[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GaryK.Gifford
Joe - Thanks for the typo info. David - thank you for the piece and typo information. I have added the piece name information to the rules as 'Note 3' with credit to you.
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi, Thank you for commenting. Your idea would certainly work and I did think about it back when the game first appeared. The way I imagined it was simple, accomplished by linking pawns: K and Q pawns, both B Pawns, both Knight Pawns, both Rook Pawns... each a Doppelganger to their 'linked' associate. Since Pawns change files from time to time, they would need an identifier to show Doppelganger relations. I prefer the idea of more player control which exists in the current version. Note - the Doppelganger Pawns are 'not random' ... the rules state: 'If a pawn is captured, the player making the capture removes it plus any one other enemy pawn (capturer’s choice). If the removal of the second piece (or pawn) causes check to your opponent, that is fine. But you cannot capture a piece (or pawn) if removal of its counter part would put your King in check.' As to which is the better concept (pre-determined Pawn-doppelganger or Player-selected Pawn Doppelganger), that probably is a matter of opinion, like comparing Chinese Chess and Korean Chess. On that call, I am in the minority. Your idea is certainly logical, has merit, and would prove easier for programmers. I sort of like coming across games that computers do not yet play... but usually it is only a matter of time before they do. I seem to recall seeing a set of pieces with different colors at the bases. Pawns of that design would work with your suggestion. If you want-I will add the variant to Doppelganger and call it something like 'the Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Doppelganger Variant' and give you credit. You could modify the pawn Doppelganger aspect if desired, based on proximity. There are several different pawn-link possibilities. Just let me know. Or, if you'd like to create a separate page with your rules - as your variant of Doppelganger - I have no problem with that. It would need its own pre-set to keep the ratings aspect fair. Thanks again, very much, for the comment. Best regards, Gary
Hello Abdul: I went to edit the page, but I see it is one that I don't have editing privileges for. So I will contact Jeremy in regard to an update. In the mean time, if you wanted to make a Zillions program of the newer variant, I'd have no objections. Regards, Gary
Charles - Thank you very much for the informative comment. I am currently learning Espanol, and Aanca does not appear in my Spanish dictionaries, but I do see that it appeared in 1283, in the book 'Libro del Acedrex.' I used the 'Aanca' name because of the Ralph Betza write up about it (referenced in his Tripunch rules). Of course, in Tripunch Ralph increased the power of Gryphons and Aancas. But I thought they were pretty impressive pieces, left as they were... and I had a strong desire to get them both into a game at some point. It is nice to know that the Spanish were using them back in the 1200's. When I stumbled across comments about Jean-Louis Cazaux graphics, some comments of which were far from flattering, I could not resist looking them up... and, to my surprise, I found a certain charm to them, sort of a modest medieval atmosphere lingering over most of them.... and after I read over the piece movements and looked at many of the Cazaux graphics I had the 'Gryphon Aanca' game forming in my mind, with a few new pieces joining. At any rate, I am glad you seem to like the game. I am hoping to have a pre-set for it later this month and am anxious to play it at CV. P.S. Your name of 'Archdeacon' for the 'Aanca' piece is indeed a good one.
David - thanks for suppling information regarding pieces that change. Unlike the obvious Pawn promotions in Chess, more limited pawn promotions in Xianqi, or piece promotions in Shogi, my first piece that could transform was the Morph in Pillars of Medusa. It started out moving as a Bishop, but it could optionally change into a [Morph of] the piece or Pawn it captured (on the turn of capture). Several years ago I bought a Steve Jackson game called 'Proteus' - It is played on a standard 8x8 chess board. The pieces are 8 identical cubes per player, with a different piece on each of the 6 surfaces. The pieces can rotate up or down to increase or decrease their value. I'll not spill out the rules here, but will mention that it is one of my all time favorite variants.
The Courier Game {which I realize now is ''recognized'' - though I had somehow remained blind to it) appears to be the missing link between Shatranj and modern Chess. This Shatranj Variant was first described in 1202. The rules page states that [the Courier Game was]''played up until the beginning of the 19th century. It was the first popular form of chess to incorporate the piece we now call the 'bishop' though it was then called the 'courier' (hence the name of the game).'' In addition to the rules for this 12 x 8 board game [which includes a ferz, wazir, afil (like the elephant), and man (non-royal King)] as we find in Shatranj, the author has included a printable cutout board and pieces. This is a great historical page. Well done.
David - Thank you very much for the additional naming convention information. Before I add a few comments I'd like to mention that on June 19, 2003, George Hodges wrote a message that relates, in part, directly to piece naming. He was writing about pieces in the very large Tai Kyoku Shogi game. That game includes many pieces that we find in our modern CVs. And it seems that we our not copying these pieces on purpose, but are re-inventing them. That we are discovering them on our own, unaware in many cases, that they already exist. But even then, we find as Hodges wrote: [Begin quote - George Hodges 6/19/2003] '' Very many of the names of the pieces are now known to be quite wrong; likewise many of the moves of the pieces are also believed to be totally wrong. Consider, for example, that no fewer than 57 pieces, well known from other connected variants, are given with a quite different move! Three ancient sources are now known (as at November 2002), with numerous differences in names and moves; no two of them agree! '' [End Quote] I found that the HUNTER, which moves forward like a Rook or backwards as a Bishop, is the same piece as the MULTI-GENERAL (Suisho) in Tenjiku Shogi. My RETNUH, which moves forward like a Rook, but backward as a Knight, came to me while thinking about the HUNTER - I simply substituted the Bishop element with a Knight element - and so I spelled HUNTER in reverse to keep a name relation. But, as you correctly point out, my RETNUH equals the Adrian King 1999 FIREHORSE from his Typhoon game. You also wrote, ''Jeff 'Cavebear' Stroud calls the Falcon a Y-Rider in his 2001 chess variant ABC Chess.'' and ''Army #2 has the [Rook+Alfil+Ferz] compound. This interesting piece cannot be found anywhere else. Eric Greenwood's variant Archabbott Chess has the[B+D+W] piece.'' I would not be surprised to see these pieces surface in a large and ancient Shogi variant. For example: Tai Kyoku Shogi uses a 36 X 36 board and has 11 ranks dedicated to each player's starting position. There are 402 pieces for each player (804 pieces!); and 300 different piece moves. You also mention, ''I like Jeff Stroud's piece name 'Y-Rider', used in Army #8. The name 'Falcon' is used in Gary K. Gifford's new variant Gryphon Aanca Chess.'' I used FALCON because that was the name Jean Louis Cazaux had used. Since then I've also seen the FALCON referred to as a HAWKER. As to the name Y-Rider. Yes, is fitting to the FALCON in Gryphon Aanca. Because the FALCON gives as a true Y movement. But there are other Y-movers (riders) and 'Rider' today, often implies repeat moves... like a Knight-Rider.
It has been said that the Aanca was a Gryphon. However, I came across it being defined as an 'Elephant Bird.' At the site: http://history.chess.free.fr/acedrex.htm we can read about 'Grant Acedrex' d'Alphonse X de Castille (from the year 1283) which concerns the Aanca [in part], as it was part of a game being discussed. It is written there, 'The description given by Alfonso does not correspond to a Gryphon. This word is obviously of Oriental origin, the arabic word anka designating a mythical giant bird often found in tales such Sinbad the Sailor. This bird was similar to the Rok or the Phoenix. The Aepyornis of Madagascar could have been the inspiration. This bird is now extinct but it is very likely that it co-existed with man in historic times. Arabic merchants could have been aware of this animal and it is very plausible that this was the basis for the legend.' It is an interesting chess site. I highly recommend it.
I have the feeling that this may be an excellent game, but I will have to play it first. Anyway, I have such a good hunch that it is an exciting and fun variant that I just made a pre-set for it. http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DDragonfly%26settings%3DDF
This looks like a fantastic game (i.e., from looking at the piece dynamics, including that powerful War Machine). Roberto Lavieri's impressive 'Galactic Graphics' are a perfect fit for it. I'm looking forward to seeing this game get some action. Well done!
Abdul, thanks for the comment. Your idea of combining the Desert Wazir and Desert Ferz to make a Desert King is a good one. That piece would be very powerful .... too powerful on an 8x8 board.... but it might be good on an a 12x12 board (perhaps even a 10x10). The Desert King could make some pretty incredible jumps - switching between orthagonal and diagonal jumps on a single turn. It could wipe out a vast army. You added that 'Knights could also move like the Chinese Mao, but capturing an enemy piece if it happens to be orthogonally adjacent, and they can capture multiple piece at the same turn.' Yes, there are many possibilities with this jumping theme. And I imagine some onboard experiments should be conducted. I think that for the 8x8 board the 4 current desert jumpers [per side] will be sufficient. But perhaps we can have some of these knew ideas of yours implemented on a larger board? The 8x8 preset is now available. Thanks again and best regards. gkg
Shortly after reading the below comment from Abdul-Rahman Sibahi, I had this idea: To create an Oasis Ferz, Oasis Wazir, and Oasis Prince. The Oasis pieces move by jumping over one or more friendly pieces [perhaps over enemy pieces too?]... The Oasis Prince would be a lot like a Chinese Checker when it came to moving. But he would capture as does a chess king. The Oasis Wazir and Oasis Ferz would use the same jumping idea, but with their diagonal and orthogonal limitations imposed. All 3 would capture by single-move displacement. When not able to jump (move) they would sort of be living up to their Oasis names. I will think about implementing these in a larger desert game... maybe 10 x 12, or 11x11 or even 12x12?
Sam Trenholme's suggestion to make DPC less drawish [if it turns out to be drawish] is to allow pawns to promote to Abdul-Rahman Sibahi's suggested [Desert] King which has the power of both the Desert Ferz and Desert Wazir. Thanks for the suggestion. It is an excellent idea! But will it be needed? I honestly don't know. When we see Checker-Kings, in a game of draughts, jumping two or three pieces at a time diagonally we can see one player quickly go downhill. In this game each player can capture with 2 diagonal repeater-jumpers and 2 orthogonal repeater-jumpers. These can wipe out a lot of material. My impression is that the game will not be drawish. But, I do like [very much] Abdul's Desert King and your promotion suggestion. Both are likely to make it into the larger variant along with the Oasis pieces. If needed to reduce the unknown draw factor, the Desert King could end up in this 8x8 version. Time will tell. Thanks very much for the comment. It is greatly appreciated.
Peter, thanks for the observations and game references regarding jumping captures. Despite that, I doubt very much that DPC will be drawish. With 2 King movers, 2 Knights, 8 pawns per side (which can promote), plus 2 orthogonal repeat-jumpers and 2-diagonal repeat-jumpers--- well, I can't help but to think this has to be much more tactical and strategical than checkers... and also I think draws will be rare. I think one is far more likely to get draws in Shatranj, than in this game... but I will wait and let game results speak for themselves. Again, many thanks for the information.
A few things here - the first two pertaining to Gryphon Aanca Chess, which I have just updated. The third item pertains to my reduced level of involvement at CV. [I.] I have updated pawn movement after thinking of Jeremy Good's question to me as to why they could not move three spaces, after all, it is a 12 x 12 board. And so, after much thought, now: (a) A pawn on a player's third rank can move 1, 2, or 3 spaces straight. (b) a pawn on a player's 4th rank can move 1 or 2 spaces straight. Pawn en passant is explained in the rules. [II.] After discussing multiple movements with Sam Trenholme, though in the context of other games, I realized that the nature of the piece density and mobility of this game cried out for such movement. Thus this rule has been added: MOVEMENT - On each of the first five moves of the game, a player can move as follows, providing a pawn or piece does not cross the player's 6th rank: (a) move a combination of up to five different pawns and/or pieces [5 units total] (b) if he (or she) desires to move a pawn or piece beyond their 6th rank they can... however, they can move that pawn or piece only. [III.] This comment only relates to CV indirectly. I have received invites for several games recently... but I unfortunately will not be taking on any more games... not even Catapults of Troy which I really love to play and which I received an invite for - note that I will honor my commitment to the tournament, should it get going again... but will not be able to spend much time on moves, as I did in 2005.] The reason for declining invites and avoiding comments is that I have several writing commitments. (a) I still edit the UON (Unorthodox Openings News electronic magazine; (b) I became 'Problem Master' for Chessville and create and send problems weekly, (c)I am editing a relatively large chess book-- hope to be done in three months) (d)I am writing science fiction short stories and a novel (you can read about this at: www.cosmicsubmarine.wetpaint.com.) That is my website and I have some art work there too, including some wooden Desert Pub Chess pieces (that game appears in the novel). Anyway, these activities take up a great deal of time and so I've not been too active in CV lately. Best regards to all, sincerely Gary
Hello Charles: You mentioned that no one has copied your use of the 'Archdeacon' name. You now mention the 'ANCHORITE' meaning a kind of religious hermit. I like the sound of 'Anachoreta' (Anchorite's Latin source) even better. There is even a play of transposed phonetics between Aanca and Anac. You mention the possible use of an 'anchor' image... personally I would not like an anchor image for such a mobile piece. Pawns are closer to anchors. The piece image I settled upon looks like a Bishop on a plus-sign (see rules: Images c1 / j1) That image helps illustrate the movement: orthogonally 1 space, then optionally moves as a Bishop. One possibility is to use that image and replace the cross that is actually on the Bishop with a small anchor. In summary - 'Anachoreta' sounds cool to me, and it is still an 'Anchorite.' But 'Anchorite' also sounds very good. Of course, I still think 'Archdeacon' is an excellent name because of the Bishop aspect.
Our beloved CV site is quoted in a NY Times article. Please forgive me if
that is old news and already commented on... but I just found out today
and have been away from here for a while.
Chess: Giraffes, Viziers and Wizards: Variations on the Old Game
By DYLAN LOEB McCLAIN
Five years ago, Bobby Fischer said that “the old chess is dead.” Most
players do not agree, but that has not discouraged people from inventing
chess variants. (read the rest at the following link-- you might have to
cut-and-paste. Best regards to all, Gary
Jeremy: I am inclined to say that reflections can block, for the reason that they can act like real pieces. I can, of course see some players arguing the other case. Anyway, we seem to have something like the famous 'wave / particle' dilema... So, I propose the following and will add it to the rules: Variant I: Reflections can block. Variant II: Reflections can be passed through. Players will need to agree on I or II prior to starting the game. (I believe that Variant I was the original intention). Best regards, Gary
'With enough constraints, a design no longer is a design, but a mandate.'
Joe: You mention lack of constraints and chaos. But, given the choice of (a) design a chess variant while abiding by numerous restrictions or (b) design a chess-variant - I would pick 'b.' That is essentially what we have been doing at CV and I do not see the 'chaos' that you mention. You stated that, 'The contest is to design a sufficiently chess-like variant that it [sic] could be 'the next FIDE chess'.' I think this is wishful thinking. There are many excellent Chess-like games, like the Fischer Random Chess, for example... yet Fide Chess just keeps hanging in there. We can try, of course to create the next evolution of Chess... But, when the boards are made waxed and polished... when they sit proudly in the sunlight with their pieces casting shadows while waiting for the logic of their masters... well then, we have our game. But I truly suspect that Chess will remain supreme. As a side note, when I played Roberto's Maxima I had a great appreciation of it and could easily picture that game as the chess variant for future generations... yet such a future is far away and likely not to happen. Time will tell... but as we all know, Fide chess is quite endurable.
I could not get in to check games... got this message: Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_LNUMBER, expecting T_VARIABLE or '$' in home/chessva/public_html/play/pbmlogs/ besiege_chess/judgmentality-999999999-2007-236-476.php on line 30
I must admit I am not clear about this contest. On one hand I was getting the notion that there was a 45/46 square contest with freedom to design rules and pieces; on the other hand, I see a chess constraints contest which was having dimensional restrictions still being discussed. Perhaps there are two different topics going on within the same '2007-2008 Chess Variants Design Contest' heading? I made a board in anticipation of a 45/46 squares contest... I've not added pieces or rules because I am very much in the fog as to what is allowed. Are the 45/46 squares even allowed? Are there two contests planned?
Thanks Jeremy. Your last comment was very helpful.
Joe, you write, in part: '... on an 8x8, could the pieces really change?' Then go on to say, 'I suspect it's unlikely.' But I see no justification for that concept. We have many CV 8x8 boards that have changed pieces. I see it as only 'unlikely' if designers throw out the possibility. I don't think they should. Take care.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.