Comments by MatsWinther

I believe that the divination aspect was very important in historical chess
variants. Nigel Pennick, in 'Games of the Gods' (1988), discusses this
aspect in games generally. The dice chess variants are particularly 
suited for divination, it seems, such as Oblong Shatranj with die.
--Mats

Joost, you have a strong point there. There is an immense number of
interesting possibilities. A piece could be a rook in its fight mode, but
it can in an instant turn into some kind of long-leaper, for instance. Why
it works is because it costs a move to return it to its rook-state again,
which is necessary, because it cannot capture in its long-leap state. The
Harpy was implemented so that it must return to fight state before being
again able to move like a Flying Harpy. But it's also possible to
implement the double mode piece so that it can remain in the
transport-mode, and make several non-capturing leaps in that state. It
depends on the game context which is best, I suppose.
--Mats

Why don't Zillions programmers post their games to the 
Zillions site, too? Then their zrf:s needn't disappear like this.

Joe, no that does not qualify to be mentioned! But I am still not convinced
that the notion of Elks together with Rooks works that well. What are the
Rooks supposed to do when the Elk takes control of an open file? They
can't oppose because the rook is worth more than the Elk. However, I
later found out that, thanks to Elks, one can play on the wings instead
and temporarily ignore the open files. So it's possible that this variant
works anyway. Time will tell.
--Mats

How about thanking me for the work I put down, instead? I decided to
abandon this forum to avoid being hacked on. Obviously it didn't help. In
fact, I have lately been been using four board types: Gustavian, H-board,
the 80-squared board, and the standard board. The reason why I link 
externally is because I cannot upload any files because of some error. 
Even though I have created many new interesting pieces this is regarded 
as so unimportant so I shouldn't be allowed more than one little external 
link page. It is astoundingly ungenerous! I do not simply add a new piece 
to a board arbitrarely. All my variants have been tested to create the setup
which is the most strategically many-sided. Many setups simply don't work. I 
have also created new graphics. I have introduced these pieces in a regular
piece context so it's easier to get a feel for them, and decide upon the
piece-value of the new piece. All the games have a different character,
and they work very fine. My idea is that the new pieces can later be
inserted in other more unusual contexts, with several different piece
types. Namik Sade has already begun doing this work, in two new games, as
far as I know. By using my programs you can decide whether you like the
piece, and whether it's suitable in your own game construct. 

I have endeavoured to create pieces (I have discarded several) which
function well together with the Western piece set. As their piece-value
seem to rhyme with the traditional pieces, they can be mutually exchanged,
something which greatly increases the combinative, and strategical,
possibilities. I suspect this aspect has received too little attention in
many game constructs. One should not simply add many pieces to a board
without investigating their relations, in terms of value. The game could
become cramped an uninteresting, because the pieces must often avoid each
other, and the combinative and strategical possibilities are thereby
reduced. Those people, like 'none' (a suitable name), who think that my
games are not innovative enough, simply don't understand chess. What
makes a chess variant interesting is what goes on *under* the surface, in
terms of interesting combinations, endgame qualities, and strategical
brainteasers. With these new pieces new forms of combinations are
introduced to the chessboard, which have never occured before in chess
history. Such aspects decide whether a game has original and striking
characteristics, and not whether it appears, on the surface, to be
innovative. If you create a game on a star-shaped board, for instance, and
put many unusual pieces on it, this does not necessarily mean that it's a
genuinely innovative variant.

I am convinced that my variants are good games, but it should be possible
to create even better games by introducing these new pieces in other
contexts. That's for other innovators to ponder over. Moreover, it's
likely that the new methods of movement, the bounce-movement, the
collision-capture, two leg cannon capture, etc., can stimulate yet more
piece-types. In Doublebarrel Chess I introduce practical new rules for 
introducing a pair of extra pieces to the standard board. My contributions 
should stimulate game constructors, and fairy problem composers, while 
people with inferiority complexes ought to shut up.

It could be a good idea to try the Gustavian board in cases where you could
use the standard 80-square board. Strategically it's a different game. The
knights remain equal in value to the bishops. The pawns retain their
strategical importance as there are only eight of them. The Gustavian
board allows less free space to the Archbishop and the Chancellor and so
their tactical possibilities are fewer. It's a different game, but
whether it's better is another thing.

My Pegniar Chess is today updated as the previous setup was awkward while
it made the Pegniars too dominant.

Mats

Awkward play by Zillions in the opening. But Zillions can easily be made to 
make good pawn opening moves by introducing rewards for such moves. 
As soon as Zillions has moved two pawns he continues to move pawns and 
pieces in a natural way. One can also introduce a reward for castling, and 
punish early queen moves. If one makes these additions to the code then 
Zillions plays chess very humanlike and positionally interesting. The effect is 
remarkable. Zillions's style is quite humanlike because it plays such a 
varied game of chess. It also understands to attack with the pawn on the 
flanks. It is sad that Zillions programmers don't use these tricks because 
there are so many implementations where Zillions plays too much with the 
pieces in the opening, which makes the games less interesting, and the 
play much weaker. You can have a look at the code in my zrf's. In most 
cases you can simply copy it, although it can certainly be improved in many 
ways. Note that I have often also added links from the corner squares. This 
simple trick is a good idea because it discourages Zillions from wasting 
king moves to the corner squares, something which is even more important 
in the Gustavian case.

I cannot upload any images, I get an error, so I could not write an
article. But my bifurcation pieces would really need an overview article.
Some of these pieces are good, I think.

Mats