Comments by GerdDegens
Conquer. 
The goal of the game is to conquer the opponent's army and to add it to your own army. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]@ H.G. I can understand that with all the other interesting topics you have lost the interest in 'Conquer'. I am also sure that avoiding permanent recaptures is programmatically very complex.
Apparently the idea is not particularly new in principle if you follow Jean-Louis, on the other hand the idea did not exist yet and seems to have certain advantages.
If the conquest strategy could not take root so far, because e.g. the variants 'Reinforcement Chess' or 'Chessgi' were not interesting enough, then the Conquer variant could be a new approach - conceivable, but not very likely I fear.
As far as there is a serious discussion about whether classical chess is the ultimate solution, then the question whether the strategy of banning captured pieces from the board or adding captured pieces to one's army could be an option. But there would have to be a playable way to do this ....
and limit my editorial activities here to providing old articles with Interactive Diagrams.
O.k., I got that and thanks for your comment.
In your interactive diagram for Conquer, you had noted that ...
The consequense of this is that in the search it will at somepoint quickly encounter a position where perpetual recapture is possible. And since recaptures are always searched, no matter how deep the search already went, this leads to an infinite regression that crashes the program.
Do you think that there can or will be a solution for the problem. If not, the approach gets stuck halfway and cannot be played or tested. I would like to help, but I don't know how.
The originality of Conquer seems (to me) the fact that the "re-introduction" square is the square where the capturer went from.
You are quite right there and as you have already said, the rule is new. And such a clear rule is, in my opinion, positive for the strategic orientation of a game.
The variants 'Reinforcement Chess' and 'Chessgi' quoted by you from Pritchard's CECV differ here.
For 'Reinforcement Chess' it reads:
A captured man changes sides and is immediately replaced by the
immediately replaced by the player who
replaces on any empty square, with
two restrictions: ...
For 'Chessgi' it is to be read:
Like reinforcement chess, but it is not necessary to
to reinstate a captured man immediately; instead, the captor may
instead, the captor can hold him in his hand and then
place him on any vacant square, instead of making a
making a normal move.
In my opinion, the above variants are hardly predictable for the opposing player with regard to the reinstatement of the captured piece. My variant/rule is more pragmatic and more calculable.
By the way: The variants 'Reinforcement Chess' and 'Chessgi' were not known to me during the development of 'Conquer'. And I think that the rule of 'Conquer' is original and new compared to 'Reinforcement Chess' and 'Chessgi'.
@ H.G./Editorial staff
Are there any reasons left against the publishing of 'Conquer'?
Conquer & Bull's eye. Hidden The combination of the 'Conquer' and 'Bull's eye' variants. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Conquer. The goal of the game is to conquer the opponent's army and to add it to your own army. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]You don't need to create a new subject thread when you can just post a comment to the page in question
I beg your pardon, but I do not understand your post.
It is about a new proposal for a variant called 'Bull's eye', for which there is no subject thread yet. Then the only option is to create one. Or?
I would like to present my new variant 'Bull's eye' for discussion.
I cannot say whether a mechanism of this kind already exists.
Conquer. The goal of the game is to conquer the opponent's army and to add it to your own army. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]If 'Conquer's' way of assimilating captured figures into your own figure set didn't exist before, then the variant has its raison d'être. Or do you disagree just because assimilation of captured figures has already been thought about elsewhere in a different way and the spirit is the same? Then many variants should not have seen the light of day.
@H.G.
This way of recycling pieces is a nice alternative to piece drops.
Do I understand you correctly that the variant can be considered quite interesting? The question of playability of the variant should not occur, since it is very similar to classical chess - with the exception that all pieces remain on the board during the game.
If that is the case, I would like to ask you if you see a possibility to program the variant and make it playable? With a little bit of luck, the variant could meet the interest of the comunity here and there. Thanks for your help.
Toggle Chess. Hidden Game with changing values - pawns determine the game. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Conquer. The goal of the game is to conquer the opponent's army and to add it to your own army. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have now reduced the name and call the variant simply 'Conquer' - some other terms are occupied, e.g. 'Assimilation Chess', 'Fusion Chess', 'Take Over Chess'.
Following your recommendation I have not used the phrase 'starting position' in my description now.
Then thank you for pointing out that perpetual recaptures may become possible. In the description I have included a rule against perpetual recaptures.
Should I presume that in variant 1, a King may move to or stay on an attacked space, and in variant 2, a King may not move into or remain in check?
This is how it should be.
In variant 1, a captured king is assimilated by a king of the other side in the worst case, and the game continues until one side has captured all pieces.
In variant 2, the capture of the king ends the game.
In between I had the thought to make a distinction to the position of the king, then I lost sight of it.
In the description of my variant, a distinction is now made between variant 1 (king without special status) and variant 2 (king with special status).
Thanks for the hint.
I would like to present my new variant Conquer the opponent's army for discussion.
Toggle Chess. Hidden Game with changing values - pawns determine the game. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Borderline. Without pawns, with only one king, capturing opponent's pieces is omitted. (7x7, Cells: 49) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]So its strength lies entirely in its ability to see possible checkmates a number of moves in advance.
@ H.G.
I think the topic is through. You have very clearly pointed out the strategically 'inferior' approach to the game and you have reduced the only strength of the game to the possibility of a staggered preview of check and mate situations. I can agree with that.
But what if:
What about a variation of the rule that only the king can be captured. So what if the king was given the possibility to capture other pieces? Ceteris paribus, everything remains the same. Captured pieces go to 'their' base place on the base line - rooks, knights and bishops could choose their base places?
The strategic importance of the king is not raised to its level in normal chess; nevertheless, it would be associated with a strategic upgrading. What do you think?
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
@Greg: Could you imagine to map my variants 'Conquer' and 'Bull's eye' in your ChessV? I would be glad.