[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GeorgeDuke
Passed Pawns Chess. A Decimal Falcon Chess Variant. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Inspirations for Passed Pawns Chess, helpful in elucidating Falcon move, are French Revolution Chess, Upside-Down Chess and Patt-Schach, as they all have pawns advanced so that pawn capture by pawn is impossible.
/a>
Circular Chess. Chess on a round board. (16x4, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]An interesting way to bring 'spaciousness' to the usually constricted play of round boards is Richard VanDeventer's Round Table Chess (92 sqs.) and its improvement Round Table 84--not covered under Charles Gilman's Tryzantine article. Of course, as with square boards and with rectangular boards, and with hexagonal-spaced ones and 3-D, it quickly can multiply into infinitude in combinations (of game-rules sets), each one making a game unto itself, by varying piece types, numbers and board sizes; my comments under the randomized chess Slide-Shuffle support that truism. Still VanDeventer Round boards without a 'hole' suggest whole new families of kindred variations.
Quinquereme Chess. Large variant with a new piece, the Quinquereme. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Is 144-board the largest size that lends itself to coherent strategy? Turkish Great Chess V at 13x13 being played now at Courier seems to have passed that point. (Jupiter has 16x16.) And there is a photograph of Charles Fort from the 1930s playing on what is clearly a 1000-square board for a joke. Here Quintessence as improved Nightrider establishes with R-N-B all the standard compounds, but 12x12 squares must be upper limit for reasonable play.
Switching Chess. In addition to normal moves, switch with an adjacent friendly piece. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Switching Chess is a natural idea and surprisingly not in Pritchard, though I prefer its embodiment in one piece (Swapper) with unfriendly units too. Also, another pathway to an infinitude of Chess variants, as I first describe under Slide-Shuffle, utilizes this position-Shifting Chess idea. Take the 2000 games in CVP. Suppose each has average of ten piece types(approx). Let just one type of piece initiate 'Switch,' and add that sub-rule to each different game-rules set: 20,000 distinct games emerge. Let any two piece-types do so: close to 200,000 sets of rules. Allow Switching from only a subset of 8 or 10 squares: about 2 million separate ways of playing. Continuing with these factors in combinations -- switching only coordinated by squares across various diagonals (of rectangles),odd, even, prime, etc.: that one is good for 1000 per game anyway, giving 2 billion now. Randomized baseline and Pawn positioning added: 2 quadrillion, and so on, a switch-trade after capture, before check, on Move 5 or on Move 11, adjacent to Pawn, before King, the ideas are endless; somewhere between quadrillion and Googol (10*100)--as commented Slide-Shuffle-- is a practical infinity for Earth-bound minds.
P1, N3, B3, R5, Q9 and supposed fractions for B and Q. Orthodox values should apply because Swap becomes like alternative to a move when any piece can Switch. Bishop no longer colour-bound? Knight more mobile? Queen freer to attack? Rook to make double threat? All true, but with generalized Switch, each such nuance has its offset(s) and risk, and each other piece-type correspondingly. Pawn-Piece disparity compared to Orthodox? A piece on rank 7 or 8 switches with an unmoved pawn. The pawn promotes. That's the power of the piece more than the Pawn; moreover, one or other's switching ability is redundant. Maybe some games played would show fractional-point increase in value for Pawn, but not looking to be self-evident. I think play with orthodox valuations in back of mind suffices on 8x8, or 8x10, with added switch-rule this way. So, the same Design Analysis chart under 'Rules of Chess FAQ' applies, with similar piece gradients.
Swap Chess. A move can consist of a series of pieces swapping places. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Swap Chess and Switching Chess are neither in Pritchard's ECV(1994). Switching Ch's now requiring adjacency should avoid passive positions on 8x8. This Swap Ch. would be the better implementation on larger boards 8x10 and 10x10--further improved probably without the serial swaps. This one's Swap along range of attack of P1 calls for full-sized boards enabling exotic pieces: some pairing of Marshall, Cardinal, Falcon, Nightrider/Quintessence, or Cannon/Canon. Quintanilla's basic Switching Chess originally has switch over one straight or diagonal step between same-coloured units and plays better than say Fischer's Random, even with still prosaic piece mix.
From Ungulates Outwards. A Systematic Set of Names for the Simplest Oblique Pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Defining oblique pieces by their coordinates leads to SOLL, in order to deal only in integers. A Ferz is two Wazir moves at right angles(SOLLs ratio 2:1). A Camel is two Knight moves at right angles (SOLLs ratio 10:5). That symmetry shows why the Quintessence (of Qu. Ch and Quinquereme), rather than Nightrider, is correct extension of Knight in two dimensions. It is worthwhile in the abstract naming the pieces moving oblique directions beyond Camel and Zebra. However, follow-up could relate to Chess and CVs by asking whether 5:3 or 6:1 leapers, as ex, are useful exotic pieces. Probably not. The 5:1 Zemel, 5:2 Vine, 5:3 Gimel, 5:4 Rector are all of them better implemented as 5-square 5-way DRAGON non-leaping: Dragon reaches all of those squares. [See my Passed Pawns, Scorpions and Dragon article] The 4:1 Giraffe, 4:3 Antelope and 4:2 two-step N-rider--all of them come under SCORPION without jumping ability. The 6:1 Flamingo (or Mallet for FO), 6:2 two-step Camel-Rider, 6:5 Pastor, 6:3 and 6:4 -- all of them are subsumed by PHOENIX, a 6-sq 6-way chess piece required to follow specific pathways. Occasionally, commentary might say that Dragon's 5-square move reaches one particular 5:4 'Umbrella'-square, but only colourful embellishment for that instance.
Switching Chess. In addition to normal moves, switch with an adjacent friendly piece. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think the first write-up of Switching Ch left out adjacency. Allowing same-coloured switching (excluding of course the pointless null move between like piece-types) regardless of position would create explosive play. A piece on rank 8 could switch with unmoved Pawn for immediate promotion. Or Knight switch with Queen seven spaces removed for a check or mate. That sub-rule is more in keeping with CVP's usual broadmindedness. The four-sentence rules as now evolved are more like a suggestion for serious reform of standard FIDE Chess. And as stated, SwCh plays better than Fischer's Random Chess.
Switching Chess swap could be implemented for all 2000 CVP games, as well as the 2000 Pritchard ECV games. (A couple hundred now overlap both sources, as this week's Cross and Chesquerque) Like Fischer's random baseline, the new idea--distinct from Neto's Swap--has general applicability. The fact that Switching's first use is for standard FIDE chess shows Chess Variant Page for what it is, a bastion of orthodoxy. Seriously, SwgCh likely best recommendation since FRC staying within 64 squares to upset memorized opening theory. Pritchard under Capablanca's Ch, pages 38-39, summarizes debate in 1920s to reform Chess, led by GM JRC. Not locked in a thought-rut like other Grandmasters, Capablanca, Fischer, Botvinik know every game to be CV and yet quest for few ideal forms.
Chesquerque. Variant played on a quadruple Alquerque board. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Troyka's Weave and Dungeon also has uneven but symmetric connectivity, making visualizable play problematic. The old Alquerque boards do not use long-range pieces like George Dekle's Chesquerque, whose Archbishop and Queen here compound the opaqueness.
Cross Chess. Game played on a cross-shaped board. (Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Convert Queens to Kings and this becomes a rather uninteresting 4-team chess, or don't and it is partnership game for four with a few minor provisions. As two-player, it is about like mixing Berolina and standard pawns, as done occasionally.
DICE-MATE CHESS improved CONTEST ENTRY--now 18 pieces only 1. No Promotion,Demotion,Capture 2. Array: White Ra1,Nb1,Bc1,Kd1,Fe1; Black Kd8,Fe8,Bf8,Ng8,Rh8 Pawns: White 4 only: a3, c3, e3, g3; Black b6, d6, f6, h6 3. No more than two friendly pieces may be adjacent to King. This prevents walling off King. No more than two enemy pieces may be adjacent to King. This prevents withering attack. 4. The precise winning condition is variable and unknown until the Roll of Dice after a Check. So any Check may become Mate: Once checked, the King cannot move OUT OF it, unless invalidated by opponent's Roll of Dice--as it usually is, as follows. One number gives piece, P1, N2, B3, R4, Q5, K6 approved. With good play there may be two or more prospects in multiple checks. Other gives direction of check/mate with orientation always White side: 1N,2E,3S,4W,5NE/SW,6SE/NW. Roller takes numbers in either favorable order: a 1 in 18 chance for mate per check. If you don't have a check, don't roll the dice. Anyone wins with cheap check and lucky throw. 5. K may move INTO check. N can check/mate from either of its two into K. K may not move to corner square. 6. If Dice do not match attack conditions, play just goes on until Checkmate validated by Dice. In long run should be strategic
Dice-Mate Chess revised is strategic because checks are to be thwarted by positioning, and
the better play may net many times more checks, then to be dice-validated, or not. Giving check even when not awarded checkmate, is alternative measure of good play, and DMCh counts it toward decisive result with no draws
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]In April 2004 comment this same page I estimate those Ultima values in Design analysis: P1, K2, W3, Co3, Ca4, L5, I8, keeping integers. I haven't done C++ programming this decade, so don't know whether King's offensive value would be needed, depending on structure of program. Refining these estimates, maybe L closer to 5.5, and W>Co. [Further, I would enter P1, W3.1, Co2.9, Ca4.3, L5.3, I8.2, and see how that plays]
Grander Chess. A variant of Christian Freeling's Grand Chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The business of unprotected Pawns comes up about once a year. Chaturanga and Shatranj have unprotected pawns in starting array. It is easy to extend the list to hundreds. What is most frequent standard
FIDE opening? e4, an undefended Pawn in the center of the board.
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]Of course I posted anonymously about sliding values based on things objective, i.e. especially Captures and Number of Moves, just standard programming. More mathematically, to go with Move Equation under Game Design topic, I also developed a Positional Advantage Equation. It measures a game from its rules for positional advantage potential. [Achernar], being Orthodox Chess with interesting but bizarre rules overlaid, would expect any basic program to play well.[I switched Achernar and Deneb, sorry]
I have not published Positional Advantage Equation, taking Mark Thompson's advice to write an article. Move Equation is M = 3.5N/P(1-G). I don't know where they index special topics; you see it scrolling back any of the talkers.
Mainzer Schach. Large variant with Janus, Marshall, and different setup. (11x8, Cells: 88) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]About underpromotion, my concurrent Kibitz comment shows example of one in the making in recent Switching Ch. game, where Pawn-to-Knight can enforce series of checks, as David Paulowich posits. Conventionally they always come up with half a dozen at such as Tim Krabbe's chess page or Tim Harding's Chess Cafe column, in occasional subject. They consider it a really exotic topic. Where no Queen promotion, as in Falcon Chess, what is the underpromotion, Rook or Falcon? There I guess only Knight is underpromotion. Then unusual CVs may have hard-to-estimate values, so which piece would be underpromotion becomes subjective.
Dutch columnist Tim Krabbe's Chess Curiosities has in main index 'Promotion to Rook and Bishop in Games, Over 40 Serious Examples', subheading 'Underpromotion'
Camel. 
An elongated Knight making a (3, 1) leap.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]What is piece value of Camel(1,3)? Usually the same or less than value of Knight. Even in the Turkish Great Chesses being played now on Game Courier, one prefers Knight or even two Pawns to Camel--and those pawns promote only to Wazir. So besides being awkward as Zebra(2,3), Camel has the lowest worth; any less and it is like a Pawnlike unit. Further, one could go so far as to say that any eight-square oblique leaper has less value than the standby Knight. Antelope, Flamingo, any of Charles Gilman's neologisms Rector, Parson, Curate, Deacon each and all slightly less value than the versatile Knight. Likely we shall never hear of Camel or Flamingo or Curate in the 99%+ of chess world not immersed in CVs.
The point of more trips of six moves(or 5,7,10,whatever) is just that longer leapers have less mobility, given a board size. On 10x10 Gilman's Albatross(9,2)can move only from back rank to promotion square, back and forth ranks 1 and 10, until getting to file a or j, whence it so goes right and left too, never away from an edge. My implication is that working backwards from such as Albatross, even Camel and Zebra, while more valuable than those of greater leap length, are ineffective chess pieces. What game really uses a Camel effectively or Zebra to advantage? All these simple oblique leapers serve for intellectual exercises, but compounds entirely different story.
Turkish Great Chess V(13x13) being played now at Courier employs Camel not Zebra. There Camel seems, having played 50 moves, sort of 'odd piece out'. They're there but not much use; the game would be better with another long-range piece or N-C, N-Z compounds. Likewise Knappen's Quinquereme,centered on the neat Quintessence, throws in C and Z almost as afterthought. Wildebeest is worth revisiting, but Camel always seems like a residual element that designer falls back on, reason being really rather defective for actual play.(Comments' colour features, mating weaknesses)Exception may be Overby's Beastmaster with all leapers in a deliberate intellectualization.
Ecumenical Chess. Set of Variants incorporating Camels and Camel compound pieces. (8x10, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Overby's Beastmaster Chess has Pegasus(=Zebra+Giraffe(1,4)) and Roc (=Camel+Alfil); probably R-C and B-C are unused before. Notice the groupings in Beastmaster not following Leap Length. Both Gilman's and Overby's approaches could be factored into hundreds of new CVs by different piece mixes and board sizes, as Charles suggests preparing for more drastic leapers, surely using his established nomenclature. I disagree 'The bigger the board, the weaker Ns and Cs'. Not necessarily, relative to other simple (8-sq) leapers; Ns and the lesser Cs may become inherently more defensive.
Fischer Random Chess. Play from a random setup. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bobby Fischer's current take on FRC, radio interview last week,20.8.04 (from ChessBase):'I play Fischer Random. It is a much better game, more challenge. Chess is a dead game, it is played out. Fischer Random is a version of Chess that I developed or invented, where you shuffle the back row of pieces, not the pawns. Each side has an identical shuffle, so that everything is symmetrical, just like in the old chess. There are just a couple of rules: one Rook has to be to the left of the King, one has to be to the right of the King, one Bishop has to be on a light-coloured square, and one on a dark-coloured square. That's basically it. You can learn the rules in two minutes. It's a great game, and can become the standard for chess.'
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.