Game where each type of piece has a different capturing ability. Also called Baroque. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]One thing I disagree with Ultima (and Rococo or Maxima) is the presence of two Long Leapers and one Withdrawer, because a Long Leaper is even stronger than an Advancer. The Immobilizer and Pincer Pawns are also too strong, (Maxima demotes them slightly.) As for the Coordinator, I am not so sure. In that respect, Chess is very balanced. (2 Knights are slightly inferior to 2 Bishops, which are slightly inferior to 8 Pawns, which are slightly inferior to 1 Queen, which is slightly inferior to 2 Rooks.) I would suggest to use a King, a Withdrawer, an orthogonal Coordinator, an orthogonal Immobilizer, two diagonal Chameleons, two Leapers capturing like the Knights in Peter Aronson's Jumping Chess, and eight Pincer Pawns moving one square forward (two if they are on their starting position). Castling, promotion (as is already the case in Rococo) and en passant are back. The Immobilizer and the Chameleon still immobilize all adjacent pieces, but the Chameleon captures a Pincer Pawn with a diagonal move. Maybe adding one or two Advancers in hand (perhaps moving like a King) would constitute a good subvariant.
Pocket Mutation Chess. Take one of your pieces off the board, maybe change it, keep it in reserve, and drop it on the board later. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I'm presently losing my game of Pocket Mutation Chess against Peter Aronson in Invent-and-Play Section 2, and it is obviously a very enjoyable game. I blew up my position at move 5: 1. Rook h1 - WP = Nightrider 1. Pawn d7 - d5 2. Nightrider WP - f4 2. Queen d8 - BP = CardinalRider 3. Rook a1 - WP = SuperBishop 3. Pawn g7 - g6 4. SuperBishop WP - e5 4. Knight g8 - f6 5. SuperBishop e5 x c7 ?? 5. CardinalRider BP - g5 6. Knight g1 - f3 6. CardinalRider g5 x c7... Despite this outcome, I am afraid that the sole advantage of being White was bound to give me a quick win. (Peter is not so sure.) The Nightrider can be dropped on c4, threatening King and Rook, or f4, threatening Queen and Rook. It is forking a fork, so to say. So, I think that White should be barred from using the Pocket at his first move. (Peter agrees with me on this.)
Chess on a Larger Board with not so few Pieces Dropped . Game with an interesting mix of Orthochess and Exotic pieces, some of which start in-hand.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have just found an incredible bug in the zrf. Black cannot castle! It is entirely my fault, I have playtested the game extensively against Zillions, but always as White after I managed to introduce the Elephants. (It is a symmetry thing, the move of the Elephant requires (symmetry e w) and the like because of the usual (symmetry n s), and I didn't think to replace e and w in the castling macros by (if (am-white) e else w) and vice-versa.) Sorry about that!
Jumping Chess. Pieces capture by jumping. Board has extra edge squares making it 10x10. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Another idea might be to allow toroidal jump, that is, once a piece is jumped over, its overtaker could reappear at the other end of the board. (Thus a Bishop on b5 could overtake a piece on d7 by landing on e8, f1... and probably even b5 or c6 (d7?) if the 'toroidal' diagonal were empty. However, the game wouldn't be purely toroidal, because that same Bishop on b5 wouldn't be allowed to travel over c6, d7, e8... to capture a piece on, say, f1 and land on g2, h3 or a4. I have no idea whether a Pawn on the seventh line would promote before landing on the first line.)
Your piece seems to be very much like George Duke's Falcon in <A href=/large.dir/falcon.html> Falcon Chess</A>, which is the same 16-way lame jumper, but with a different standard for lameness. It needs at least one of three <I>pairs</I> of free squares, which makes it a bit less lame, I think. (The diagrams are quite explicit.)
I prefer your proposal as to lameness, but I think the 10x8 array of Falcon Chess with standards Rooks, Bishops and Knights should be more enjoyable. (Well, just my two cents.)
Magna Carta Chess. Black has the FIDE array, White has a Marshal and an Archbishop instead of a Queen and King. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Well, King John was himself replaced by his infant son in 1216. Doesn't it open the way to a calibrated number of (King-moving? Wazir-moving? Firz- moving?) Princes, which could act as substitutes, instead of a Queen? Maybe the French provinces call also for a second 4x4 (5x5?, 3x3x3?) board, with a crossing of the Channel which would take a delay of two or three turns... (3x3x3 is of course debatable, even if it allows your Duke, but shouldn't there be different laws regarding succession in England and in France?)
I don't know whether it is of any help for anyone, but my zrf for Chess on a Larger Board with not so few Pieces Dropped provides a contrived example where the first player to drop Halflings chooses them for both sides.
Existentialist Chess. 10x10 board with many different pieces. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Like Glenn, I cannot give your game a rating, but it is because I cannot decide between Good or Excellent. The game looks very clever, and there is a commendable attempt to bring in pieces of comparable value. I would like to play it some later month/year, but I have a couple of criticisms, which may or may not prove useful for future versions. (I take it for granted that there will be future versions if there is playtesting enough.) Two Zednicks would not be a luxury, at the expense of the Existentialist or the Bobber. (Indeed, you have too many Queens. There are already two Schizzies and promotable Yanzees (and Pawns). A third Queen type should be a Cannon Queen or use baroque, non-rifle, capture.) The Squire seems also a bit too strong, and I would prefer a simple Rook, which would be a bit too weak. But too many pieces have a King's move. Or did the Teleporters make it necessary? However, the confabulations, the Dazzlers, the Hyena, the Schizzies and the Teleporters make your game really interesting.
Game Courier. PHP script for playing Chess variants online.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]When I managed to accept an invitation as White and close the window, as I did twice stupidly for Achernar before and after hitting Continue, it seems no one can act and the system is stuck. (Yes, there was no need to do so.) Like Tony, I would like to be able to flip the board, but also as a spectator, and if possible to choose which with font I'll watch. Voidrider Chess has no Voidriders any more. But your Game Courier is already terrific. Thanks a lot.
Anti-King Chess. Each player has both a King and an Anti-King to protect; Anti-Kings are in check when not attacked. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The problem, if any, would be that it is always the Anti-King which gets checkmated, and that the King is here only to prevent the players from discarding all their pieces or to lose by double check. So, if you want to checkmate the King nearly as often as the Anti-King, it's no use weakening the Anti-King by allowing the enemy pieces to jump it. Stronger armies, say with a Cardinal and a Marshal on a 10x8 board - not 10x10 which also weakens the Anti-King, unless you post the Pawns on the third line as in Grand Chess -, make the King more vulnerable, but the setups of Capablanca Chess or Gothic Chess make it also more difficult for the Anti-King to avoid mate, because the Cardinal and Marshal have less difficulty in escaping the zone of the Anti-King than Rooks, Bishops or Knights, and it might be better to report them on the outer files.
How about a quarterly Recognized Variant Cup on a random draw with direct elimination, in which the contestants would play the latest Recognized Variant, beginning with Alice Chess or with the next RV? (A draw would qualify Black, and some players might have to play an extra match. But the interest would be less to pick a winner than to get several hard-fought games of the latest RV.)
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would suggest to make presets for all the games which appeared in the 2003 PBEM Tournament, and if need be to add them to the list before the presets are ready, except perhaps for Omega Chess in case copyright threats loom over the site.
Invasion. A military inspired Chess variant played on an 84-squares board. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I find this game really enticing, and was surprised it didn't get a prize in the recent 84-square contest. The Flag-ignited Bomb is a great idea (although I have chosen another mechanism to launch the Bomb in my own Chess on a Larger Board with not-so-few Pieces Dropped) and the Tank is also a very good piece. As is usually the case with baroque capture, Zillions is a weak opponent, and I would like to try Invasion on the Game Courier. Would you mind if I made a preset for it?
Viking Chess. Armies start side-by-side on a 12 x 7 board. (12x7, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It isn't easy to come up with an interesting variant when you limit yourself to the usual pieces, and Viking Chess passes that test with flying colors. I was surprised it didn't make it to the final in the 84-square Contest, although it was certainly in the strongest bracket. Would you mind if I made a preset for it on the Game Courier?
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would suggest an intermediate format. Have all contestants play a six or eight-game round-robin in a pool of nine to twelve different games, like in last year's tournament. Afterwards, use three-game playoffs in which the contestant who got the lower place in the round-robin always plays Black, either between number one and number four and number two and number three, or just between number two and number three, and then between the two survivors. But having to play many variants several times looks too rich.
j'adoube is pronounced zhadoob, with zh like s in pleasure or vision, a - german or spanish a - like in ask, but shorter and oo - german or spanish u - like in balloon, but also shorter. There is no tonic accent.
Two Variant Problem Contests. Problem construction contest open to December 15th; solving contest in 2004 uses entries![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In view of Glenn's absence, is the deadline of Dec. 15 for problem submissions still on, and must they still be sent to the same e-mail address? (Well, presumably so.)
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]When there are several variants on the same preset (AKC I and II, Rococo and Rococo with mirror arrays, Takeover Chess and Takeover Chess on 64 squares), which one is chosen? (I doubt the first variant is always the one which is attracting the votes.)
If I may use the thread to depict my own preferences for a Rococo-like game (please, one or two more votes to make Rococo eligible for the Game Courier tournament, it is at least as interesting as Ultima), I would keep the Cannon Pawns, which are a significant amelioration against the Immobilizer, also with their non-capturing jump, but on an 81+40-square board which would weaken them a bit. (It looks too big, but the outer squares seldom carry more than one or two pieces.) I would retain only one Long Leaper (the outer squares make two Long-Leapers too strong), and I would bring back the Coordinator and introduce a new piece. (I am thinking of the Bureaucrat, which would move as a non-capturing Queen, but would also be able to turn as a move an enemy adjacent (or perhaps a Knight's move away) piece into an already captured piece (not a Pawn). In case it would act on adjacent pieces, either it wouldn't be able to act on the Immobilizer or the Immobilizer wouldn't be able to immobilize it, which is why having the Bureaucrat acting at the distance of a Knight's move might be best.) I am also thinking of pitting them on a 91+36-square hexagonal board, with all the major pieces moving as hexagonal Rooks, but there the Cannon Pawns might promote too easily, so allowing only a non-capturing move on a side-adjacent piece or a capturing jump should be best.
Existentialist Chess. 10x10 board with many different pieces. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]No, it is not that complicated, but I lost track after a few moves because I was playing and following several other interesting games. What I do find complicated is the set of gif images you're using in the preset. It would help if you brought in a set of images for Existentialist Chess which would be coherent with the zrf for Schizophrenic Chess. Casual viewers should be able to recognize a Teleporter or a Schizzy instantly.
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I also think that a qualifying round of eight games is better than two qualifying rounds of four games, because a) it insures every player will play at least eight games b) it gives the players more flexibility for entering each move, say five days before beginning to consume time units c) all games retain full weight (in the proposed scheme, players are induced to keep their favorite games for the second round, when the qualifying spots will be much harder to secure, especially if there are nine or ten entrants).
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Yes, Rococo and Ultima should both thrive, somewhat as the open standard and as the closed standard of the same kind of game. That open or closed - strategic - character derives from the Pincer Pawns in Ultima and from the edge squares and Cannon Pawns in Rococo. Where I disagree is about tactics, that is, the officers. I would enrol one Coordinator, one Swapper, one Withdrawer, one Advancer, one Long Leaper, one Immobilizer and one Chameleon in both games. I don't see what makes the Advancer, the Coordinator or the Long Leaper worthwhile only in Ultima or only in Rococo. Indeed, I find the lack of either frustrating. (Should one or two new pieces - not pieces capturing by replacement - prove valuable in a future Ultima-Rococo spin-off, I would also call for adding them.) As for evaluation, well, I would reverse George's values for the Advancer and the Long-Leaper and also for the Swapper and the Chameleon.
Pocket Polypiece Chess 43. Game with off-board pocket where all pieces of a type change when one piece of a type is moved normally. (7x6, Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Two remarks. 1. It seems White can swallow a Pawn by opening 1.d3 and following with a Bishop attack on a5 or g5. To prevent that outcome, I wish to give Black the choice of the initial -- common -- state of the polypieces. (Falcons or Windmills, Knights or Alibabas, and Bishops or Rooks.) Thus Black can protect his outer Pawns by choosing Rooks. 2. George Duke suggested that the game was worth at least 64 squares. I agree. (Takeover Chess is clearly more enjoyable on 64 squares than it is on 41.) Hence the idea of a fourth polypiece on a 73-square board (a 9x8 rectangle, which would be a 72-zone or Arena, and the Pocket). Since it may be a bit too easy to guard polypieces with Pawns, I am thinking of a baroque polypiece capturing with a strictly limited move, a Leaper/Withdrawer. The Leaper would move neutrally as a Queen, but would capture as the Overcaller in Achernar. The Withdrawer would also move neutrally as a Queen, but would capture by withdrawing only one square from its victim. (Of course, their Arena moves would turn non-Pocket Leapers into Withdrawers and non-Pocket Withdrawers into Leapers.)
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Peter, I think your proposal is superior to both the original Rococo and to what I suggested. The Archer (or the Bird, but I prefer the Archer) brings in a rifle capture element which is quite overdue. (Should the Archer prove too strong, I would suggest to have it capture only at a distance of a Knight's move (or only at a distance of two squares), so as to retain the possibility of an Archer acting upon an Immobilizer.) True, Ultima or Rococo probably shouldn't feature a Coordinator if there are already four officers which capture more or less through relative position (not to mention the King and the Pawns). However, although the Coordinator is somewhat arbitrary and sometimes inefficient, it offers a flavor of delocalized capture which I would like to revive into another piece, maybe on a bigger board. How about a queen-moving piece which would capture an officer (maybe not the King) by reaching its starting square. Or by reaching the square it last occupied?
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The suggested mechanism looks fine, but just in case some players feel swamped, it might be worthwhile to let them propose their opponents a common raise of $sparetime, perhaps limited to $sumofcommonraisesinagame. Surely some of these would accept the offer. It also depends on how many games we play simultaneously, of course. And what about illegal moves? Three days for the opponent, loss on the third offence?
Djambi
. Four-player all-against-all game with unusual pieces; also known as Machiavellian Chess.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Djambi is a four-player game on a 9x9 Board. Each player plays alone, but temporary alliances are encouraged, and the players are allowed to 'counsel' (promise, threat, supplicate...) one another.
<P>A player has nine pieces: a Chief, an Assassin, a Reporter, a Provocator, a Necromobile and four Militants.
The Militants move as two-square Queens, the other pieces as full Queens.
When a Chief is killed, his owner is eliminated from the game and the killer takes over all his remaining pieces.
<P>All killed pieces (the pieces are flat disks with one black face) remain on the Board and hamper the moves of the living pieces.
<P>The Chief, the Assassin and the Militants capture by replacement, but a piece captured by the Chief or the Militants is dropped on any empty square while a piece captured by the Assassin is dropped on the Assassin's departure square.
The Reporter captures by orthogonal contact after moving, which sounds like it should unbalance the game.
The Provocator and the Necromobile do not kill. The Provocator can replace any enemy living piece and place it anywhere on the board (excepted on the central square, if that piece isn't a Chief). The Necromobile can replace any dead piece and place it anywhere on the board (same exception).
<P>A player whose Chief stands on the the central square, or Labyrinth, plays at every other turn. The Labyrinth can be occupied only by a Chief, though an Assassin, a Militant, a Provocator or a Necromobile can go on the Labyrinth to kill or move a Chief (in the latter case, a dead Chief killed by the Reporter) and move away immediately, by playing again in the same turn.
<P>A Chief whose all neighbors are dead is killed, unless he stands on the Labyrinth.
<P><br>You can download the rules (in French, but with graphics) <A href='http://reglesdejeux.free.fr/regles/djamb_rg.pdf'>there</A>.
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Will stalemating one's opponent at Glinski be worth 1, 3/4 or 1/2?
Glinski's Hexagonal Chess. Chess on a board made out of hexagons. (Cells: 91) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Sergei Korchitsky, Byelorussian International Grand Master and vice-president of the IHCF, has a <A
href='http://www.loktev.h1.ru/hexachess/'>site</A> with 20 <A
href='http://www.loktev.h1.ru/hexachess/Theory/exercises.php'>problems</A>, more than 200 <A
href='http://www.loktev.h1.ru/hexachess/Theory/debut.php'>games</A> played in four tournaments between 1994 and 1998, nearly half of which start with 1. Ndf4 (the moves are in English), and a few other pages in Russian covering <A
href='http://www.loktev.h1.ru/hexachess/rules.php'>rules</A> (stating that a Bishop is worth 3 Pawns, a Knight 4, a Rook 8 and a Queen 16), <A
href='http://www.loktev.h1.ru/hexachess/Theory/strateg.php'>strategy</A> (3 images), <A
href='http://www.loktev.h1.ru/hexachess/Theory/taktik.php'>tactics</A> (28 images) and <A
href='http://www.loktev.h1.ru/hexachess/Theory/ends.php'>endgames</A> (10 images).
Mike Nelson's criteria look right on track. One could add that Chess on a Longer Board is not an Ultima Variant simply because the Withdrawer isn't too weak in CLB, although I guess a King, a Withdrawer, an orthogonal Coordinator, an orthogonal Immobilizer, diagonal Chameleons, Jumping Chess Knights and Pawns stepping one or two squares vertically forward but capturing custodially diagonally would still add up to an Ultima variant.
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Regarding pieces which simply capture by relative positions, one Advancer (a Pushme-Pullyu is too strong, and a FIDE-Queen not very different), one Long-Leaper and one finely-tuned Archer seem enough. The Swapper, which like the Immobilizer, the Chameleon or the Shield, is a piece of its own nature, also combines two mechanisms, mutual capture and mutual displacement, neither of which is very powerful. Why not have the Withdrawer, which is worth less than half any other officer, recruit an enemy piece it withdraws from, instead of merely capturing it, provided that enemy piece has been previously lost? (variant: it could convert by withdrawing one square, even if that piece hasn't been captured for its side, and capture if it withdraws two or more squares) This raises the problem of Pawn recruitment. Should the Pawns be dealt with individually, mirror-like, or could a Pawn replace any other Pawn? I would suggest to make Pawns simply faithful. (Unmakers require a similar decision.)
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Maybe there should be some feedback regarding the reception of preferences, such as a star in front of the name of the contestants, just in case one e-mail got lost.
Ultima. Game where each type of piece has a different capturing ability. Also called Baroque. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]1. No, a Pincer Pawn can capture up to three pieces in different orthogonal directions, but it cannot capture two pieces in a row. 2. Yes, a Withdrawer can capture by withdrawing diagonally, a Long Leaper by jumping diagonally, an Immobilizer paralyzes diagonally and though a Coordinator captures in an orthogonal way, it may be through a diagonal move (say King on d1, Coordinator moving from h1 to b6 captures enemy pieces at b1 and d6).
Regarding Jacks and Witches, I believe a)it is R=7, C=5 (a Rook is worth two Cannons in Chinese Chess, and although my Can(n)ons are obviously stronger than Cannons, the diagonal moves suffer from the shape of the board) b)all three games ended with the help of quick blunders which lost the King once and the Witch twice.
I don't believe piece-type density is so relevant. Pocket Mutation Chess is an excellent game with a lot of piece types. To me, the acid test is that the pieces aren't difficult to memorize. (But of course, Pocket Mutation Chess can't be simply defined by its armies. There must be a different standard for PMC or Anti-King Chess than there is for games which simply pit two armies, like Chess, Xiangqi, Shogi or Ultima. (TakeOver Chess and Alice, which are blending classic pieces with new rules that make them formally equivalent to the introduction of new pieces, must lie somewhere in-between.) While Tamerspiel and all Shogi variants look overbloated, Chess on a Longer Board with a few pieces added, which features only two unusual pieces, passes that test. There is also a sense of legitimacy. Rooks, Knights and Bishops appear in several historic variants, while many Japanese types, and perhaps even the Gold and the Silver Generals, seem to have originated out of the blue from the brain of a drunk goblin. Conversely, the lack of some pieces may be disturbing. I tend to decree that, on a square board, a piece other than a Pawn should have its 'hippogonally symmetric' equivalent (that is, a piece with its orthogonal moves turned diagonal and vice versa, such as the Rook for the Bishop or the Queen for itself) on the board. Although Chinese Chess features an interesting opposition between (mainly) orthogonal attackers and diagonal defenders, Shako feels strange with its orthogonal Cannons and diagonal (Firz+Alfil)s known as Elephants but not the corresponding Vaos and (Wazir+Dabbabah)s. (Eurasian Chess, or my Can(n)on-featuring games offer that symmetry, but one can't help wonder why pieces which hop one piece to capture are legitimate, but pieces which hop two or more pieces to capture are absent. Absent too are pieces which are always hopping, like the Korean Cannon, or pieces which hop neutrally, but capture as riders. Why? Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, might comment Peter Aronson, but the feeling remains that if two closely-related pieces look as legitimate as each other, say Pao and Vao, or Camel and Zebra, and one doesn't stand on the board, maybe the other also doesn't deserve to stand there. Fusing them into a somewhat downgraded brand, like a Can(n)on which is most of the time a Cannon and the rest of the time a Canon or a Falcon which is a lame Camel + Zebra, seems the best answer.) Thus, although Heroes Hexagonal Chess is interesting, I would prefer three colorbound, clearly-defined Bishops to pieces which can move two squares in this situation or three squares in that situation. (Bishops differ enough from Rooks that, though they remain legitimate on hexagons, the Glinski Queen becomes as contrived as a Marshall or a Cardinal.) Which hints as another presentation of the same idea: if you don't remember the exact rules one month after having read and reread them, the game may be somewhat objectionable. Regarding exchanges, it is certainly important to have pieces of comparable values. I prefer Chess to Grand Chess, but Grand Chess offers much more assymmetric endgames, say Queen against Marshall. In Chess, you usually trade a Queen for a Queen. Period. (CLB is even better in that respect.) Etcetera/Hexetera, which forbids the capture of the major pieces by their opposite numbers, is also efficient in leading quickly to assymetric armies. Chess has to content itself with assymetric positions. Another important criterium in my view is to have piece types which exert comparable influences. (That criterium is a bit of the other side of having assymetric exchange opportunities.) Chess is very good in that 2 Rooks are slightly superior to 1 Queen, which is slightly superior to 8 Pawns, which are slightly superior to 2 Bishops, which are slightly superior to 2 Knights. Conversely, I wouldn't have objected if Rococo had given two Withdrawers to each side and would indeed suggest to find a way to add one Withdrawer to Maxima (and to Ultima as long as you do not replace the second Long Leaper and the second Chameleon by an Advancer and a Swapper) but two Long Leapers unbalance an otherwise fascinating game. (Cavalier Chess, which I don't like anyway, also suffers from the presence of two Marshalls as opposed to only one Queen. I would suggest to add another Queen on a 9x8 Board.) To translate this into numbers, a useful variable would be overall strength by piecetype variance. But there is more to comparable influence than simply comparable strength. An Immobilizer is much stronger than a Coordinator, but one Coordinator still looks enough in Ultima/Maxima because it affects many decisions, such as 'can I have my Immobilizer immobilized?', as would one Shield. The overall strength is certainly important. In that respect, Chess and Shogi are both balanced. Chess pieces, which are stronger than Shogi pieces, don't switch owner when they are captured. Hostage Chess and Mortal Chessgi are in my view much better than Chessgi, because they implement offsetting mechanisms which keep reasonable armies on the Board. So, the overall strength factor should be doubled by prisoner recruitment, but only multiplied by a smaller parameter for Hostage Chess and Mortal Chessgi, leading to a mildly pathological result only for Chessgi. (True, Takeover Chess is even more shaky than Chessgi - the pieces there are very powerful: a piece can be captured, or converted - and remains enjoyable, but then again, there must be a different standard for games which come up with new rules and for games which simply pit new armies. Besides, not all the pieces in TOC remain on the Board.) There is also the problem of White's initial advantage. A number of games, including PMC or Pocket Polypiece Chess (quickly-evolving armies, both topologically and functionally) and TOC (very strong armies) or Viking Chess (quick, well-protected Pawns) may have an automatic win at Grand Master level. Finally, the fact that Zillions plays a game badly (AKC, in particular) is also a good sign.
Regarding George's comment, I'm considering overall strength by piece-type. EG would value the Queen similarly whether there is one, two or eight Queens on the Board. I think one Queen is better for Chess and two Queens would be better for Cavalier Chess, because they better match the overall strengths of 2 Rooks, 8 Pawns, 2 Bishops and 2 Knights in the former case, and of 2 Marshals, 2 Cardinals, 2 Nightriders and 8 Cavaliers in the latter case. On 10x10 or even 12x8 (without a hole), a Bishop is significantly stronger than a Knight -- the Omega Chess pages suggest Q=12, R=6, B=4, C=4, W=4, N=2(.5) -- and a third (Pocket?) Knight would make sense. (Of course, I didn't follow my own advice on ClB, but there were other pieces to drop, and the armies were strong enough, an argument which makes some sense for Cavalier Chess too, but that Queen/Marshall or Queen/Cardinal disparity still bothers me.) A third Nightrider for Cavalier Chess on a 9x8 Board would also be mathematically consistent, but maybe two Nightriders exert enough influence on the nervous systems of the players, like one Coordinator in Ultima/Maxima.
Fugue . Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Pawn 1, Swapper 3, Long-Leaper 5, Queen 5, Pushmepullyu 6, Shield 7, Immobilizer 9, Archer 9.
Extinction chess. Win by making your opponents pieces of one type extinct. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Can one castle under or through check, now there is no check? (Zillions' own zrf keeps castling as usual, but it's no proof, since their zrf for Berolina Chess has no en passant.)
Thanks to R. Wayne Schmittberger for the following answer to the above question: I don't remember the castling question being asked before, or being settled. But I think that it would be in keeping with the spirit of the game to allow castling when in check, as well as to allow castling through check. For the same reason, it should be legal to move into check, even though your opponent can then win by taking your king. R. Wayne Schmittberger
Oblong Chess 44. Variant of Oblong Chess on board with 44 squares. (4x11, Cells: 44) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Shogi . Optimized ZRFs for Japanese Chess and some recent variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have Windows XP and the bmps I cannot open with Zillions are also those I cannot open with Microsoft Paint. They usually date back to 2000 or 2001, such as the hex6x6.bmp file for Glinski, or the boards for alf-grandchess, alf-courier, alf-chinese... as I wrote in a comment for the Omega Chess zrf. Anyway, I cannot open with Microsoft Paint the bmps which belong to the following subdirectories: Abstract-Shogi/Flip (the bmps in Abstract-Shogi are all right) Abstract-Shogi-Big, except the King Abstract-Shogi-Big/Flip, except the King. Hope this helps.
Oblong Chess 44. Based on the original oriental variant "Oblong Chess", a 16X4 Shataranj variant, but reducing the number of lines.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Cambodian Chess . Mysterious 9x9 "Cambodian" Chess game that seems unknown in Cambodia.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Using the evaluation version of WinZip 9.0 under XP, I get all the files, but only once I record cambodianchess.zip on my hard drive, not if I open it immediately.
Contest to design a chess variant on 44 squares. Our annual N-squares chess variant design competition.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hans,
<p><u>Slide Chess</u> now has a zrf and can be moved to the main category.
<br><u>Epsilon Eridani</u> has been added as a non-competing entry.
Slide Chess . Variant on 44 squares with moving cages.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bug corrections: Check by Black through a Cage move is disallowed. Pawn Promotion through a Cage move to the 2nd or 7th row is disallowed.
Oops. I meant: promotion through Cage rotation is now disallowed.
OK, here's my entry:
<H2>Bifocal Chess</H2>
<P>It is the opposite of V.R. Parton's Neutral King, where both teams try to mate the same King. Here, most pieces threaten both Kings:
<BR>Something like (on a 9x9 Board):
<P>White
<BR>King e1, Man e2, Firz d2,f2, Wazir c2,g2
<P>Black
<BR>King e9, Man e8, Firz d8,f8, Wazir c8,g8
<P>Red
<BR>Rook a5,i5, Kan(n)on b5,h5, Falcon c5,g5, PS-Bishop d5,f5, Immobilizer e5, Knight a1,a9,i1,i9
<P>The Kan(n)on is a convergent, Korean-like, version of my Can(n)on. It moves as a jumping Rook or a jumping Bishop, and can change orientation at each move.
<BR>The Falcon is George Duke's Falcon in Falcon Chess.
<BR>The PS-Bishop moves as a Bishop or a Wazir.
<P>The Immobilizer doesn't affect the Kings, but it does freeze any other adjacent piece.
<P>The Man - a non-royal Chess King, the Wazir and the Firz aren't restricted to empty squares. They can swap with any adjacent Man, Wazir or Firz of their color. (Thus the Firzes are not colorbound.)
<P>The Kings move more or less by igui, that is, they are allowed a double step in any direction, but they cannot pass through a square which is threatened by a neutral piece. (Like castling, or Fergus Duniho's royal Queen in British Chess.)
<P>You must checkmate your opponent's King with a neutral piece. The Kings are weak, because they cannot capture (and it is not easy to get rid of an adjacent PS-Bishop). The Immobilizer and the non-neutral pieces do not put the Kings in check, but they stand in their way like anyone else.
<P>You cannot move the neutral piece your opponent has just moved, and you cannot move the Immobilizer if you moved it at your last turn.
Chess with Ultima, Rococo and Supremo Pieces. A series of variants with the Orthochess array transplanted to a 10x10 board and various exotic pieces added. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would have thought the Withdrawer to be slightly stronger than a Rook, but it seems to be the contrary when I pit four Rooks against four Withdrawers, both in David Howe's Chess on a Longer Board with a few pieces added on 10x8 and in this game on 10x10. (Rectangular boards such as 10x8 or 12x8 obviously favor the Rook over Queen-moving types.) Still, the Withdrawers (and the other pieces) should be more valuable in these games than in Ultima, because they alone offer baroque capture (other than en passant) and can easily attack a chain of Pawns.
Recognized Chess Variants. Index page listing the variants we feel are most significant. (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think four categories are enough, and that it is unnecessary to devolve a category to only Chess, Xiangqi and Shogi. I would suggest: Classic: a Recognized Variant which is played by thousands of players from several countries, either through the Internet or face-to-face, and which has or deserves an International Federation, such as Chess, Xiangqi, Changqi, Shogi, Glinski, Ultima, Grand Chess, probably Bughouse and Fischer Random Chess. Vintage: a Recognized Variant that doesn't feel like it shouldn't have been Recognized, such as Alice Chess, Extinction Chess, Marseillais Chess, Omega Chess, Pocket Knight Chess, CWDA and a few others. Popular: a Variant which is played routinely on this server and is doing well on polls, but which doesn't qualify yet for a higher rating and whose exact rules may still be discussed, such as Anti-King Chess, Switching Chess, Pocket Mutation Chess or Rococo and twenty or thirty other games when there are dozens of new games on Game Courier each day. Ancient: To save Chaturanga, Tamerlane Chess, Los Alamos Chess... and the CVPA acronym.
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Unfortunately, you can call a draw at PMC only after 50 moves without capture or promotion, so maybe one or both players are simply taking time to think. Still, a general rule that third repetition is a draw unless the game rules specify it to be a loss or a win might be welcome for GCT #2. Anyway, I'm all for starting Round 3.
Oops! I was indeed unaware of that rule. But I'm going to claim a draw myself at next move if Carlos repeats the position, since my only voluntary retreat from perpetual check would be a loss. (Or would that be unethical from me now? Please, don't comment on the position itself.) I do not mind playing as Black in my two remaining games, especially considering the fact that Michael Howe's withdrawal has spared me the obligation to play a game I do not like (Cavalier Chess - sorry, Fergus) against a good player.
Anti-King Chess. Each player has both a King and an Anti-King to protect; Anti-Kings are in check when not attacked. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The game looks quite interesting. A couple of remarks: The Bishop is weaker than the Knight even on the 49-square center (a Bishop cannot slide more than six squares in any direction, and a Knight isn't at all hampered by the limits of the board). A Chancellor is also much stronger than a Queen. Maybe the Terrain should be a bit more Bishop-friendly, but I don't really see how. The Serpent is a very nice piece, and I would suggest to disallow the capture of a Serpent by a Serpent to keep them longer into play.
Alice Chess. Classic Variant where pieces switch between two boards whenever they move. (2x(8x8), Cells: 128) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]At both Chess and Alice Chess, the Bishops are restricted to one half of the squares. But at Alice Chess, this holds true also for the Knights, and for the Pawns once they've completed their first move. So you can paint the squares in eight different colors, each color meaning: This square will not accept: 1) the dark-square Bishops (OR the light-square Bishops) 2) the Knights which started on a dark square (OR the Knights which started on a light square) 3) the white Pawns whose first advance was of two squares and the black Pawns whose first advance was of one square (OR the white Pawns whose first advance was of one square and the black Pawns whose first advance was of two squares) This amounts to eight different square types. Something like: 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 Or you can have three ways of painting the squares: light and dark as usual, in two colors I'm referring to as B-colors, to separate the Bishops in two classes (1368 vs 2457) reversing the colors of one chessboard, in two N-colors, to separate the Knights in two classes (1467 vs 2358) even-numbered rows of one chessboard and odd-numbered rows of the other chessboard, and vice versa, in two P-colors, to separate the Pawns in two classes (1278 vs 3456) However, a Bishop can be captured only by a Bishop of the same B-color, while a Knight can be captured only by a Knight of the other N-color and a Pawn only by a Pawn of the other P-color.
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks again for the congratulations, Roberto, but there is little doubt that having one hour for each move reflected in the outcome, especially when I ended up sacrificing my Rook in our game of Anti-King Chess. Most participants (and non-participants) had several other things to do, such as work, family, studying or maintaining this site. In my view, the only fair equalizing methods are 1) to give all players enough time to think between each move, that is, allowing them a pace of only one move per week at times in a given game. For next year, I would suggest a January to June round-robin of six or eight games, and a seven-player September to November final of six games because these seven players might have enough time. (I would also allow two players to replace their assigned game with any game that has been played in any yearly tournament such as this one or last year's tournament.) And I think you need a more lenient pace at the beginning of the games, not merely to avoid blunders, but also to assess the possible strategies, and because after twenty moves, half the games are already more or less decided and you can drop them anyway if you're losing. 2) to play each game in four hours, or by slices of ten moves by hour with one player playing a secret move at the end of the slice, like in FIDE-Chess. Of course you need to have both players connected at the same time (probably feasible on Saturdays and Sundays), but there is also the problem of your Internet connection. It is one thing to lose an independent game because of a technical problem, but I wouldn't like to lose a Tournament that way. (Now, the penalty for not playing within the clock in the middle of a ten-move slice in a given game could be the piece of your choice (unless your opponent doesn't want it) the first time, that same piece to drop for your opponent the second time and loss of the match the third time. But it sounds overly complicated.) Nevertheless, the implementation of that kind of device might be useful.
You can edit the preset and create a new one (different colors, different numbers of files/rows, different piece locations, another set of pieces...). Then you must update the new preset and paste its new FORM block on a web page on your own hard disk to issue an invitation. I think you should use a slightly different name if you do not simply change the colors, like Viking Chess on 108 squares as opposed to Viking Chess. Otherwise your log will end up in the original directory.
Les Règles des Échecs. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Même si la Dame adverse est clouée, elle peut encore prendre votre Roi avant que vous ne preniez le Roi adverse. Donc vous ne pouvez jamais mettre votre Roi en échec.
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]There is an inconsistency between David's animated illustration for the Chameleon and Peter's Zillions file. Is a Chameleon allowed to capture a Long-Leaper and/or a Withdrawer and/or an Advancer and swap with an enemy Swapper in the same move, as shown on the animated illustration but not allowed by the zrf? Besides, is a Chameleon allowed to swap with its own Swapper? (The zrf allows it, though it is not formally equivalent to the Swapper swapping with its own Chameleon, since the Swapper may be immobilized. For the record, a similar rule would be unplayable for a variant with Chameleons and Shields. The Chameleon and Shield would protect each other, and the Shield would protect the King.) If the answer to both questions is yes, is a Chameleon allowed to capture a Long-Leaper and/or a Withdrawer and/or an Advancer and swap with a friendly Swapper in the same move?
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board (includes mirror array and Push-Pullyu variants).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]White/Black piece on e1 is immobilized and commits suicide: @-e1 (the preset wouldn't accept it as move 1, because of comparisons between this move's parameters and last move's parameters, but Rococo features no suicide at move 1 anyway) White Swapper on e1 moves to unoccupied square e2: S e1-e2 White Swapper on e1 trades positions with White/Black piece on e2: S e1-e2 White Swapper on e1 explodes with Black piece on e2: S e1-e2; @-e2 White Archer on e1 moves to unoccupied square e2: B e1-e2 White Archer on e1 kills Black piece on e2: B e1-e2 I chose B/b (Bowman) for Archers (and later D/d for Birds) and read Peter's comment only after Michael and Roberto started a game of Fugue, so I haven't corrected that inconsistency.
Regarding game creation, I think I am of both schools. I tried firstly with Bilateral Chess (obviously flawed), then with Chess on a Larger Board with not so few pieces dropped (perhaps too unbalanced) to come up with a satisfactory extention for Chess, but the games I am most happy with came to my mind randomly, usually out of an external contraint such as the number of squares (Jacks and Witches, Pocket Polypiece Chess) or Roberto's idea of a game without capture (Bifocal Chess). I think we should use Game Courier to revive Glenn Overby's Invent-and-Play formula on a yearly basis, with no other time limit. Games which are to a large extent the juxtaposition of a number of somewhat contrived pieces, or which threaten to last for about a hundred moves, like Achernar/Deneb, Chess on a Larger Board with not so few pieces dropped, Optima, Heroes Hexagonal Chess or Chess with Terrain should start there rather than on a Game Courier Tournament. I would suggest to allow comments on a position, either from the players or from the kibitzes, only five moves later. Otherwise it will taint the game needlessly. The World against Kasparov is also a nice idea, however I think we should enrol several Kasparovs, again on a yearly basis, because the Kasparovs may be unavailable at times. On the other hand, the World should have a definite answer period, say three days for choosing their move by a poll, with ties broken randomly, which means Fergus would have to implement such a device. Maybe a higher Kasparov in the GC Tournament should not participate against a lower Kasparov.
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks to Fergus for a well thought-out Tournament, and for having devised Game Courier. Thanks to Michael and Carlos for their congratulations. Actually, although I won three of them, my games of Pocket Mutation Chess (my first choice) against Carlos, of Anti-King Chess (my second choice) against Roberto, of Alice Chess (my third or fourth choice) against Fergus and particularly of Chessgi against Michael Madsen were all far from easy, and could each have ended into a defeat. As for blunders, I doubt there will be many of them in next year's Tournament, at least from the players who participated this year.
Poll number Game Courier Tournament #2 Approval Poll. Vote for which games you would like to play in the second Game Courier Tournament.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Slide Chess, Symmetron and Toddler appear twice in the poll, once alphabetically and once between Fusion Diamond and Gast Chess. Thus Slide Chess has five votes and three votes, although it probably doesn't amount to eight.
How about five moves without computer analysis or ten moves with computer analysis? Let the kibitzers take some deep thinking by themselves too!
Game Courier Developer's Guide. Learn how to design and program Chess variants for Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have written a comprehensive postauto1 and postauto2 code (with perhaps a few bugs) which covers the 16 possibilities for Chess With Different Armies. (All there is to change in each preset is the title in 'game', the initial setup in 'code' and two arrays for possible promotions in 'pregame'.) Would it be possible to refer to a common postauto1 entry and a common postauto2 entry, instead of having to maintain 16 identical postauto1 entries and 16 identical postauto2 entries? It would also be useful when there are several presets for a same game.
Rollerball. Chess race fight on board formed by removing 3 by 3 square from center of 7 by 7 square. (7x7, Cells: 40) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Sorry, I forgot to correct. Pat is French for stalemate.
Chu Shogi. Members-Only Shogi variant on 12 by 12 board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
I have replaced the Lion and the Deer by the Elephant and the Man in Galactic-1 (I don't know if it impacts other games), but it seems to have no effect on transparency. Why is there only one of the two Black Flyer-Elephants -- whether alfaerie/elephant.gif, galactic/elephant.gif or galactic/lion.gif -- which is transparent?
Marseillais Chess. Move twice per turn. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]If a player advances a Pawn by two squares, then plays a piece on the intermediary square, e.g. c2-c4; N b1-c3, can/must an enemy Pawn take both the piece and the Pawn en passant, e.g. d4xc3xc3?
Chu Shogi. Members-Only Shogi variant on 12 by 12 board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Game Courier Tournament #2. Sign up for our 2nd multi-variant tournament to be played all on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I also wish to compete in this Tournament. Please count me in. Regarding time limits, I have no strict formula in head, but I'm on the side of leniency. Yes, 14 days of spare time does seem an improvement. I'm also in favor of giving the players the possibility to allow each other more time through a command (rather through repeating idle moves). I would suggest to state that the referee may start a new round of games without the agreement of the players which haven't completed all their previous games (but not without two-week advance notice). Another problem might be: what if there are more participants than last time? How do you decide who is going to face whom? Through a random draw of the opponents (alphabetical order is as good as any the first time, but might become bothersome the following year), and game assignment only later? (Perhaps Fergus might then propose an exchange of opponents to a group of four players in order to meet their preferences.) If and when such a problem occurs (and I hope it eventually does), I would suggest some kind of play-off (say, a round of four/six games between the top five/seven, with ties broken through the round-robin ranking) at the end of the year to mitigate the luck factor.
I would suggest to play Balanced Marseillais according to the ECV's rule which states that you may capture a Pawn en passant only when that Pawn advanced in the second part of your opponent's move.
Game Courier User's Guide. How to play games with the CV Play-by-Mail system.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It should have been s a1-b2; @-a1 or s a1-b2; @-b2 (I don't remember which), but it seems Game Courier doesn't recognize the @ symbol any more.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.