Comments by GerdDegens

"Could a Bishop move from d1 to e8 along the path d1-c2-b3-a4/4-b5-c6-d7-e8?" (a4/4 is a typo, h5/5 is correct)

Yes, that is possible, but only in two moves. The first move goes up to square 5 and in another move up to e8. It's like normal chess. The bishop started from a white diagonal and after a second move the bishop stands on a 'black' diagonal. This means a color transfer (Color Change or whatever is correct) has taken place.

"Assuming ‘d4’ is a typo for ‘a4’, then my reading of the rules agrees that it could indeed take this path, or instead a path d1–e2–f3–g4–5–g6–f7–e8."

The path d1–e2–f3–g4–5–g6–f7–e8 is absolutely correct - but in two moves. Move 1 via d1-e2-f3-g4 to square 5, then move 2 via g6-f7 to square e8.

"And so e.g. a rook can checkmate a king on h8 from h1, h2, h3, or h4, but not h5 or 5?"

That's not according to the rules. Correct is: a rook can checkmate a king on h1 from h8, h7, h6, but not from h5 or 5.

The parallel situation looks like this: a rook can checkmate a king on a8 from a1, a2, a3, but not from 4 or a4.

I have indeed trouble with your question. I don't understand how "B b4-b3" or "B b3-b5" has anything to do with a bishop's moves.

I want to answer your question like this and hope that I'm on the right track. You ask what a bishop can do with one move.

Let's start from d1. The bishop can move to the left via c2-b3-a4 to square a5. The following move is also possible: d1 via c2-b3 to square 4. From there, the color change takes place in a second move by reaching the squares b5-c6-d7 to e8. To the right, the bishop can go to square 5, via e2-f3-g4.

If you think that's an asymmetry, then that's the result of the new board geometry. The opponent has the mirrored move options and thus equal opportunities.

Did I understand and answer your question correctly?

Thanks for your explanations, I didn't know that. This abbreviated notation makes sense.

The moves "B b5-b3" and "B b3-b5" you mentioned as examples are not legal moves in my variant. With the exception of the rules for the new squares 4 and 5 and for the switches 4/a4 and h5/5, the FIDE rules are valid exclusively.

"Let's say a bishop is on a4/4."

Let me be specific: a bishop doesn't stand on a4/4; he stands either on 4 or a4. The player must clearly mark the location.

If the bishop is on 4, then his path goes via b5, c6, d7 to e8. In the other direction it goes via b3, c2 to d1.

If the bishop is on a4, then he can choose; he can go down to d1 as before. He can move upwards to a5 in a first move, to go via b6, c7 to d8 in a second move. The other option is to move to f8 via c5, d6, e7.

There are no other move-options.

"Whenever a move passes through a4 from below, it can be continued normally, or like the upper board half was not shifted."

That is correct!

"a4' cannot be reached from below."

Of course, a4' (I'll call it 4) can be reached from below. For example, if you start from d1, you can reach the switch 4/a4 upwards. The player must then decide whether to occupy square 4 or square a4 and mark this clearly through his positioning. After that he either stands on 4 or on a4. Then the player can proceed as described in the reply to Fergus Duniho.

"Can a Rook move through a switch on a single move?" Yes, of course. Otherwise, a rook on a1 could not checkmate a king on a8 in one move.

R a1-a8 = legal; R a1-b8 = legal; R a8-a1 = legal; R b8-a1 = legal

"What I meant is that a4' cannot be reached from a3."

Why not? A rook, pawn or queen starting from a3 and occupying the switch must decide which square of the switch is to occupy - 4 or a4.

"a move into the lower board half would always look as if you started from a4."

That's not true: A rook on a8 that wants to move to the lower half of the board can occupy square 4, but not a4. A rook on b8 can occupy a4, but not 4. Incidentally, in this direction the distinction between 4/a4 makes no sense for a rook (or queen). The switch only works in one direction. Either from the lower half of the board starting from a1, a2, a3, or from the upper half of the board starting from h8, h7, h6.

May I refer to an earlier answer, which I hope answers your question:

"Let's say a bishop is on a4/4."

Let me be specific: a bishop doesn't stand on a4/4; he stands either on 4 or a4. The player must clearly mark the location.

If the bishop is on 4, then his path goes via b5, c6, d7 to e8. In the other direction it goes via b3, c2 to d1.

If the bishop is on a4, then he can choose; he can go down to d1 as before. He can move upwards to a5 in a first move, to go via b6, c7 to d8 in a second move. The other option is to move to f8 via c5, d6, e7.

There are no other move-options.

If I may summarize from my point of view:

I gather from the comments that my version is not easy to understand. But that's not a disadvantage a priori. It remains to be seen whether the possibility of checkmating the king with just one piece will play a role in chess. The same applies to the bishop, who can now change his color diagonal.

But if I see it correctly, then there are no bugs in the variant and the set of rules is consistent. Complicated, yes, but conclusive.

Let me emphasize again: A change between 4 on a4 or h5 and 5 is not possible.

Some examples.

Bischoff on d1 to the left:

Standing on a4 after the move, a color transfer is not possible. Standing on 4 after the move, then a color transfer is possible. Because from there you can continue in the next move via b5, c6 etc., a color change has taken place.

Bishop on d1 to the right:

The move can go up to 5 (and not h5, this square cannot be occupied). The next move can be continued via g6, f7 etc. There has also been a color change.

For the other half of the board everything is vice versa.

Does that answer your question?

I had already answered that before, as follows:

A rook/queen on the rank 4 can only occupy square a4 and not square 4. This applies to the switch h5/5 vice versa.

"So, I gather that the following are all legal moves:

B d1-4, B 4-d1, B e8-5, B 5-e8"

That is absolutely correct.

"So, it looks like the diagonal from 4 to the first rank is a different color than 4, and the diagonal that goes from 5 to the last rank is a different color than 5, and that is how the color changing is done."

By the way: The squares 4 and 5 do not have a uniform color. The squares are each composed of both colors. This is the only way to make a color change possible.

Dear En Bw, thank you for your comment, which is absolutely correct.

I don't think that the moves to a5 and b5 are legal since they are on the same line. Merging the squares 4 and a4 would not change that. On the contrary, the possibility of being able to detect movements on the same line or the same diagonal would be diluted.

8. N c5-A4

According to my definition, the switch can only be operated from 'below'. After that, the move N c5-A4 would not be possible. N d5-a4 would be possible. However, in my reply to Bn Em I proposed an extension of my definition.

17. N a4-c3 ---> N a4-c2

18. N f5-c4 ---> N f5-d4

"En Bw" - sorry, won't happen again.

"That's interesting; given that a rook is allowed to move sideways from 4 onto b4 and beyond, that means that a rook on 4 can threaten a rook on b4 without being attacked back. Is this intentional?"

That doesn't seem logical indeed.

Assuming a rook is on 4 and an opponent's rook is on e4, my definition means that the rook on 4 can attack the rook on e4, but the reverse is not possible. That's inconsistent. It is probably appropriate to add that the switch can be operated not only from 'below' but also from the side. This would eliminate the inconsistency.

The moves B a4–c2; R a6–4 are legal moves, they are conform to the rules.

Move 17: N a4-c3 doesn't seem legal, but N a4-c2 would be legal.

Move 25: N f5-c4 doesn't seem legal in same way, but N f5-d4 would be legal again.

You can agree on almost everything, certainly to make the game playable and programmable. Regardless of that, I can only say my point of view and describe my intentions.

"A switch is an overlapping pair of spaces that in some ways operate together as a single space."

From my point of view it looks different. The square a4 of a switch is an independent square and is completely identical to the square a4 in normal chess. 4 (A4) is a composite square consisting of a half and triangle part of a4 and the new triangle due to board geometry. The new square 4 (A4) gets the same play options as all squares of the game board - 4 (A4) is considered equal.

This means that the squares a4/4 (A4) must first be seen independently. These independent fields get an additional function when they work together and act as a switch, as described.

My intention is therefore not compatible with the proposal to merge fields 4/a4 (A4) as proposed by Jean-Louis.

It is possible to agree on the sides from which the switch should be accessible. We have clarified access from below and from the side, access from above is also not a problem and is already part of my proposal. The only question is whether it is access to the switch as a unit or to the individual square of a switch. According to my intention, the second applies.

"Allow pieces access to the spaces of a switch from any direction, and when a piece moves to a switch, allow capture of any piece on the switch even if the capturing piece moves to the other space. For example, if a bishop is on A4, and a Rook moves to a4, consider the Bishop on A4 to be captured."

As described, access to the switch from all sides is not a problem. It is possible to agree on the proposal, but it does not fit my intention. However, if the game becomes more playable and programmable - so what.

To the Knight: I can't allow anything here, but I can say what my point of view is. If we stick to the fact that the squares of a switch should be seen separately, then knight moves ending on the same line are not possible. However, as the game becomes more playable and programmable, compromises should be possible.

"One last rule change I would suggest is to let Rooks, Queens, and Kings use their ability to move horizontally to switch between the spaces constituting the switch. This would basically involve lifting one more restriction on movement to the spaces making up a switch. "

I have problems with that. I have emphasized that the squares of a switch represent independent squares. This would rather mean that moves between the squares of a switch are possible. The independence of the squares on the one hand and the functionality of a switch on the other compete with each other. Regarding the direct change between the squares of a switch, I tend towards the superordinate function, so a direct change should not be possible. At least that's my intention. But here, too, compromises determine reality.

You're right. I have disregarded the change between the 4th and 5th rank. I fell into my own trap :).

"A Bishop on a4 could move along c5-d6-e7-f8 but not b5-c6-d7-e8. For a Bishop on 4 the reverse would be true. But that also means a Bishop on a4 can only be captured from c5 -d6-e7-f8 and not from b5-c6-d7-e8.

If this is true the ...."

This is absolutely correct when considering the squares of a switch as separate squares. This looks different if the switch is seen as a unit. But that's a convention that needs to be met. I have already described my intention, but it is not an absolute requirement.

"The issue of teh Knight is really an independent one. If the Knight's move is defined 'subtractively', by excluding moves that a Queen can do, its mobility is reduced in the vicinity of the switch, as Q gets extra moves there. In a 'constructive' definition of the Knight move, it would benefit from the switch topology to get extra moves as well."

Exactly this consideration speaks for a separation of the fields 4/a4. A knight starting from 4 via a5, a6 lands on b6. With a switch as a unit, b6 is on the same line. With 4 as a separate square, b6 is not on the same line. For a4 vice versa. That would be my consideration. I'm thinking of novice players who will notice exactly this inconsistency.

A really constructive discussion, thanks for that. I believe most has been discussed and a broad agreement could be achieved.

It's a pity that reasons for programming are decisive for my variant being downgraded. It is also a pity that the name I have chosen should give way to another name. Does that mean my variant is history? Or have I misunderstood something?

"This will treat each space as a fully separate space, and the main feature of a switch that I'll retain is that spaces in the switch share some routes to and away from them, and movement from the narrow end can go in either of two different directions."

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand that.

"...once you have settled on the rules and have described them clearly."

With respect for the great job you are doing, but I can't accept that I haven't set the rules and described them clearly. You can have different perspectives, for example regarding the functionality of the switches. It is also possible to designate parts of it as non-essential. But it is not decisive what can be programmed with the available possibilities. It's a question whether the game can be played with my rules and that the rules are consistent. I had to move concerning the access to the switches because my rules weren't clear. That's it from my point of view. Had to be said. :)

I'm excited to see what happens with my other variants (Chees 69, an addition to Chess 66 and Avatar Chess).

I am very impressed, the changed look in Game Courier is a real enrichment. I am sure that many things can be better represented on this basis. I hope that I am not going too far out on a limb when I say that a variant such as Avatar Chess can be better conveyed. A very interesting upgrade.

If I may intrude into the discussion of how pieces are named and refer again to my variant 'Chess 66'. We have discussed Chess 66 and clarified inconsistencies. For my part, I have taken up the suggestions in my description by adding explanations and clarifying examples. The functionality of the switches as I imagine it is not compatible with Fergus 'Reroute 66' (occupied switsches can be skipped, switching between fields of switches is possible). This should be discussed. Therefore I would have the request to publish my variant 'Chess 66'. Are there any reasons against it?

Thanks Ben for the questions, here it should be clearer in the description (although it is already described between the lines, but that is probably not enough).

When capturing on a switch, first assume that there can be only one piece on a switch (here I differ from Fergus Duniho's Reroute66, a variant of my idea). So, for example, if a rook or queen starts from a1...a3 or from rank 4 and the switch is not occupied, then either square 4 or square a4 can be occupied in the switch.

But there is no choice if the switch is occupied by a piece. If a rook or a queen moves from a1...a3 or from rank 4 into the switch, then the piece in the switch must be captured (because two pieces on the switch are not possible). If the piece was on square 4, then the opponent's piece is on square 4 after the move has been executed (applies to a4 in the same way).

Furthermore, an occupied switch cannot be jumped over and a direct change from 4 to a4 (vice versa a4 to 4) is not possible - differently in Reroute66.

Have I understood the question correctly and hopefully answered it correctly? I would be glad.

To start with point (2): This is clear that a rook on a8 cannot move to a3...a1 if a switch is occupied.

Regarding point (1), I already had doubts yesterday. According to my imagination so far, the squares of a switch (e.g. 4 and a4) can only be reached from a1...a3 or from rank 4. In my description I assume that a bishop starting from e8 can only reach square 4 of the switch and not a4. This affects a rook/queen on a8 in the same way.

But in this case it means that a move into the switch cannot be done if a piece is on a4, because then the squares 4 and a4 would be occupied together - which would not be in accordance with the rules. But this does not seem very logical.

Therefore, I think that a pragmatic solution for switches should be used.

If the switch should not be occupied, it is possible to move into the switch from above, from below or from the side, whereby either field 4 or a4 respectively 5 or h5 can be occupied.

In case the switch is occupied, the piece in the switch must be captured when the opponent's piece moves into the switch; the opponent's piece takes the place of the captured piece.

This means for your point (1): The rook on a8 can capture the piece on a4, and then it stands on a4.

This also means that a bishop on e8 can reach either square 4 or square a4. If a4 is chosen, then the next move can be towards f8 or towards d1. I think that such an procedure simplifies the rules and makes the game easier to play. What do you think?

Perhaps a remark about 'Avatar Chess'. The variants you mentioned (Lumberjack, Smess) were not known to me before. In normal chess, a piece has a fixed skill level, which means that during the game two kings, two queens, four rooks, etc. define the game. In Avatar Chess it is possible that up to 6 queens, 12 rooks etc. are in play - of course rather theoretically and then only for a short time. I think that this could be interesting.

After contact with Ben Reiniger - see comments below - I have adapted my description of the variant 'Chess 66'.

New is that in switches can be operated as follows: It is possible from below, from above and from the side equally to move into the switch and that independent of the direction of the move the squares of a switch can be reached separately (4 or a4 respectively 5 or h5).

It would be nice if the editors of CVP would read my description again crosswise to finally arrange for a publication. If 'Chess 66' should be published, then 'Chess 69' seems to be published as well.

Thank you H.G., that's how it will be for sure. Sounds to me like from another star. It means to me that I will not be able to do it on my own.

Does no one have an idea? I do not want to disturb, but why does no one comment? Lack of interest or there are neither positive nor negative comments? Am open for any criticism. My last comment on the subject for now.

Thank you Christine and thank you Greg,

let me be a little provocative: In normal chess, the board is - please don't be bad - a hole nut. The board is where the game happens, but where the board has almost no influence on what happens in the game.

In Avatar Chess, the pieces are only substitutes and the board determines the rules. This means at the same time that the structures of Avatar Chess are no longer comparable with normal chess.

Especially the mechanism of the pawns, which you mentioned, is cancelled. Pawns have a barrier function in normal chess, in Avatar Chess pawns acquire pieces to maintain the playing power.

Perhaps you can say it like that: Normal Chess is a top down game, where the pieces dominate and where the board plays no role.

Avatar Chess is the opposite, namely a bottem up game with rules from the underground (a little theatricality must be). Maybe a little less predictable, but a little more exciting.

From Magnus Carlsen's environment I got the indication that the game could be chaotic. Maybe that's true, maybe not.

But one thing has to be mentioned: In normal chess there is a tendency to protect strong pieces (e.g. queen). This tendency does not exist in Avatar Chess.

An avatar on a queen square that is captured can easily be replaced by another avatar on the same or similar square. The sturcture of Avatar Chess is quite different.

I hope I haven't upset or hurt anyone.

There is nothing to add to this!

Does a royal moving as orthodox king also trigger a promotion when it moves to 8th rank?

No, this is not intended.

Securing a 'rapid-promotion factory' (e.g. a few white avatars in the trapezoidal region d7-e7-f8-c8 shuttling between 7th and 8th rank) might become the main strategic goal in the game.

The function of the opponent's pawn row is precisely to increase the dynamics of the game. The assumption that this results in a 'rapid-promotion factory' is only valid ceteris paribus, i.e. when the rest of the game is left aside. And even if it does, it is supposed to 'speed up' the game and make it more interesting.

I had already thought about 'forbidding' the return from the opponent's base line to the pawn row. But that would complicate the game and would certainly be inconvenient for programming - if it should come to that.

But I am quite with you, H.G., that the number of avatars that can be won during the course of the game must be limited. Here I will change the description and will include a limit of 5 avatars. This should be enough for the intended effect.

...how many avatars would be needed to force checkmate on a bare royal (moving as orthodox King)?

Black Royal on e8, white on e6, b4, a1-a8 (or h1-h8/b6-b8/b3-b8/c5-c8/c4-c8/c3-c8/f6-f8/f5-f8/f4-f8/g6-g8/g5-g8/g3-g8). It takes 3 avatars to checkmate the royal in this example.

(Quick note: the chess notation changes in Avatar Chess; the initial letters of the pieces are no longer necessary).

I must have answered too quickly and was apparently asleep. Only the moves from a1 to a8 or from h1 to h8 are relevant. Please forget everything else.

Let's take the starting position with the black royal on e8 and white on e6 and b4. The white move a1 to a8 or h1 to h8 checkmates the royal. Or am I wrong? If not, it took 3 avatars to checkmate the royal.

"But why would the King ever move to e8 on the preceding halfmove?" I can't answer and only refer to the gameplay, which causes the initial situation I described, namely black royal on e8 and white on e6 and b4. Then follows the white move a1 to a8 or h1 to h8.

I did indeed overlook the lack of rotational symmetry of the board. I changed that - as well as the max. number (5) of avatars that can be added. Thanks for the input.

Thanks Ben for your posting.
But is there still interest for that idea? And if so, in which 
direction does it go?

That sounds plausible.

@ Aurelian: Possible, indeed. It may be that Avatar Chess is not similar to the usual variants. But what does that tell us?

Anyway, the classic of this genre is still smess, if anyone asks me!

Nobody seems to do that.

@ Fergus Duniho

Thor Slavensky wrote on 2022-10-23 CEST   Good ★★★★
This is a great idea with those switches. Together with the twisting of the files it makes a very interesting board and game. The switches give instantly the game a dynamic tension which is enjoyable. And a very sophisticated solution that 2 squares together constitute 1 field on which there can only be 1 piece. There is no mentioning of pawn move/capture (maybe it could be helpful), but it must be implied that 'normal' forward movement and diagonal capturing are in place, that will often be first 'battle' around the switches.

What is better than 2 switches? That has to be 4 switches! The inventor, Gerd Degens, has also such a game, Chess69, which can be viewed through the link at the top, or for CVP members through the link in the comments. I will try to make a comment about it later. But I can only recommend to the editors that this game also is published properly. It is even more interesting because here the ranks are also twisted, very delightful for us fans of 'unusually shaped boards'. It already has a old post from 2003 here on CVP with a broken link in the Alphabetical Index and the Topic Index, so that will have to be displaced.

Chess 69 is the follow-up to Chess 66; Chess 66 has already been published properly. Thanks in advance.

Since captured pieces get back into play by taking their position on the baseline, it is implied that opposing pieces on the baseline cannot be captured.

Here my description was not sufficient, sorry. It should read: 'Capturing of opponent's pieces on the baseline is excluded'. Therefore a move Ra2xa7 is not possible.

I have adjusted my description.

For example, Nc3. But what about Ne3 Ra3? Then we have a stalemate between Ra3 and Nb1 or Ra3 and Bc1. One could end the round robin with a counter. But since no one has an interest in that, reason wins out and the game continues with other moves. At least one would think so.

Maybe my gobbledegook can be unraveled.

Regarding your question: 1.Nc3 Ra3 2.Rb1 Rxc3... What happens? The knight falls back to its starting position b1. My answer was: For example, Nc3 - which means that the knight can immediately hit back. Or to say it another way: the rook attack goes nowhere.

The following was a new example and I thought you could see that (surely my mistake). I asked: But what about Ne3 Ra3 - here I made a typo, because it should be Na3 Ra3. In this case we would have a stalemate between Na3 and Ra3; this applies equally to Ra3 and Ba3. That's what I wanted to point out. I expect that no one wants to stay in the stalemate and that other moves will take place. Here I had mentioned the counter, but I'm not sure if this is a solution.

P.S.: Comments should not be written with the mobile phone.

Okay, that doesn't sound very logical. You could still say that a captured piece falls back to the baseline, a square can be chosen, but that doesn't make things better. The concept needs to be rethought.

It may be that my concept is garbage. But it could also be that it could work. Am grateful for any suggestion.

Now, based on these, it would be legal for a Queen (or Bishop) on g6, as illustrated below, to move to either h5 or 5. Is this correct?

That is absolutely correct. The move possibilities of the queen are shown completely.

After the discussion at that time I have adapted my description. In summary it says:

• Finally, you can move into a switch from below, from the side or from above. If the switch is not occupied, then you can choose whether the piece that moves into the switch is on 4 or a4 respectively on 5 or h5 after the move. If the switch is occupied, then the piece in the switch must be captured; the opponent’s piece takes the place of the captured piece.

Using alternating horizontal lines in both colors in half of 4 and 5 instead of a dividing line seems to be a good solution.

Does a Pawn on a2 or h7 have an option concerning which space it goes to in a double move?

Yes, that is how it should be. A pawn must also have a unique position in the switch - 4 or a4 / 5 or h5. I think it is logical if this applies to all pieces in the game.

If so, details about this and the effect it has on en passant should be included.

You mean the description? If so - I want to wait for more tips, and then revise the description.