Comments by MichaelNelson

Agreed, I like Neo-Nemeroth better. I'll include an Inspired by credit and a link.

I have been trying to add a description but the database won't update.

This item now contains a description.

I see that the Alfaerie 1 set for Diagram Designer already has 26 pieces. How would it be possible to add a new piece?

Need to post a board diagram and do some endgame studies.

Edited some minor typos.

This code works perfectly with correctly defined zones:

(define push-n (n (while on-board? (if empty? add (verify false))(if (in-zone? board-edge-n) add (verify false)) cascade n))) (define push-e (e (while on-board? (if empty? add (verify false))(if (in-zone? board-edge-e) add (verify false)) cascade e))) (define push-s (s (while on-board? (if empty? add (verify false))(if (in-zone? board-edge-s) add (verify false)) cascade s))) (define push-w (w (while on-board? (if empty? add (verify false))(if (in-zone? board-edge-w) add (verify false)) cascade w)))

The (verify false)'s are essential to stop move generation when the final square is found, otherwise, Zillions crashes. I decided to use rook-wise pushes to complement the piece's bishop-like move.

You need to define what it means for a piece to travel. I assume it means "move without having a neighbor", but this should be specified.

Made a slight edit: Pawns may promote to basic or compound pieces. This shortens Z vs. Z games from averaging 100+ moves to 50-70, due to typically more aggressive play. Now King+Pawn vs.King is a win if the enemy King can't stop the Pawn. One will always choose a Cardinal in this case. But in more complex positions, other choices may work better.

You're right of course, Bob. Should be interesting pieces, though. Perhaps a game where the winds are extinction royalty? I expect it will use a large board. I may try my hand at it myself in a a day or two.

This page should be ready for publication.

This page should be ready for publication.

The North Wind would be an aggressive attacker with a good deal of forward forking power but relatively poor in retreating, while the South Wind is a rather nice defender but hasn't got much attack potential. Bob, do you feel like designing Four Winds Chess?

I have a complete.zrf and should be able to submit as soon as I build the web pages. The game should be in the editor's hands tomorrow or the next day.

I'm looking for a good name for a piece that moves one square as a Wazir and then continues as a Crooked Bishop. I am using this piece in a game where the four basic piece types are two leapers, one color-bound, and one color-switching; and two sliders, one color-bound, and one color-switching. Three of my basic pieces are Bishop, Knight, and Camel. I devised an approximately Rook-valued piece that is always color-switching. I would also be interested in possible alternative pieces that are color-switching and approximately Rook-valued.

BTW, mating positions do exist for Royal Lion and Amazon vs. Royal Lion, but I'm not sure mate can be forced.

I notice the download link for the Decima .zrf is broken. I am downloading .zrf's for my games and some others, this is the only one missing.

A much better player than Zillions. I notice that version 2.2 is scriptable, and the scripting language looks easier than Zillions' Lisp-based scripting language (which is a monumental pain in the a** to debug--all those nested parens). Does ChessV have a scripting reference? I'd love to see it rather than ask a thousand questions in this thread.

Can the Royal Bishop move across attacked squares? A Chess King when castling cannot, neither can the Royal Queen in the excellent Cassia Britania. I'm assuming the same limitation applies to the Royal Bishop, but the piece description should explicitly say one way or the other. Example, can a Royal Bishop on e5 move to g7 which is not attacked even though f6 is?

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't rule 3 imply that a player with a bare king is stalemated, even if he has legal moves, since he's not allowed to move his king twice in the same turn?

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.

It suddenly started working :)

Definitely reverse the values of bishop and rook. I suppose the prohibtion on splitting the last king even to form another king is to limit the king's mobity, else last king facing capture could move as a split off a bishop and fuse with a rook all the  way accross the board. I wonder if this prohibition is needed for playabilty. My guess is that the case where my king is captured, I capute the enemy king, but opponent can't form a new king on the next turn would be a draw. I think I would prefer the simpler rule "a player who has no king at the start of his turn loses."

The page cleaned up nicely!

Thanks, H. G.

I will try promoting only the Cardinal and related pieces by one class, returning the SuperBishop to class 3, and adding the SuperKnight to class 4. Hopefully, its value is close enough to the SuperRook to be playable--exactness is not required, just as long as it is a fair amount closer in value to the SuperRook than to the Cardinal, Chancellor, or Queen. 

It is an important design goal of mine to have more than one piece in every value class except 1 and 8 (and I wouldn't object to additional pieces in these classes, if any come to mind). Any addition piece suggestions are welcome if there are good numbers available about their values.

The rules as given make the answer to the first question clear: checkmate ends the game immediately (if the checkmating move is legal) per the FIDE rules which apply to this game unless otherwise stated; so what would have happened after is irrelevant. Win for the checkmating player.

The second is unclear--an already stoned piece ignores the effect of being zapped, but does stoning undo the effect of a wand which the piece had been zapped with on a previous turn? This is not limited to the sickness case. For example, does stoning a pacifist piece allow it to resume capturing after the stoning wears off?

I would answer no to the second question, but am far less sure than in the firs question that my understanding of Ralph Betza's intent is correct. If my interpretation is correct, a stoned King will die at the appointed time, as it is now immune to a wand of healing--so the only recourse available to the king's owner is to checkmate, stalemate, or create a second king before the king dies.

There is an error in the initial setup in this preset (taking Betza's page as correct): exchange the k-file bishop with the l-file piece to get the setup Ralph intended.

A question for you, H. G.: is there a document somewhere describing your latest research into the value of chess pieces?

The Excellent is both for Fairy-Max itself, and for your work on Chess engines and piece value.

Yes, in the position cited, either of the the Cannon Pawns on a2 and e2 can act as spotters for Archer on c1 shoots Pushme-Pullyu on c3. No other friendly pieces can spot in this position.

Suggestions of how to reword the rule to make this clearer are in order--as well as any other rewording: I plan to revise this page for clarity (no change in substance).


Perhaps a general statement before the specific piece description such as
"All pieces act on orthogonal or diagonal lines in any direction (though in some cases, limited by distance)."

I'm also thinking it might make the capture rule clearer to phrase it in terms of all shots require a spotter, but if close enough, the Archer can spot for itself.

Editors, which would be easier for you: to review submissions for revised pages, or to grant me editing rights to my own game pages--I am comfortable with either.

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.

I think Joe Joyce's post on "male predominance at chess" make more sense
than the study itself. The explanation of gender differences in Chess may
be simpler yet.  **On average**, men are more likely than women to purse
activities that have no social utility apart from the pleasure of doing
that activity. Chess is in that category (as indeed are checkers, card
games, etc.) No insult intended--I am interested in Chess variants for my
own pleasure and no other reason and feel no need to apologize to anyone
for that fact, and neither judge nor wish to judge anyone else for doing
the same.

I have considered that Chess can teach critical thinking, strategic
planning, etc. Yes it can, but so can a myriad of non-game things useful in
themselves apart from teaching.

"Male predominance at chess" is a current fact of reality. I suspect
there are males who believe this has 1) always been true, 2) always will be
true, and 3) SHOULD be true. A significant number of such males will then
reason by analogy about "male predominance in science", etc.

I won't touch of the idea of a female human being who argues for "male
predominance ...", the very idea terrifies me.

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).

Assuming that the laws of check follow FIDE rules (which is a reasonable assumption for a variant player by orthodox chess masters) Checking both Kings simultaneously is quite possible by discovery or fork, it is not automatically mate in the case of the fork, as the checking piece is potentially capturable, but cannot be answered by interposition or King move. Discovered check whereby each King ends up checked by a different piece is checkmate: there is no possible way to answer both checks. A line piece can also check by pinning one King to the other, for example Kings on a1 and c1, b1 and d1 vacant, enemy Rook moves to e1. This can be answered by capturing the Rook or interposing on d1 (not b1).

I've been corresponding with Matteo about programming this most
interesting game, but I thought I would share with the Zillions programmers
among the CV community. I have solved the first problem: rather than using
last-to? (which would allow the movement of the same piece on the first and
third moves of a turn) I set a has-moved attribute for the piece whenever
it moves, and verify that this attribute is clear before allowing the
move.
After each turn (three moves), I have a random player scan the board and
clear all has-moved attributes, so that all pieces can move freely on the
next turn. This technique will work for any number of multiple moves.

The drops restriction will require a board scan to find the friendly King.

Mr. Zanotelli raises an interesting point. His is indeed a possible way to apply the FIDE Pawn rules to the changed circumstances of this game. But Peter Aronson's way is equally valid. In the case of FIDE Chess, they are equivalent statements of the same rule, as a Pawn cannot make its first move from any place other than the second rank, and a Pawn on the second rank cannot have moved previously--neither of which conditions apply to the Pawn moves of other pieces in this game.

IMHO, Muller's 7 criteria look quite useful for estimating how chess-like a game is--a continuum, rather than a binary is/isn't categorization. They would provide a conceptual framework for observations such as (to intentionally cite an extreme example) Capablanca's Chess is more chess-like than the Game of Nemeroth. Where the line is between chess variant and non-chess games cannot and indeed need not be determined exactly. The question is, is a given game chess-like enough for it to be useful to consider the game a chess variant--can a useful number of Chess concepts be helpful in playing and analyzing the game?

But drawing lines can be fun and useful if it isn't absolutized. Approached in a spirit of 'reasonable people can disagree', everyone should be free to chime in.

As a starting point for looking at some edge cases, I offer my own game Wizards' War for consideration: 
1. It has royal pieces, though capturing them is not the only method of victory.
2. It is entirely pawnless (in the Muller sense--many games are pawnless in the sense of 'this game has no piece that moves like an FIDE pawn').
So is it a chess variant or not and why? Bonus points for citing games that are clearly but not hugely more/less chess-like.

George,is the mate# also one for pieces such as the Amazon which can force
mate without the assistance of the friendly King? Is there a need to
distinguish these pieces from mate number 1 pieces such as the Rook which
can easily force mate with the help of the friendly King but not without
it?

Note that Xiangqi had no divergent pieces until the cannon was added, in the original version all pieces moved passively and captured in the same way. On the other hand, the Pawn in the various forms of early Indo-Persian Chess has been divergent since the earliest known times. If divergence is an evolutionary change, that suggests that Indo-Persian Chess is older that we currently think it is. On the other hand, it could be an import from some non-Chess Indo-Persian game, perhaps acquired from a Greek game at the time of Alexander the Great. This last factor does not apply at all to China.
Note that divergent Pawns are conspicuously absent from Xiangqi, Janggi, and Shogi, but do occur in various SE Asian variants, which have influences fom both China and India.

So I would propose the points:

1. Maybe both the Indo-Persian origin theory and the Chinese origin theory are wrong and two different but somewhat similar games were developed independently, perhaps with some mutual influence on one another.

2. My idea could easily be wrong (probably is).

3. So could anybody's idea be wrong, whether they think Chess originated in China, India, Atlantis, or Mars.

4. Documentary evidence is not definitive, nor is it likely to become so.

5. It ultimately doesn't matter, however interesting the question is.

6. It sure as hell isn't worth
   a. practicing racism, or
   b. accusing others of racism.

Perhaps a rule change for the Go-Away scream is in order. I would suggest something like this:

1. All pushes are executed.
2. Any Human to Zombie promotions are executed.
3. Any effects resulting in piece destruction are executed (engulfment, zombies on ichor or multiple occupancy squares, etc.).
4. Any petrifications are executed. 

All partial moves under a single number would be deemed simultaneous.

Under this proposed rule, the owner of the Go-Away is unable to specify the order of effects. This will reduce the tactical complexity of these moves and hopefully render the programming problem tractable.

Whether it would overly damage the peculiar and interesting flavor of Nemoroth is a question I'm not qualified to answer.

What are the general characteristics of a pawn-like piece? I'd nominate
these characteristics:

1. Most numerous piece type in the game.
2. Weakest piece type in the game.
3. Short range.
4. Non-retreating.
5. Promotes to something decisive (can force mate).

For illustration, consider how several variants stack up:

FIDE Chess: pawn satisfies each criterion perfectly.

Shatranj: Perfect for 1-4, deficient in criterion 5, as K + Ferz that a
pawn promotes to can't force mate (less of a problem with the Shatranj
ruleset as stalemate and bare King are wins).

my own Pocket Mutation Chess: 1-3 is perfect, 4 is not so much so, as a
pawn can retreat via a pocket move, 5 partially not a fit, while the pawn
has a promotion path to a decisive piece, it can only only promote directly
to a Knight or Bishop, which can't force mate.

Betza's For The Birds Chess: 1, 2, 4 and 5 OK but the pawn-like piece has
a long range move.

my own Wizards' War: nothing remotely resembling a pawn in this game (by
design--one of my design objectives was a playable, pawn-less, strong piece
game).

I submit that all the games are playable Chess Variants (broadly defined)
but the better a variant conforms to these criteria, the more
'Chess-like' it is.

Try analyzing some other variants with these criteria and let me know what
you think of this hypothesis, offering alternative/additional criteria if
you wish.

Add my favorable vote to the others. I find the articles interesting and
enjoyable--and I say this as someone who has has disagreements in the past
with Mr. Duke.  If anyone doesn't like them they are easy to skip--no need
for the CVP to spoil it by removing interesting articles.

Thanks to everyone for welcoming me back!
I have updated my profile with my new  email.

I presume that capturing the opponent's King on the eighth rank with your last Pawn also wins. This is clear from the logic of the loss conditions, but you might want to state this explicitly.

Also, stalemating by promoting your last pawn should win.


You may wish to consider triple repetition as a loss--this is fairly common where stalemate is a loss.


I intend these suggestions as minor clarifications for a very fine game.

I'm working on a couple of additional piece sets for PM. One is part of the Short Range Project and the other eliminates Nightriders and provides additional enhancements. In both cases I expect a more strategic, less explosive game.

I am in no way dissatisfied with the classic piece set, I just think providing some alternatives will be interesting for players who like the game concept but would prefer a different feel.

When I have them worked up I will amend the game page and submit a new ZRF.

David is surely correct. Black's Queen is not in check so how can moving
it along the shared line of movement with the Lion put it in check? For
the Lion to capture the Queen, there must be a third piece between them to
act as a screen: Qh1, Qi1, or Qj1 being interpreted as check means that
Black's Queen is being used as its own screen.

A fine start to what I hope will be a lengthy and very informative series.
The various games already generated by this project are first rate and I
expect many more as the work continues. 

I might point out that the shorter range of pieces opens some
possibilities that may be more practical than in games with long range
pieces. Relay Chess leaps to mind, as well as various forms of
Progressive.

While I love the Shatranj Pawns in the variants, I think that a shortrange
piece game with stronger Pawns might be most interesting as well.

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.

The Mammoth is a strong piece. Betza's Atomic Theory suggests a 4-atom
value, equal to a Cardinal. Its lack of range is compensated by
unblockability and excellent coverage of nearby sqaures.

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.

I am most honored that Pocket Mutation Chess was selected as the newest
Recognized Chess Variant and the voted Recognized Variant of the Month the
first time out.

Clearly PM is my finest creation but I never imagined it would join such
august company in under three years.

Roberto, thank you for your comment. I'm putting the finishing touches
on a ZRF and it will be up later this weekend.

Andy, the restriction was added to prevent check on the opening move,
followed by continuing attacks resulting in a White win in 10 moves or so
in most cases. The current rule for the Pao/Vao moves strengthens the
defense as well as weakening the attack.

The idea of Josh getting a hold of rifle cature is pretty scary (though
fascinating).

I have made some small changes to get a playable game--I explaind my
reasoning to Josh and he seemed to get it--saying 'OK, Daddy, I think
that's a good idea.'

Originally Josh allowed the cannon moves without restriction: the piece
leaped over could belong to either side and the move could be capturing or
non capturing. This in combination with the hook move is much too powerful--White's Queen jumps
over its pawn line and checks, then plays King hunt until mate.

But limiting he line pieces to leaping over a friendly piece only make the
game playable. Also, a piece cannot both leap and hook in the same move.

So here is a description of Joshua's Chess as it now stands, pending a
full web page.

Joshua's Chess is played on a 12x12 board with the usual pieces: the
armies are on the back ranks and centered.

The Pawn moves and captures one or two squres straight forward, diagonally
forward, or sideways. These are strong little guys and protect each other
well. A pawn reaching the twelfth rank may optionally promote to any piece
its owner has lost. If the option is not taken, the Pawn may be later
promoted after moving one or two squres sideways on the twelfth rank. No
e.p.

The Knight has its usual move and in addition can leap 3 squares
orthogonally or move a single square orthogonally. This is precisely the
move Joshua invented: he understands the Knight's move to be a L shape,
two squares othogonally then one at right angles: he generalized this by
allowing the one squre move to continue in the original direction or go
back the direction it came.

The Bishop may move and capture normally. It may also move and capture
after leaping diagonally over one friendly piece. A Bishop which did not
leap and finished on an empty sqare may optionally move one squre at right
angles to its original path--a one square hook move.

The Rook is the Bishop's orthogonal counterpart, with the same leaping
and hook move options.

The Queen has the combined Bishop and Rook moves. This is one scary
piece. Though not a powerful as the Queen piece in Betza's Tripunch
Chess, it can use the leap move to develop faster.

The King can has its usual move, can move as a FIDE Knight, or leap to the
second square orthogonally or diagonally. Leaping over check is legal. No
castling.

The Pawns and Knights allow fairly good defense in the opening and
middlegame. In the endgame, K Q vs K and K R vs K are easy: a Rook can
mate unassisted on an empty board. King and any two minor pieces should be
a win. K P vs K should win in most cases--the Pawn can't be blocked.

He knows about Chess variants in a very vague way--that it is possible to play Chess with alternate pieces/rules, but he has never played a variant.

Yesterday Josh and I were playing Chess and he got taken by the Muse (or temporary insanity) and started inventing a variant! He reinvented the Chinese Cannon and its diagonal counterpart as well as the hook move, and used these moves to strenghten the Rooks, Bishops, and the Queen. He also created an augemted Knight and some very powerful pawns.

He also made some design decisions without prompting from Daddy. He decided an unlimited hook move was too strong, so it will be limited to a single square. He also decided that strengthening the other pieces required a stonger King and came up with the idea the the King could move KNAD and could leap over check. He also suggested that stronger pieces might make a better game if placed on a larger board.

It was most fascinating to observe Josh's though processes.

The game seems playable. While I don't expect it to have the acclaim of Demian Freeling's Congo, Joshua is nearly two years younger that Demian was.

I will be creating the ZRF and webpage over the next few days.

David,

The SR Murray Lions seems to be a capital addition to the SR army and
would make for a nice variant. I don't care for pushing the pawn line
forward. I invented it solely, Peter didn't collaborate on this--and I
despise this variant: it ruins the peculiar flavor of Separate Realms.
I'd prefer to  try it on an 8x10 board, or position the Lions as you
suggest and only move the Pawns on the Lion's squares forward.

Clearly K L vs K is a win in most cases in separate realms: K vs K is
decisive if the Kings are on the same color--the King able to gain the
oppositon can force statemate. 

So if the Kings are on the same color, the Lion stays out of it if you
have the oppositon and wastes a move if the enemy has the opposition, thus
giving the oppositon back to you.

If the Kings are on opposite colors and the Lion is on the same color as
the enemy King, forcing a win should be no trouble. If the Lion is on the
same color as the friendly King, it should be quite possible to set up a
position where the Lion is moved adjacent to the enemy King which is
forced to make a losing realm-switching capture.

It would take extensive analysis to demonstrate a forced win in all cases,
but the win percentage is certain to be very high. The only non-trivial K X
vs King ending with the standard SR pieces which is draw is K B vs K with
the K B on the opposite color from the enemy King.

The apparent ambiguity in the Roccoco rules for the Long Leaper were
carried over into the rules for Fugue.

Since the Fugue Long Leaper cannot make multiple captures, there is no
need for the phrase 'jump over adjacent pieces' and I hereby remove it
from the rules. (Could an editor make this change as soon as convenient?)

In Fugue, a capture such as 

+--+--+--+--+--+
|LL|  |p |p | x|
+--+--+--+--+--+

is illegal as a multiple capture in any case, regardless of the ambiguous
'adjacent pieces', while

+--+--+--+--+--+
|LL|p |  |  | x|
+--+--+--+--+--+

is legal as in ultima and Rococco.

For a drawless chess, amend FIDE rules as follows:

1. Stalemate is a loss for the stalemated player.
2. Triple repetion is a loss for the repeating player.
3. If fifty moves by both sides have elapsed since the last capture or
Pawn move, the player who made the last capture or Pawn move may claim a
win.

The problem is in a scoring system the rates two draws as good as a win and possibly the tiebreaker method. The conditions of the contest create incentives to play for draws.

Other games have done worse--I can cite examples in bridge, football, and hockey where the conditions of contest created incentives to lose certain matches.

But then this can happen in Chess in any kind of elimination event. Say I'm assured of qualifying for the next round and in my final game of this round I'm playing A who is 1/2 point ahead of B for the last spot. Now let's say that based on past experience, I just can't beat B. It is to my advantage to dump my game to A to make sure B does not qualify.

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.

Larry is on the right track, but the moves to attack a piece measure will
give false results in some games. 

In Decima, for example, White's usual opening move attacks a Black piece,
yet the game is less sensitive than FIDE chess. 

It may be that number of moves to attack a goal piece is not always
accurate, though no examples spring to mind. Clearly more resarch is
needed to decide the best measure.

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.