Comments by GaryK.Gifford
You ask, 'Am I right in understanding the mace this way: I move my mace next to enemy pieces. Then on same turn I can take them off the board?
Yes. One of the adjacent pieces, your choice as to which one. Then, on the next turn, you could for example, move your King, but the Mace still gets to remove an adjacent piece. The Mace need not move... its weapon is essentially striking adjacent enemy pieces (one per turn, if possible). Of course, you can move it or toss it with a Horse-apult... or use the Horse-apult to toss an enemy piece over to a Mace.
Also, is it compulsory to remove all pieces attacked by mace?
Yes. But only one gets removed per turn. (one per Mace, that is) And if mace removes piece/pawn that exposes king to check then does that not mean that the opponent can then capture your king?
No - because the Mace capture (assuming he does not move) is free... so, you could move your King out of the way before or after the exposing... or block the exposing. I can add some examples, perhaps tomorrow. I was wondering too what do you think of adding one mace and one Horse-apult to my customizable game : pick piece big chess. I think it will be a bit slower than yours but it might be quite interesting.
That is fine if you give reference to 'Maces and Horse-apults.' If you dont mind - I can add that into the presets for my game.
Yes, that is fine. Best regards, Gary
Of interest, to me at least, is the fact that a horizonal line of pawns will tend to hold off a lone Mace. The Mace could take out one pawn, but then another would capture the Mace (unless the Mace took a pawn at the edge from the adjacent file). This gives us an interesting Pawn dilema. Diagonal pawn chains (where one pawn protects another) are great against standard chess pieces, but week against maces, and horizontal pawns (that offer no protection to each other) are effective against Maces (but not against standard pieces). Piece and Pawn play will need to be carefully calculated.
oops... got to run to a meeting...
'The removed piece must be adjacent to the Mace at its final resting place. If he stays still, he removes one adjacent piece. But, if he moves, then he removes one enemy piece that is adjacent to his new home.'
I do have some simple requests in regard to your interesting Maces and Horse-apults piece set:
a) Please call the Maces in your preset Alfil-Maces or Elephant-Maces. Because they have that added movement and the new name would make that more clear.
b) Please call the Horse-apults in your preset Dabbabah Horse-apults or War Machine Horse-apults. Because of their added movement. Also, in your rules you need to mention that Horse-apults capture 'adjacent pieces by displacement' (as does a King.)
In time I would hope to see new graphic pieces for the Alfil-Mace and the Dabbabah Horse-apult. The new graphics would be a Elephant/Mace combo image and a Dabbabah/Horse-apult combo image.
With the new images we could have games with standard Maces and Horse-apults; and Alfil-Maces and Dabbabah Horse-apults on the same board.
In closing, congratulations on creating the 'Pick the Piece Big Chess.' I look forward to watching some of these in action.
http://www.seirawanchess.com/
The new plastic pieces (Hawk and Elephant) look very nice. But, I would have preferred that these pieces kept their earlier names (as we see in Capablanca and Gothic Chess and many other variants) and that they kept logical designs which reflect their piece movement, as in Gothic Chess pieces. When I see an Elephant I think of the one from Shatranj, or even the modern Elephant... but certainly not a Bishop-Knight. Seeing an Elephant move like a Bishop or Knight seems terrible to me.
Gating - 1. v. A specialized version of a drop, where a piece or pawn [in reserve, i.e., a pocket piece] is dropped onto a vacant square as designated by the rules for that specific game. A gated piece, for example, could possibly enter a game by one or more of the following methods as designated by the rules: (a) the starting space of a piece or pawn that just moved; (b) a space which was just vacated by a pawn or piece (not necessarily the starting space), (c) a vacant space which is under the influence of a pawn or piece (a projected gated piece); (d) dropped onto a designated vacant space, or one space of a set of spaces (as with a Shogi drop). (e) use another method, such as the roll of dice to introduce a piece. Typically only one of these methods would be expected to exist in a given game which deploys gating. Note that gating is often a two-piece move, akin to castling in standard Fide chess.
When citing a game, please include author and date invented. Many thanks for helping with this project, sincerely Gary
Actually, by using the Trojan Horse you could drop the Chancellor or ArchBishop or Amazon (etc)on a square other than the horse's initial starting point. You could also stipulate ... 'must be droped not passed the 4th rank,' or something like that if you wanted to avoid drops within the opponent's camp. The Trojan Horse method was introduce in my Catapults of Troy several years ago... I do not know if there are any earlier examples...
Great comment! Especially when talking about an 8x8 board. I agree wholeheartedly.
Many thanks Antoine for listing your games pertaining to gating and drops. They have been noted. Best regards, Gary
There are many possibilities... but the idea of having lots of physical pieces to set up CVs seems fantastic to me. I look forward to the day when we could acquire USCF size Ferz, Wazir, Elephants, War Towers (Dabbadahs (sp?)) etc.
An IAGO system 10x10 board and piece set is also something that I look forward to seeing.
The reason I think that is bad is that the person might have two very bad games. He can submit his least dreadful game first, if it gets vetoed he can then submit his more dreadful game. If he is the only one that likes those games; well, it hardly seems to be a good thing.
Another reason is that a person might have a game that everyone thinks is fantastic. Then 1 player vetoes it... thus disappointing 7 players. Better I think, would be a veto of 4. A game is submitted, but it would take 4 players to reject it, not 1. If half the players don't like a game, then that seems to be good reason to offer a replacement.
To see an event with, for example, 8 players, each of who have brought 1 game to the table of their own design would be interesting, I think.
Also, did you realize European Chess's Ottoman Empire (The Turks) army starts with what is essentially gating?
I think Juan's idea is fine and does not seem overly ambitious to me. We would just need to see if enough designers were interested and enough first-time designers were interested. If not, then the garage is an option.
In regard to defending your games... do they really need defended? Just list your critic's points, then use logic to tear them down. It should be a simple task. In event you cannot tear down a point, then (in that case) you would likely need to say, 'I think you are right about this aspect.'
I think it is best for a critic to play a game before attacking it... but there is a lot of the 'Green Eggs and Ham Syndrome' and they will be quick to say they do not like it without trying it. Perhaps some required reading is in order for all would-be game critics?
P.S. Another idea is to take a critic's points and apply them to one of his (or her own games)... the results can be interesting.
Anyway seeing that computers have solved a game (essentially a problem with 500 billion billion possible positions (5 x 1020); then I cannot help but wonder how many possible positions our various CVs have. With some of the very large games it must truly be a phenomenal number. Also, having large numbers of piece types... well, take Chess with Different Armies for example, the computers can have fun there. And Chu Shogi... wow!
In closing, the number for checkers is much higher than I would have expected.
(c) a vacant cell which is under the influence of a pawn or piece (a projected gated piece)
The Valkyrie moves as does a Queen, but can essentially capture one of its own pieces and then relocate that piece to any space that the Valkyrie had just traveled through. Of course, the relocated piece was already on the board... so this would not be conventional gating.
'(e) be teleported to another cell on the board (example: castling).'
George takes it further by stating, 'The Castling comparison is apt among the 'a' to 'e' definitions of 'Gating'.'
Of interest is George's follow up statement,
'Castling is now-necessary encumbrance, complication, accepted widely in majority of CVs as making better play.'
And that sentence belongs in a book.
For me, personally, the number of games already here at ChessVariants is enough to last me past my lifetime. I see no need for infinite boards and infinite pieces.
Would not the CV Tournaments be considered such events? After all, they had lots of players, lots of games, and I think each started in one year and finished in the next. The first two even had cash prizes.
PotLuck seems more like 'Bring games you like and lets have a round robin.' Nothing wrong with that of course. And I applaud the concept and implementation. It is a great idea and I'd loved to have participated but I am currently a bit exhausted from CV3, playing in an ongoing Chess Thematic Tournament, and playing in a final round of a Shogi Tournament.
At any rate, I wish all participants the best in this PotLuck event and I will be watching from the side... with great curiosity as to the outcome.
Joe, of course you are right. Let me know if you need help building your pedestal. :)
In looking at is from a theoretical aspect it reminds me a bit of Time Travel Chess, however, with no King revisiting its past self. With the revisiting King aspect removed, and indeed pieces moving into the future (beyond 1 move on a given turn) removed, then I see the theory as simply being little more than the chess tree concept with 'bad' and 'good' branches identified. But I can see no actual theory in this... at least not how it is currently presented.
If we take a pure mate-in-three chess position, which has only 1 correct [pure] solution, then any moves that deviate from that line are bad (or less good)... but not necessarily catastrophic for the initiator. However, the person on the receiving end of the mate obviously experienced a catastrophe in his or her game at an earlier point. With the mate-in-3 scenario, the solver may obtain a mate-in-4 or a mate-in-5, for example [thus, having made inferior moves still avoids catastrophe for him or herself].
The idea of chess as a fabric consisting of a material/time continuum in a constant state of flux which in most cases deviates from an initial state near of equilibrium to a state that can be viewed as catastrophic for the dark or light element is an interesting concept.
The game known to many as 'Take Back Chess' in which players get to take back their last move in hopes of avoiding catastrophe is related to this topic. Though that version often allows one to avoid certain immediate disasters (a knight fork, an overlooked checkmate, for example) ... it does not enable one to avoid disasters that occur due to the gradual culmination of small subtle errors.
If I had extra money I would gladly buy variant pieces simply to support the cause. But the wife doesn't work and there are 4 kids... lots of bills, high gas prices, etc. Still, if I saw an IAGO Game Pack in the store, I'd likely not be able to resist taking out the credit card and buying it... if reasonably priced. But then, it would likely sit next to my Shogi, Xianqi, Navia, and many other games, waiting for the day when an opponent would show up.
1. It would be great to be able to buy them
2. The CV market appears to be too small to justify a large production run
3. A production run would undoubtedly exclude many players' desired pieces and desired boards
Rich, you ask, 'But if you happen to play someone a game, and they like it, how will they be able to get the equipment to play it by themselves?'
That is a fair question. And it would be great if they could buy the pieces, board, or even the actual entire game. The first variant set I made was for my Pillars of Medusa. A few guys played it at work. It drew a crowd. However, even if they could buy it, would they? And if they could buy pieces, they'd likely get the rook/knight bishop/knight, queen/knight combo pieces... but they'd still have trouble because they'd need an 11 x 11 board a Medusa piece and a Morph piece. So even if they could buy variant pieces, I think they could always end up with a variant that they like that they simply wouldn't be able to buy all the pieces for.
I played Maxima using pieces made of bottle tops with the CV graphics glued inside... it matched the CV pre-set and was thus great visually.
I played Shogi with probably 8 different people face to face over the years. All liked it, but we always used one of my 2 sets. Only one of the 8 players bought Shogi. It was the same with Xianqi. I played against a man from Viet Nam on his set. I liked the game a lot and made 2 sets of my own (one traditional Chinese style and one 3D Staunton style for teaching Fide players the game). Later I ended up buying a large wooden Xianqi set, an imitation jade set, and a magnetic one that resides on the refrigerator. One of the people I played, a former member of Mensa, bought a set.
There is, however, a very small market for Shogi and Xianqi in the U.S. If it were not for their popularity in Asia I doubt that companies would be keen on producing those sets. As a sad note... I believe the market for other CVs is even smaller.
Doug - Thanks for the comment and link - that 3D printing method would indeed be great. I suppose if I live long enough I'll actually be able to print (or have someone else print) interesting game pieces. The dragon on the video link was impressive.
But perhaps you could offer both options, with the graphic pieces higher priced?
Larry is right, of course. My first Xianqi set was made using the method he describes. Making one set for myself wasn't bad... but making a lot of sets, or a set with a lot of pieces by that method would be tough.
An alternative would be to have a printer print adhesive sheets with circular pull outs. Send the ordered sheets and 'blank' disks to the people who order them. This reduces the in-house labor to shipping sheets and disks. No printing (it is at the print shop), no gluing, no cutting... etc.
These days there are many games that use the adhesive sticker method in which the customer adds the sticker.
One can avoid draws in chess by playing against much stronger players. And if you do play a much stronger player and get a draw, chances are that you will be happy to have gotten it.
On a related note, I took another look at Navia Dratp recently. With its unbalance armies, and three ways to win it seems that draws are unlikely in that game. Even at the bare king level (Navias only) the two pieces would race towards the opposition's first rank and the one who won the race would win.
I think Chess is fine as is. If someone is disatisfied with it then there are certainly plenty of other variants to play. I still hope Navia Dratp will catch on someday. I think it is a fantastic variant and it should satisy the draw haters.
Because the Pawns are very different from Fide-pawns, I think the pre-set would be better if Pawn graphics were replaced with one of the many King-like graphics. If I played this game I would constantly be battling my mind's desire to see the Pawns as Pawns.
On a similar note, the Knight piece is not a Knight, so a different graphic to remind us of this would be good.
Several of us at CV, myself included, came to believe that it was harder to avoid a draw in Shatranj than it was to avoid a draw in chess due to that lack of fire power. I believe that was one of the reasons Joe Joyce created Modern Shatranj with more fire power than the original, that is, so it would be less drawish.
There is no entry fee and the winner would receive a chess book and a certificate indicating they were the winner.
The game is very easy to play and plays rather fast due to the power of the Maces.
A minimum of 4 players is needed to run this event... which we hope to be round robin. The game pace will likely be 1 move/4 days to ensure timely completion. Vacation time will be taken into account.
If anyone is interested, please indicate in this thread by April 22. Thank you.
P.S. I will not be playing in this event.
I believe we can change the rules and come up with a truly fantastic variant (like Navia Dratp)... and yet still, it won't be popular (relatively) because it is 'intellectual' in spirit. That is why the late Donald Benge, creater of Conquest, advized me to never try to market a chess variant.
In regard to the 'intellectual games' aspect, our local mall had a GameKeeper store. Fantastic! I loved it. Strategy games upon strategy games... Donald asked me to see if I could get his Conquest in there... I tried but to no avail. Why? Possibly because the manager knew what I didn't, that GameKeeper was going to be short lived. It is no longer there. The near by Build-a-Bear store continues to thrive... it appears that there is a much bigger market for stuffed animals than there is for games that stimulate our minds.
Our group of CV players is a small group. A group with keen minds. It would be nice if we were larger in number... oh, I still think draws have virtually nothing to do with the relatively low level of interest. After all, Chess was very big in Russia and neighboring countries at a time when it had very little interest over in the U.S. So I think it is a cultural thing. I think the introduction of video games, for example, has robbed us of many potential chess and CV players.
For us players below GM level, chances are that many subtle errors were made throughout the game. Your opponent is not playing perfect chess, so if you want to avoid draws just play better chess.
Instead of re-inventing rules that have worked for hundreds of years, simply become stronger at the game. That is my opinion.
As a side note, in my novel, Cosmic Submarine, there is the equivalent of the Desert Pub Chess (here at CV) played. There is always a winner. Reason: When there is a draw one player must concede, or both must eat a bowl of desert sand. The one who finishes first wins the game and the loser is sent off into the desert to die. Most players will concede, rather than face the life-threatening bowl of sand. Regardless, the score is always 1-0 or 0-1.
So now I looked at this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_(chess)
which addresses the draw issue. I don't mind #6 under the section entitled: 'Grandmaster draw problem.' Basically, it has been used for soccer (by FIFA) and is this:
'3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. This system discourages draws since they would only be worth 2/3 of their current value.' Unlike BAP (mentioned below) there is no color bias.
The BAP system is a bit comical to me as some players have very keen Black Defensive Systems and would rather play Black anyway. That is how I was when I went to the World Open in 1980. I had a keen French Defense and therefore loved playing from the Black side of the board. I had no losses with the French, and just 1 draw with it. In my opinion, the BAP system is biased. Also, such a system would be bad in final rounds of a tournament.
At my level of play draws have yet to be an issue, even in correspondence games where players have several days to think.
If I needed to pick a anti-draw system, FIFA's 3-1-0 seems best to me.
Regarding the 3-1-0 flaw see:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4209
I am again thinking that since we are below the GM level, it might be best to keep the 1-0-1/2 system.
There is a Bruce Harper proposal that I like a lot. If there is a draw, a new game is played using the remaining clock times. If that game is drawn, a new game is played using remaining clock times, etc. Finally someone will win, even if by time default. That is great for over-the-board... but many who like to get the most out of their clock time would likely not like this. It would likely tend to speed chess up so that, in the event of a draw, a player would have some descent time for the next possible game. Harper's system doesn't seem meaningful to correspondence games.
Both players would certainly want to avoid a draw. Of course, if one player had 40 minutes left and another had 5 minutes left, then the one with 40 could certainly play for a draw as he'd have a nice time advantage in the tie-break game. A flat time might be acceptable for correspondence games. For on-line real-time games however, there is often server lag and 6 minutes seems too quick.
For example, assume the following situation:
(1) players have 60 minutes each / that is a 2 hour game.
(2) at move 40 the game ends in a draw by stalemate
(3) player A used 35 minutes; player B used 40 minutes
(4) The tie-break game is set up and starts with 25 minutes for A and with 20 minutes for B.
(5) That game ends in a draw after 50 moves by perpetual check
(6) player A has 8 minutes left. Player B has 5 minutes left
(7) The crowd gathers around for the fast tie-break game.
(8) Player B gets in trouble and loses on time.
The 1-0 result is obtained within the 2 hours alloted for the round. While other players played 1 game in their 2 hours, some played 2 and some played 3. But 2 hour rounds remained 2 hours and there were no 1/2 - 1/2 results posted.
http://www.chess.bc.ca/team.html
A quote from that site:' ... tested an anti-draw rule, in which each player had two hours at the start of the first game. If the first game was drawn, each player received 1/3 of a point, then a second game was played with colours reversed, using the remaining time. This continued until one player won, with the winner getting the other 1/3 of a point. '
So, I guess the way I recalled it deviated from reality. I gave someone a full-point, but the method was awarding 1/3 points? I think I prefer my all or nothing way as an anti-draw system.
If I am playing in this system and I see we are heading for a draw, then I better a) offer the draw to start the new game or b) move fast to have enough time for the tie-breaker.
A possible solution keeping the way I propose is to use a 3 or 5 second time delay in the tie-breaker should either player have less than 5 minutes on their clock.... something like that. Some experimenting can be done. There can even be a few different options.
As far as a last round thing, most players I know like to know where they stand throughout an event. So settling the score during each round is far more desirable than wrapping up the mystery after all rounds are done.
Given a choice between the 2 types of events... draw or drawless, I still might be inclined to choose the draw one. I think below GM level draws are typically not an issue and players do not seem to mind hard fought out draws. But I certainly would not object to the other (drawless) system.
Such pawns are hazardous to Pawn Shields which are very important in FIDE type chess variants. They are also hazardous in regard to 'outposts' such as the famous 'Knight Outpost.' Perhaps that is why Navia Dratp only gave two of these specialized pawns to each side?
That may often seem like the case, but it is often not the case (at least not in FIDE chess). There are many end-games, for example, when one player has a Bishop of color opposite to that upon which his opponent's pawns rest. And, the other player has a Knight which can attack that player's pawns. I have won many such end-games. In fact, there are end-game books which clearly point out the scenarios in which knights end up being decisively better than Bishops.
http://www.angelfire.com/pq/YAHOSHUAH/nuclear.html
And had a fun quick 4 games. I think the applet might not be very strong... but you get a good idea of the explosive and addictive nature of this game.
That being said, the only clue in the rules is that there is mention that a King can move into check, and that a King could even move next to another King (but would then be captured). If a King can move into check, of course, it stands to reason that he could stay in check.
I would really like to update the rules to make 'captured king' the ONLY winning condition. That would simplify things.
Many of today's CVs begin with Chess and vary from it. But, I do not think this is (was) the case with Tzaar.
Of course, one can keep varying pieces, boards and rules to the extreme... and by doing so end up with something that no one would recognize as having come from chess. In this manner, for example, an artist could start with a drawing of a rabbit and create a horrific beast, by increasing the size, replacing fur with scales, replacing ears with bat ears, fluffy tail with long reptilian tail... etc... when the artist is done we have nothing that would be considered as a rabbit variant (though it is). Only by means of such an analogy could I see Tzarr as a chess variant.
But does it matter? And would I object to it to being added at CV, for example? No, I would not object. But, like Go, I would consider it to be an allowed exception due to its strategic nature.
The point here is that someone can say Chess is to Earth as Tzaar is to Ceres... but these associations are clearly arguable.
I believe that is correct [that is what programs like Fritz and Chess Master seem to do... evaluating the two configurations and giving a score for the deviation] but also I would say, evaluate the pieces within the given position. The values are relative and change with every move.
The lowly pawn about to queen is a fine example. The Knight that attacks 8 spaces compared to one that attacks 4 is another, as is the 'bad' [blockaded] Bishop.
Another concept is that of brain power. For example, the late Bobby Fischer's Knights would be much more powerful than mine... not in potential, but in reality of games played. Pieces have potential, but the amount of creative power behind them is an important factor.
And today's top programs, as would be expected, have high national bridge rankings. In 2005 and 2006 a Dutch bridge magazine (IMP) discussed matches between five-time computer bridge world champion Jack and 7 top Dutch pairs (including the European champions of the time). The program defeated three out of the seven pairs (including the European champions). Overall, the program lost by a small margin (359 versus 385 imps).
From what I have seen in regard to both variants and programmers, it seems logical to conclude that any game a human mind can play, a program can be written for. The program may be flawed, but the bugs can be worked out.
In my opinion, designers need not worry about computers. If you make a great game, likely someone will get a computer to play it. That is not to say all great games end up having associated programs... but they could.
I bet if you offered a $20,000 reward we'd see many programs coming to meet the poetic challenge within a matter of months. You can read about computer generated writing here:
http://www.evolutionzone.com/kulturezone/c-g.writing/index_body.html
Anyway, I believe that computers are up to such a poetic task... it just takes a motivated programmer.
Back to CVs: Chess is a great game. And just because computers can play it far better than most, are we to discard it? I don't think so; not as long as humans vs. humans and enjoy the game while doing so. The same goes with other variants.
As for the poetry, just because computers don't write that style certainly doesn't motivate me to do so.
Assuming a computer is in good working order and that it has a program for the game in question, then if it cannot play the game well, it is only because it is lacking something in its code. With refined codes near optimization - the programs will defeat the humans. If a human cannot accept that, then he (or she) can simply play other humans to have a fair brain-to-brain playing field.
P.S. - Arimaa has a nice web-site devoted to it (even has an animated tutorial with music); and has World Championships for humans, and another World Championship for computers (thus encouraging programmers to create a winner). I can see where this game would be difficult to program, after all, do the human programmers even know what is the best strategy/tactic in a given position?
Anyway, time is on the side of the computers.
I guess it is a sad day, that is to see the CV site posting political opinions (reference 2 comments down). What next?
Great job!
I have never played Rococo, but in looking over the rules page it does appear interesting and challenging.
I do disagree with you when you state, '5 or 10 CVs deserving own tournament or even entire website. Rococo would probably be the only one developed under CVPage auspices worthy of those entitlements.'
I disagree because game 'likes and dislikes' are highly a matter of opinion and preference. Fergus's Mortal Kombat Shogi, for example, in my opinion, is an excellent game that seems to be a natural evolution of Shogi and easily deserves its own tournament and website... but, that likely may not be the opinion of many. There are a lot of games here that I believe are great, Templar Chess, Maxima, Modern Shatranj, to list just 3 examples. And I could list many more, but, my list would just be my opinion.
I do agree that it would be nice to see a Rococo tournament.
Again congratulations on your Rococo standing.
Any solutions? Thanks.
Very good. Now the brain doesn't have to make Bishop to Khon conversions. Many thanks.
Anyway, that aside, for a CV event it would likely be best to take one who appears to be the best at a given game and have them play in the event. Certain games are not easy for me at all. Alice Chess is one example. Joe Joyce's very large games would be another. For me to attempt to play those games against a large group (or even an individual) would likely prove embarrassing.
As for needing to be a GM, I'd have to agree with George Duke that it is not that important in long duration events where there is a lot of time to analyze. Purdy, the former world champion postal chess player makes that point clear in his writings. In fact, when he began postal play he was losing postal games to a much weaker player; then he realized that deep correspondence analysis was much different than that seen quickly over-the-board.
When one individual plays a large group of people [where each member submits a move each turn - there is a resulting bell curve with middle-of-the road moves being played by the group.
With advisers suggesting moves we have a different scenario entirely. For instance, with three advisers, each is likely to continually submit very good moves. In that scenario the group has a relatively good chance of beating the individual.
2) a GM vs an individual CVer
I think in scenario one, that most of us here would defeat a large group that all submitted moves with the most common move being used. This being due to the bell curve principle which would weed out terrible moves and brilliant moves... leaving the CVer to face average moves.
In scenario 2, a CVer may do well against a GM. It depends on the game. The further away from chess the better the CVer's chances. The GM can't count on his memorized ECO lines, his tactical pattern recognition... and, the CVer will be likely not to blunder. Would the GM win? I honestly don't know. But I would not think it to be a sure thing.
Had it been a game I was already familiar with, that speed would have been fine.
Is there a way to adjust speed and pause play?
Anyway, I think your demo idea is a good one.
In regard to any archived games, a method similar to that used here, would be nice, if not hard to implement: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044044
Note: At that link we see a java player that allows the user to click forward or backward in a game. The game shown is Fischer vs. Addison (Cleveland Open, 1957) Fischer was only 14 years of age.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/challenge?help=1
goes to a page that shows how their voting for moves works. Also note that they have two methods.
In regard to Rich's comment below, quote:
'4. After both teams have made their moves, players have a set time to decide whether to switch teams. This is done in secret and simultaneously.'
Personally, I do not like the concept of switching teams.
(a) The World vs. Mr. (or Mrs. X) and
(b) Team Canada vs. Team Brazil; Joyce's Juggernauts vs. IAGO Intellects; CV Alfaerie Lovers vs. CV Stompers (for examples).
In regard to switching, I do not like people switching teams, in example 'b', players from the Canadian Team moving over to the Brazil Team (or visa versa)once they thought their team was losing.
I have created a second Makruk set from metal hardware. It needs painted prior to photographing.
You could not checkmate your opponent while leaving your own king in check.
Mr. Smith: Also, thanks for your comment. You are correct that removing the grid is an option. I actually considered that for a while. But rejected it because, in the endgame especially, it seems it would be easy to place a piece or pawn off-center and the chaos factor would kick in with pieces ending up in the wrong place in a face-to-face encounter... but again, a computer would always be seeing the correct algebraic coordinates. If you want, I can mention a 'Smith Variation' with grid-less board in the rules.
-------------------------------------------------- For 'fun games' and 'practice games' I have no objections to the PCs or CV couriers for this game. But for something like a rated match, I think face-to-face is the only fair system.
I suppose a program for I.C. could have different levels, where the weaker levels would have random forgetfulness factors... but then, how would you convey to the computer that it was wrong and penalize it? It could, of course, keep a true-reference position to compare to its random forgetfulness.
I personally would still prefer to use a uni-color set because if I were playing standard chess I would not want my mind to start playing tricks on me with the idea of certain White pieces actually being Black pieces and visa versa. Others however, may not be bothered by this. One thing is certain, the chess positions would be very very wild... and each one an illusion. If okay with you, I can add the 'Jepps' setup idea to the page somewhere.
For Indistinguishable Chess, two tone is not needed... but you are right, all pieces could be set to face the same way. One player would see all Black and the other would see all White.
I received your 'ok' to add your earlier 1-set idea to the rules page... I'll likely do that tomorrow.
Thanks again.
Getting back to 'Indistinguishable Chess,' I did mention it at a chess club last Thursday. To my surprise the club teller of tall tales stated that he bought a white board, 2 sets of white pieces, and played this game... but that no one could beat him because they couldn't remember all the pieces like he could.
As a side note, when in the Navy a group of us were sitting at a table with a chessboard (no pieces). A shipmate acted as if he made the move ' 1. Pawn to King Four.' So I responded with a phantom move. He then made move two... etc. We had quite a crowd gathered around to watch this game with no visible pieces. In relation to your comment it was easy to visualize where the pieces resided. At one point, late in the middle game, a guy came by and took his hand and swiped at the board. Some of the spectators yelled 'No!' and it was interesting because we could visualize our phantom pieces falling over, falling off the board and table. We had to mentally re-set the board. But we were then able to play the game to its conclusion.
1) You say 'The Bishops are colourbound.' Reply: Yes, Bishops, by definition, typically are colorbound.
2) You say, 'The board is too big, discriminating the weak pieces.' Reply: I imagine one can always view weeker pieces as being discriminated. For the number of pawns and pieces the board is certainly not too big. I base that statement on having both played and having observed the game being played on a real set with actual players sitting face to face before the game ever came over to CV.
3)You say, 'White has an advantage with symmetrical Sword play.' Reply: My testing of several over-the-board games and watching strong chess players play this live indicate this is not the case. As in Chess, symmetry usually does not last long.
4)You say, 'The new pieces are ridiculously powerful, especially the Medusa.' Reply: Both sides have the same power. And the big board you don't like helps keep the power from being too great a factor. The non-fide chess pieces, aside from Morph and Medusa, exist in Turkish Great Chess (under different names)and are no more powerful in this game than in that game and in the many other games we see them in. The Morph is not that powerful, just a shape shifter that starts out like a Bishop. As for the Medusa - again, both sides have one and need to use it wisely. Again, in watching and playing the game, the idea of too much power doesn't seem to hold up with what is seen in actual game play.
As a final point... I have won many games with the Black pieces. In fact, I don't think I've yet lost with them. If White has the advantage that you point out, well I certainly don't see it.
If you want to play a game as White against me to prove your point, I'll gladly take up the Black army. My guess is that even if you manage to win with White, you will have no easy time of it... in fact, you might even lose.
I do not understand now, when you now say 'Bishops are colourbound as a pair.' Yes, isn't that normal for Bishops? Each side has 1 white square bishop and 1 black square bishop. And Bishops by nature stay on their color.
Also, I do not understand when you say, 'It doesn't matter if play can be assymmetrical. Assymmetry evens out.' I really don't see what you are trying to get at. The possible piece and pawn placement is astronomical. What exactly is 'evening out?' Have you some actual game move lists and or positions (from real games) to serve as examples?
Regarding your White advantage and asymmetry equalizing statements you also say,'I don't need examples.' Reply: But an example (if it existed and if it was not an exception to the rule) would clarify and tend to validate your statements.
In your most recent comment you give me credit for a little equation that I have nothing to do with and as I see it, has nothing much to do with the game. You go as far as to give another persons' different answer to the equation. An example of a game position would be relevant. Showing us a zero and a 1/2 tells us nothing about the game.
Yesterday you mentioned,'... and I didn't say that the Morph was powerful.' But it seems you did, indirectly. Because there are really only 2 new pieces in that game (the Morph and the Medusa) when compared with Turkish Great Chess. So, with simple logic we see:(a) your statement that new pieces are ridiculously powerful and (b)we understand that the Morph is one of two new pieces then (c) we conclude the Morph is ridiculously powerful.
On a final note from me this time around, you implied that perhaps you would not play the game against me using White pieces because I would have an advantage due to playing strength. So that brings us to another point... the point that playing strength actually influences the outcome of a game. I would go as far as saying that the stronger player will generally win at Pillars of Medusa, regardless of color... with the occasional exceptions due to an oversight, but not due to game mechanics.
'At last I've rediscovered the variant that uses the Noclaf and Retnuh - you'd have been perfectly entitled to tell me earlier in a comment on Man and Beast 21...'
True, and I would have had I known you were searching for those pieces. But be assured that I was not withholding information. I was ignorant of the fact that there were 21 Man and Beast articles. I only noticed the Noclaf Retnuh comment of yours because I received a 'Gryphon Aanca Chess' e-mail notice of a comment.
I did, moments ago, briefly look through number 21 and was amazed at how much content you have there. Unfortunately they have no selection 'Amazing' in the rating box so I will have to postpone a possible rating. I will go back later and read M and B 21 in its entirety and then possibly read the first Man and Beast and then, perhaps others. Thank you for taking all the time and energy gathering and putting together what looks to be a great amount of piece-related information.
Thank you also for your suggestion, i.e. (A) let the kings also move diagonally and (B) the Silver Generals move to occupy the original squares of the Chinese Elephants.
Reply: That would change the game quite a bit. Each player would have much stronger defense capability. Attacking would be more difficult, defending would be easier.
If you want to make your suggested variation (which perhaps many would find better) I have no objection.
Note that there is a Zillions file for this game. The last I knew it mis-handled Cannons, but it still played by the rules and was still rather fun, I thought. ... Thanks again for your ideas.
Hello Claudio - I am glad you like CoT. It has been a long time since I have played the game myself, or looked at the rules, but I will see if I can answer your questions. Some questions: 1- The rook also does not cross the river, right? Answer. With a bridge available, a rook can cross the river. It can also be catapulted across. 2- Can the A jump over the river? After all, only him and the TJ leaps; Answer: No, Archers cannot jump over the river. Archers don't leap, except when inside the horse (as they move along with it). 3- Shouldn't be better, if the bridges belong a number to a side, instead of a commom pool? Answer:... so, you are asking about each side having a limited number of bridges. An interesting idea. I do not know the answer. If desired, players could set their own bridge limit. I like 'unlimited.' I never had a game where lots of bridges were built. I think if there was a bigger version of the game that a limit might be a good idea. . 4- How far a C can throw a piece? Answer: All the way to the promotion zone. In the Archer section of the rules there is an example, with this comment, 'Also note that the Catapult on C8 could catapult the Pawn to C11, resulting in a Pawn promotion to Archer at C11. Giving check to the King.' My best regards to all - Gary
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.