Game Reviews by Michael Nelson

What a fine concept. A new way of using reserves that makes for a different game from Chess but has a good Chess-like feel. The adjacent kings rule sets a trap for the unwary. Hold that Queen in reserve and when the opponent moves his king next to yours, you have 9 less points to count.

Rules question: does the requirement to evade check have priority over ending the game by moving next to the enemy king? I would think yes, but I'm not certain from the rules on this page.

I'd love to program this game for Zillions, but I have no idea how to implement the win condition for adjacent kings.

Thank you for the clarification. It's obvious in the interactive diagram. Likely on the wording of the rules as given, but capable of being misundertood.

Now I'm certain this is the rule, let me give the game an excellent. The slashing rider moves deep into enemy territory and the defense against such should be a thing of beauty.

Very nice touchup of the page. You might have mentioned that in problems, there is more than one way to use the cylinder concept. The one here described is chess on a horizontal cylinder, which is the only form that is playable as a game. Other forms have appeared in problems: the vertical cylinder with the first and last ranks connected and the anchor ring both basically both a vertical and horizontal cylinder simultaneously. In the latter case, a1 is connected to both a8 and h1 (and in some version h8 as well, if you really want to go crazy). With rooks and queens instantly attacking each other and the kings in mutual check, we'd need special rules to play this, but a KBB vs K ending on such a board can be analyzed, as well as more complex problems.

A very well thought and pleasing out blend of a Capablanca's Chess and Shogi. I am curious about the rule against having identical promoted pieces other than promoted Pawns. I consider it a small wart on a otherwise perfect design.

RPG themed chess has been around at least since Betza's Way of the Knight from 1995. (http://www.chessvariants.org/crossover.dir/wotn.html). Like your idea for earning upgrades, which need to be more liberal than those in Betza's game, since his upgrade ranks increase power more with each upgrade. I can't rate this game "excellent" without playtesting it, but a solid "good"
for your idea.

Excellent thematic variant! I've not seen the idea of imposing colorboundness on all pieces but removing it by the odd number of files on a cylindrical board, thought I recognize component ideas.

A small quibble about promotion:

Promotion to a Knight is needed in FIDE Chess, as its moves are not a subset of the Queen's move. In some positions, the Knight can checkmate when the Queen can't even check. This factor does not apply to this game; but there is one case where underpromotion to Rook or Bishop in needed (rather than merely allowed) in FIDE--when promoting to Queen would result in immediate stalemate, but the lesser promotion could force checkmate on a subsequent move. With three combination pieces to choose from, it is much less likely in this variant,  but analysis is needed to determine if it is possible: if so, underpromotion must be allowed (if and only if stalemate is a draw).

I really like this concept--it's not precisely like anything I've seen, fundamentally simple, yet makes for a very unorthodox game.

So far as I know, Graeme isn't channeling me--perhaps I should channel him and get my creative juices flowing again.

An excellent concept game and I think it will be quite playable. Joe's
whole series of Shatranj variants are fascinating. The varying power
levels of short and medium range pieces with few or no long range pieces
make for something quite different. 

This particular variant with its direction changing moves reminds me of
Jetan.

Let me try restating the rule and Charles can either affirm I am correct,
or he might think of yet another way to express the rule if I am wrong.

1. For the purpose of applying the recruitment rules, we pretend that a
neutral piece can capture a non-neutral piece.
2. After moving a piece, the player who just moved may recruit any piece
which is attacking a piece owned by either White or Black. 
3. If rule two applies to multiple pieces, they can all be recruited.
4. Recruitment is applied recursively, so if a neutral piece which is not
attacking a White or Black piece is doing so after a recruitment, that
piece can be recruited also.

Charles, is recruitment mandatory or is it legal for a player not to make
a recruitment he is entitled to, either by intent or oversight?

By the way, I think this is a fine game concept that deserves more
exploration--I expect there are many ways to apply it in different game
settings.

A fine design. The strong Pawns and the random variablity of the Knights
will produced a a slashing, highly tactical game. Piece values will be
skewed--it will virtually always pay to trade Bishop for Knight, not
infrequently Rook for Knight will work.

A variant worth looking at would be to treat a 5 as 0--this eliminates
some of the longest leapers and brings the Wazir and Dababbah-type leapers
into the game.

A note on dice probabilites: The chance of rolling exactly one 6 on a pair
of dice is 10/36 or 5/18, not the 1/18 chance cited on the page.

The system works quite well. I was able to recreate a page for Decima with
my revisions in about 45 minutes.

When it is approved, would it be possible for an editor to append the
original Decima comments to it and then remove the original Decima page?

I really like this game concept: randomness at a managable level. The
Bermuda Triangle imagery is rather enjoyable as well.

Some rules clarifications: 

1. If a Knight leaps another piece on c3 and c3 is the BCAF, then both the
Knight and the piece leaped over disappear?

2. If a piece captures another piece on d5 and d5 is the BCAF, the catured
piece does not reappear?

The rules as a whole seem to me to indicate that the answer is 'yes' to
both questions--I'd like to hear the designer's intent.

Here is the 'Excellent' I thought I would be giving this fine game.
Having seen it in action while coding the ZRF, I am quite convinced of the
game's quality. 

The piece set is quite interesting and works well together. The Pawns are
unusual but easy to learn to use. The Pawns are quite strong: I'd guess
about halfway between a Ferz and a Knight (slightly closer to Ferz). 

The Forest Ox is the big gun of the board on both offense and defense. 

The Valkyrie is not quite as strong as the Forest Ox, but is much more
powerful than a Queen: the swap move allows if easier developement (can
swap with a Pawn in the opening setup) and more ways of escaping trouble,
while still having all of a Queen's move and capture power. 

Rook and Bishop are minor pieces, with the Rook the stronger but with less
gap between them than in FIDE Chess, since a Valkyrie swap can get the
Bishop to the opposite color.

The idea of the King's movement depending on the friendly pieces adjacent
to it works quite well here and I'd love to see it used in other
variants.

Overall, a highly playable and enjoyable game.

I like this game concept. I thinks that the two Kings will be playable and
it isn't necesary to change the win conditon--a player threatend with the
capture of one of his Kings has a move option not present in FIDE
Chess--the counter-check. You check one of my Kings and I defend by
checking back. You capture my King I capture yours. 

I would suggest a small rules change--whenever a player captures an enemy
King, he must drop it on his next turn. This keeps all four kings in paly
and allows the player with a single King some nice chances of
equalizing--he has three royal targets vs. his opponents one.

A most fascinating game concept. A world of interesting variants can be
developed from this idea. A large board variant with powerful but
short-range pieces comes to mind. Perhaps an 11x11 board with some empty
ships in the center.

For:

1. The inventor's mistaken belief that this is the best chess variant ever invented.

2. Patenting a game whose distinguishing difference from Chess is a lame Bison with an improved movement--an innovation, to be sure, but a small one.

3. His desire to prevent anyone else from using the Falcon in any game (no matter how unlike Falcon Chess).