Comments by LarryLSmith

Although Game Theory can be used to quantify real-world events into a Game
Design, a Game Design is not subject exclusively to Game Theory.

Particular aspects of games cannot be quantified as they exist purely on
the emotional level of the players.  For example, how do you evaluate the
potential for frustration or joy?  Each player will react subjectively,
some enjoy frustrating games.

But objective values can be assigned so that a potential developer can
make decisions while designing a game.  But this will not cause a
developer to create a good game.  Their own prejudices will often effect
their design.  Some might never develop a large game while others will not
develop small ones.  And some do not appreciate game with themes, while
others will not try the pure abstract.

I would be glad to assist in making a ZRF of this variant.  Whether or not
it is a 'Frankenstein's Monster' or an 'Ugly Duckling'(both of who
just wanted to be liked by others). :)

Let me deviate a little and discuss the concept of balance in Game Design. 
Most would assume that a perfectly balanced game is the optimal, and this
is often demonstrated by comments about the placement of Bishops (long
diagonal movers) in games.

In a square playing field, there are two distinct diagonal patterns, and
FIDE has offered a Bishop for each of these.  But in Shogi initially the
Bishops occupy only one of these patterns.  Both games are considered
good.  Whether or not a game has Bishops occupying each diagonal patterns
is not the sole foundation for its evaluation.  In fact such imbalances
can be considered a potential factor in the overall strategic dynamic of
the game.  

Both diagonal patterns can be occupied, one diagonal pattern can be
occupied or opposing diagonal patterns can be occupied, the game will
still have the potential of being good.  In fact, there could be no
Bishops in a game, like XiangQi(excluding its Elephants).

'Now now, perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything.'
----Professor Hubert Farnsworth, Futurama, The Farnsworth Parabox

It is quite easy to construct a real-world board using cardboard, scissors,
straight-edge and a felt-tip pen.  The disc can be made from the same
material.

And the visualization of the Cavalry leap is simply an orthogonal
translation to the second cell(a cell which is oriented in a similar
manner).  For example:
  
 /\  /\
/__\/__\
     
If a friendly piece is at the first, another such translation can be made
in any direction.  It is not meant to be equivalent to the FIDE leap. 
Since this is a triangle field, that particular form of leap is not
possible.  Its similarity to the Ko Shogi Cavalry leap in its ability to
use a friendly piece to continue its particular leap.

Also, the Bishop in Shogi can promote to the Dragon Horse and gain the
ability to step one orthogonal.  Thus being able to shift diagonal
patterns.

And to continue the potential of inner game dynamics.  Most FIDE-style
games allow for Pawns to promote to Bishops.  Thus creating the potential
of Bishops on either diagonal pattern.

So, the initial set-up of the Bishop is not the sole determination of any
game.  And it actually can create definite strategic dynamics.  So a game
most be evaluated in its full potential and not just its initial set-up.

What if a game has a Bishop on a single pattern and there is never the
potential of a Bishop on the other?  Does this, in itself, negate the
value of the game?

Like Fischer's Random Chess.  The Pawn opening can be rather tight but the
nature of the Shogi Pawn makes it interesting..

When the players make their initial set-up, I assume that they are allowed
to create their own individual patterns according to the rules.

Like the Bishop, there are other pieces which occupy specific patterns on a
square playing field.  For example, the Alfil and the Dabbabah.  The first
leaps to the second diagonal and the other leaps to the second orthgonal.

It would take four distinct Dabbabah to occupy each of its patterns, and
eight Alfil of its.  But this is not entirely necessary.  A developer may
choose specific patterns for each of these pieces to influence and thus
encourage particular tactical behaviour during play.

Sacrificing or avoiding the risk of pieces on those patterns during play
can make interesting strategy.  Allowing each player to control particular
patterns will give them both similar advantage, just seperate.

A good example of pattern play is in XiangQi.  The Elephants in this game
are restricted to a limited portion of the field and yet they are
significant during the game.  Being able to properly use these Elephants
can often determine the outcome of the game.

In several Shogi variants, there are also strong pattern pieces.  For
example, the Capricorn which preforms a diagonal hook move.  Usually this
piece occupies a specific pattern at set-up, when captured it is
permanently removed and can only be recoverd by the promotion of another
specific piece on the field.

The Chariot may 'run down' one Soldier, allowing it to capture up to two
pieces.  Sorry for any confusion.

The Chariot's ability to 'run down' an opposing Soldier is similar to
the XiangQi Cannon shot using a screen.  Except that this particular
screen is captured, and it is not necessary that another piece be 
captured following this.

Zillions is a great game engine.  It suffers from the fact that it is
basically a general program, and therefor often fails to correctly
evaluate specific conditions.

This can be solved by creating DLLs for specific games.  But such can
entail time, testing, a compiler and a decent coder.

Yet, even with the strongest program, certain games will often fail to be
quantified.  This should actually be consider a positive, demonstrating
that human thought processes are not merely mechanical and linear.

The primary aim of the basic implementation might be to enforce the rules
of the particular game.  The Zillions Computer opponent could merely be
considered a good teaching aid.  It is through human competition that
games can be truly experienced.  That is the reason for Net Play.

A Catapult carrying a Pawn on the far rank?  Let me quote the rules:

'...upon reaching the last rank, a Pawn is immediately promoted to an
Archer....'

Unless the remaining rules state otherwise, all specific rules are usually
considered absolute.  Privileges are given, not assumed.

The rules state:

'If all of one player's pieces are eliminated before both goal boxes are
occupied by one player, then the player with pieces left is the winner.
Exception: if that player has only one piece left, then the game is
declared a draw.'

And the potential of two Bishops on the same diagonal pattern is extremely
remote.  Why promote to a Bishop when you can get that great Queen?

To resurrect a discussion line and continue the topic of pattern pieces:

In those games which have promote-able 'Pawns' restricted to pieces
which have been previously captured, pattern pieces can offer a further
restriction.

If the game contains pieces bound to specific patterns, such promotions
could be limited when promoting to these.  In other words, if a player has
lost a Bishop and brought a Pawn into the promotion zone, the promotion to
this captured Bishop could be predicated on whether there presently exists
another Bishop within that specific diagonal pattern.

And with those pattern pieces which do not occupy every one of their
specific patterns, a Pawn might be denied promotion to that particular
piece unless it was in the necessary pattern.

These rules would be at the discretion of the developer, and could impact
the over-all strategy of the game.

Info on this game is rather thin.  It is a commercial product and the
developers appear to be keeping a tight rein on its full rules.

It would seem logical that most of the pieces would move according to
common form.  This is apparent with the presence of three Bishops on this
hexagonal field.  There might be some variations with the Pawn and
Knight.

The website states that the Spy is a combination of the Rook and Queen. If
this is true, the Queen might have a different form.  Possibly combining
the Bishop and Knight?  This would make the Spy similar to the Amazon.

But what if this is a mis-print?  What if the Spy is meant to combine the
Queen and Knight?  This would make the Queen standard and the Spy similar
to the Amazon.

Or maybe, the Queen moves like an Amazon and the Spy like a simple Queen.
Makes more sense, structurally.

This is all speculation, possibly designed to encourage a few individuals
to purchase the product to discover the truth.

Well, this 'Newchess' is not exactly entirely new.  It is different and
could be very interesting.  Those who enjoy Hexagonal Chess might find it so.

There is a Shogi form called Curiosity-Alice-Shogi.  I don't know who was
the developer.

It appears to play the same as Alice Chess.  Drops are allowed to re-enter
on either board.

In FIDE, only Knights are allowed to leap other pieces.

Of course this does not include the castling move, which involves either
the Rook 'leaping' the King or the King 'leaping' the Rook. ;-)

Could it be that FIDE needs to hold a convention to decide the fate of the
'Mad Queen'?  It definitely appears that this particular game has
reached its peak.

What other variant might be worthy of world recognition?  It would
definitely have to be much more challenging.  Able to resist
quantification for at least a century.

Leno,

Please feel free to send me anything about this game.  I am truly
interested.

But I must re-iterate that these pages do not do the game justice.

Nice.  But I think Glenn Overby's PromoChess is better.