[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by PeterAronson
Yellow is the color of mystery in Italy? I wonder if Robert Chambers knew
that. (Robert Chambers was an early writer of supernatural horror who's
work, particularly <u>The King in Yellow</u>, was cited as major influence
by Lovecraft and his circle.)
<p>
Repetition is now forbidden!
<p>
I have printed out your screed to study in the morning, when the sap rises
and the brain cells go off strike.
<p>
Forget the root beer or the Hennepin, what I want is a case of Diet Moxie.
It's the one form of soda that my kids will not filch.
<p>
(I have actually recently dived into the seas of i18n, actually -- talk
about your eldritch horrors! The subtle distinctions between UCS-2 and
UTF-16 will drive me mad, <strong>mad</strong> I say! <i>Mua, ha, ha,
ha . . .</i>)
Some initial thoughts upon reading <b>The Official Rules of Nemoroth</b>.
(Some of which should have been raised by the previous article.)
<p>
<ul>
<li>The Ghast. How is 'two squares' defined -- does a Ghast frighten a
piece a Knight's move away from it?</li>
<p>
<li>Compelled Moves. It is really unclear reading both documents just
<i>who</i> moves the fleeing pieces, the owner or the player who causes
them to flee.</li> I'm assuming the following sequence:
<ol>
<li>A's Ghast is move; A's turn is over.</li>
<li>B moves all compelled pieces, in the order they choose; B's turn is
over.</li>
<li>If B caused any compelled moves, then A must make them as necessary,
otherwise, A may move as they please.</li>
</ol>
If the above is the case, if B's resolution of compelled moves caused
further compelled moves for B (by screaming 'Go Away' at an opposing
Ghast), are they resolved in that turn? If there are multiple such moves
(as B 'ping-pongs' A's Ghast between two Go Aways), could a piece make
multiple compelled moves in a turn this way?
<p>
For that matter, if you are compelled into a square which you must move off
of, is that resolved the same turn or the following turn?</li>
<p>
<li>Petrified Leaf Piles. I think I would have assumed a petrified Leaf
Pile could still engulf if pushed, but the rules state otherwise. I guess
that the assumption is that it isn't mobile enough to engulf anything
anymore.</li>
<p>
<li>The Interaction Matrix. If you actually created a matrix of all the
possible interactions, it might be nice to include it in document as a
table.</li>
<p>
<li>A simplified version of this game could have it when any piece is
pushed into an occupied square, all pieces in the square are crushed and
eliminated, and when a piece is pushed onto an ichorous square, it and the
ichor are also eliminated. This might be useful for starting players.</li>
</ul>
How do you plan to combine the documents? Take the first part of the
original followed by the new? Or perhaps a detailed merging? Or perhaps
just bring the first into compliance with the second, and then have the
second as a link from the first?
<hr>
I am just as glad to have missed the early days of i18n (I was aware of all
the weirdness, but was involved more things like the stability of floating
point numbers through multiple operations in those days).
A couple of tangental issues:
<hr>
Is <b>The Game of Nemoroth</b> a Chess Variant? It would rather depend on
who you asked. On one hand the game is clearly derived from Chess, but on
the other, some believe that a Royal Piece is the sine qa non of a Chess
Variant. Thus, one person classified V.R. Parton's game
<a href='../parton/100Squares.txt'>Damate</a> as not a Chess variant, even
though is played with Chess pieces (albeit using capture by overtaking),
while classifying my game
<a href='http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/towers.html'>Towers</a> as
a Chess Variant, which I did not. Myself, I like a loose definition of
Chess Variant.
<hr>
Why is it that when I encounter an Ultima variant, it inevitably seems
more complex than Ultima, not less? (This includes David Howe's and my
as-yet-unpublished game of <b>Rococo</b> (I haven't forgotten about it
David!)). I guess there something about the game that says: 'this could
be even more complex, try it!'
How did I come to that conclusion? It wasn't a sin of commission, but
perhaps a sin of omission, or perhaps just my mistake. You wrote:
<blockquote>
There are cases in which pieces are compelled to move. When you are under compulsion, you may make any move which removes the compulsion, but if you cannot satisfy the compulsion of at least one piece, you lose. (Think of it as checkmate.)
</blockquote>
Somehow it didn't occur to me that unlike the Go Away, the Ghast's compulsion (and other compulsions) just affected what moves were required
and legal. An alternate wording might be something like:
<blockquote>
There are cases in which pieces are compelled to move. If you have any
compelled pieces, you must move one of them as your move, although you
may choose among your compelled pieces with legal moves. If you have
compelled pieces, and none of your compelled pieces have legal moves, you
are stalemated and thus lose.
</blockquote>
Strangely enough, compelled moves are a bit like capturing moves in
checkers, being higher priority than other moves.
I use a very simple rule for detrmining what's an
Ultima variant or not: if
the author calls it an Ultima variant, it is; if not, it isn't. So The Game of Nemoroth and my game
Interweave are not Ultima
variants since they don't call themselves that (although Interweave
describes itself has being sort of Ultima-like).
Examining this site and The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, I find the following Ultima Variants:
- Bogart's Chess, which replaces a Chameleon and a Long Leaper with an Absorber (which picks up the capture method of each piece it captures) and a Golem, which only moves two but has to be captured twice (this was the inspiration for Golem Chess).
- Renaissance, which is played on a 9x9 board, and adds a Pusher, a Puller, a Resurrector, and a Bomb, and has a limited form of drops of captured pieces (using the Resurrector).
- Stupid, where each piece can move like an Ultima piece and an Orthochess piece.
- Ulti-Matem, except the Pawns have the moves of the Orthochess pieces they would be standing in front of, except for the King's Pawn which is a Double Knight Pawn which makes two Knight's moves in a row in any pattern.
- Ultimate Ultima which you described in this comment system here.
- Unorthodox Ultima, in which a Long Leaper and a Chameleon are replaced by a Neutalizer (which removes the ability to capture of adjacent pieces) and a Repeller which forces an opposing piece moved next to move as far away as possible.
Interweave 
. Game with elements of Checkers and Ultima where all pieces are colorbound and only capture pieces on the other color.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]ZRF updated to fix multiple captures by Remover, revision displayed in
history is now 1.4 for latest version.
Mideast chess. Variant on 10 by 10 board, inspired by ancient Tamerlane chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would have to agree that the Cavalier (Gryphon + Aanca) is a kind of
extreme piece, but if you look at Ralph Betza's note on the value of such
<a href='../piececlopedia.dir/bent-riders.html'>Bent Riders</a>, you will
see that he rates such a piece as being worth slightly less than an
Amazon (Queen + Knight) on an 8x8 board [Although honestly requires me to
add that Ralph himself is not entirely convinced of his piece evaluation
system, although in my experiance it is at least approximately right most
of the time]. On a 10x10 board the Cavalier gains some additional value,
while the Amazon would probably break even (Queen components gain in value,
Knight components lose in value) -- so call the Cavalier a rough equivalent
of an Amazon.
<p>
Now, would two Amazons be too strong for a 10x10 board? It comes down to
a matter of taste I suppose, but I have to suspect that as Tony Paletta
noted in a comment on <a href='../large.dir/full-double-chess.html'>Full
Double Chess</a>, their presence would tend to
reduce the minor pieces to cannon fodder (although there is fun to be had
with weak pieces).
<p>
In any case, I rather like your idea of substituting Cooked Bishops -- the
world needs more games with Crooked Bishops (and where, you may ask are
<em>your</em> games with Crooked Bishops, Mr. Aronson? Err, well, the
<a href='../dpieces.dir/fighting-fizzies.html'>Fighting Fizzies</a> have
a WzFF as a Queen, and otherwise, they're all in the future . . .)
<hr>
I'm commenting on your comment here, rather than by e-mail as you suggested
as that way other people can join in the discussion and have fun.
I realize 'Croocked Bishop' is a typo, but I suddenly find myself wondering
how a drunken Bishop would move . . .
That wasn't the sort of fun I meant, John!
<br>
<br>
Cooked Bishop, eh? There are a lot of meanings of 'cooked', you know.
It can mean to falsify something, or to improvise something, or something
that has been preprocessed, or has a forced solution. Surely one of these
ideas are good for a variant . . .
Choson chess
. Korean game, resembling Shogi, mentioned in a novel.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The rating I really want to give this page is 'interesting'; not
<b>Excellent</b>, <b>Good</b> or <b>Poor</b>, but interesting.
<p>
While the game L. U. Kisljuk describes is perfectly playable, I have real
doubts it ever existed. Much more likely London confused a description
of Shogi with Korea, and gave it a name often used for Korea at that time.
Or possibly he was just passing on someone else's mistake.
I've never heard any evidence that the Koreans played Shogi in the past,
and this is the first 'historical' game I've ever heard of that combined
drops and cannons. Remember Occam's Razor.
The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]You <strong><em>don't</em></strong> want to pronounce Nemoroth correctly.
You really don't. But if you must, <i>do not pronounce that dread name in
a room with any corners!</i> But I'm probably worrying about nothing.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Heh.
Good memory, John! 'The Hounds of Tindalos' (which was by Frank Belknap
Long, one of the Lovecraft circle) was exactly what I was referencing.
<p>
I've been listening to Ruddigore in my car of late (my interest in it being
stirred up again by recent conversations here), and I now somehow
associate The Game of Nemoroth with
<a href='http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/ruddigore/html/night_wind_howls.html'>'When
the Night Wind Howls'</a>.
Gnohmon, 'When the Night Winds Howl' wasn't a rational selection to match
Nemoroth, but rather an association made somewhere in the depths of my
subconscious. And the instrumental component would work well enough.
I spent some (to much!) time last night fooling around with Ruddigore Chess. I started by hacking and slashing up Fergus's Duniho's Chessgi ZRF, and seeing what happened. (Zillions is hardly the only tool suitable for this sort of thing, of course, but it is the one that usually comes to hand for me. Occasionally I worry about the effect this has on my game designing, since if the only tool you have is a hammer, everthing starts
to look like a nail. However, the essay <u>Zillions of Games: threat or
menace</u>, will have to wait for another day.)
<p>
As a frame, the battle represents a Loser-take-all battle between Sir
Ruthven Murgatroyd (white) and Sir Despard Murgatroyd (black) as to who
will be stuck being the cursed Bad Baronet of Ruddigore.
<p>
The initial rules were:
<ol>
<p>
<li><b>Ruddigore</b> Chess is a
<a href='../other.dir/chesgi.html'>Chessgi</a> variant, and all rules of
that game apply except when contradicted below.</li>
<p>
<li>Each turn that a player does not perform a wicked deed by capturing a
piece (their's or their opponent's), they must sacrifice a piece to
the curse. Pieces in hand may be sacrificed. Sacrificed pieces are out of
the game.</li>
<p>
<li>You may capture your own pieces ('If a man can't capture his own,
pieces, <strong>whose</strong> pieces <em>can</em> he capture?'). Pieces
of your own you capture go into your hand.</li>
<p>
<li>The first three turns are a Bank Holiday, and there are no captures or
sacrifices then.</li>
<p>
<li>If you run out of other pieces to sacrifice, and you must sacrifice,
you must sacrifice your King and lose.</li>
</ol>
<p>
The problem with this game, as a few minutes of thought would have told me,
is that it is far, far easier to capture your own pieces than the
opponent's. What you get is mostly self captures with occasional threats
in order to force a piece loss on the opponent, with the goal of having
them run out of pieces to sacrifice first. Not very Chess-like.
<p>
The made the follow changes then, attempting to get more pieces engaged:
<ul>
<p>
<li>Only the King, renamed the Baronet and given the ability to capture
(but not move without capturing) like a Knight in addition to moving
like a King [WFcN], can
capture friendly pieces (if you want something done right . . .).</li>
<p>
<li>The Knights are replaced by Gentlemen, which are limited Nightriders
(NN2).</li>
<p>
<li>Pawns are now Quickpawns which can always move two forward, and I've
eliminated en passant to encourage them.</li>
</ul>
<p>
This made a small difference, but not enough. So I eliminated the Bank Holiday, and made sacrifices required only on even turns (Sir Despard did
all of his wicked deeds in the morning, and did good in the afternoon).
This helped a lot, now you can capture your own piece on an even turn,
and deploy it on an odd one. Now, though, I'm wondering if the Gentlemen
are too powerful, since when dropped they can fork like anything. Maybe
Halfling Nightriders?
<p>
I also find I'm tempted to rename everything: Pawns into Farmers, Bishops
into Vicars, Rooks into Squires, and Queens to Stewards. But on the
other hand, if the move hasn't changed, it is confusing to change the name
of the piece.
<p>
Anyway, this is still very much an on-going project, and I'd appreciate any
advice anyone has.
<a href='http://diamond.boisestate.edu/gas/ruddigore/discussion/short.html'>This</a>
is a wonderful, if silly short summary of the plot of Ruddigore.
I kind of like the current version, and will play with it further. That is: - Sacrifice every other turn - Knights replaced by Halfling Nightriders - Only Baronets (Royal WFcN) can capture own pieces - Pawns are quick Pawns and no en passant I'll try to find some of my usual suspects to playtest with via e-mail, and see how it works.
Well, I do worry about limiting my designs to what works well for Zillions.
Of the 17 or so games I've published since I've learned Zillions
programming, only one -- Transactional Chess -- has not been implemented
with Zillions. This leads me to wonder what games am I 'self-censoring'
in favor the ones that are easily implementable with Zillions. The games
I designed before were often difficult to completely implement for
Zillions; some would merely say that Zillions was simplify causing me to
simply the games, which is all to the good. But there can be simple ideas
that are not simple to implement with Zillions. Chatter Chess would be
a great deal of work to implement in Zillions, for example.
I hadn't worked with halfing Nightriders before -- it's a very nice piece.
All halflings have shorter range the closer they get to the center, but
the hhNN is more extreme somehow, moving like regular Knights when in the
central 4x4 area. I'll have to use them somewhere else someday.
That's a though, David. It does, of course, require you to keep track
of two classes of captured pieces. A few other ideas in that
direction:
<ul>
<p>
<li>Self-captured pieces go into your <em>opponent's</em> hand, not your
own;</li>
<p>
<li>Self-captured pieces turn into 'Prisoners', which can not be dropped,
only sacrificed to pay for the curse (this is a more extreme version of
Ralph's suggestion that self-captured pieces be demoted).</li>
<p>
</ul>
At the moment I'm inclined to allow full self-capturing -- it's, ah,
interesting.
Warp Point Chess. Knights are replaced by Warp Points that other pieces can move between. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A very clean design with lots of tactical interest.
Spinal Tap vs Terror Chess. The Spinal Tap Chess army vs the Terror Chess army in the battle of the 11x11 variants. (11x11, Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It's nice to see a game of different armies on a large canvas. It's hard
to tell if it is balanced or not, but I wonder if balance is as important
at this scale: both sides possibly having more material than they can
effectively use. Or is 11x11 with 22 pieces a side too small for that
sort of effect?
ICBM Chess. I(inter)-C(hess)B(oard) M(issle) Chess, where you can throw a piece to capture as well as make normal moves. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would recommend safety goggles and a digital camera (to record board
positions) as useful equipment for this game.
Elevator Chess. Multiple boards with simultaneous games are linked through central elevator squares.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I could see times when you might send a piece up or down the elevator just
to clear an attack lane.
Spinal Tap vs Terror Chess. The Spinal Tap Chess army vs the Terror Chess army in the battle of the 11x11 variants. (11x11, Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Well, given that in Tai Shogi pieces promote when they capture (I think), he might have been discussing something other than material.
84 Spaces Contest. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The editor handling the contest, Fergus Duniho, hasn't been available to work on it of late. But there's plenty of time, and it will be caught up eventually.
I don't think simply removing the Pawns from the FIDE array would make a good game. Consider Derek Nalls various all-rider Chess variants -- they use rather different arrays indeed.
<p>
Maybe something like:<b><pre>+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| r |:q:| k |:r:| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|:b:| n |:n:| b |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| B |:N:| N |:B:| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|:R:| Q |:K:| R |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+</pre></b>
Of course, different pieces might work even better, such as halfling pieces or powerful but short ranged pieces, such as Half-Ducks for Rooks and FAD's for Bishops and a FAWDH for a Queen. Experimentation is certainly the key here.
The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]There's a mistake here -- Ralph didn't want the previous page
<strong>replaced</strong> by the rules page, he wanted it to reference it
or be merged with it! I have a copy of the old page at work and will fix
it on Monday, unless one of the other editors has a pre-modification copy.
<p>
Sorry Ralph!
OK, I've gotten ahold of the original page, and will attempt to merge them this weekend. John Lawson has also promised me the e-mail notation when he has time from making his house unnaturally clean.
OK, the pages have been combined and uploaded. Please send all complaints to king-in-yellow@hastur.eldergods.org.
Err, I don't think Project Gutenburg is using FFEN -- just plain text.
Ruddigore Chess. Chessgi variant where you can capture your own pieces, and every other turn you must capture or sacrifice a piece. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Seems to me that Basingstoke indicates a temporary mitigation of the situation, not a permanent cessation; thus Basingstoke seems to me to be inappropriate for an offer of a draw. However, 'Beware! Beware! Beware!' is a perfectly good way to declare check.
Anti-King Chess. Each player has both a King and an Anti-King to protect; Anti-Kings are in check when not attacked. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I do seem in general to have been influenced by Parton. I share his
interest in non-replacement capture; although in my case I came to Chess
Variant design from a general interest in games, and have looked at many
games over the years with many forms of capture.
<p>
But many of my games seem to owe somthing to Parton: Snark Hunt, Jumping
Chess and Interweave in particular.
<p>
But there could be worse models.
Oh, I took Partonesque as a compliment! It's just my regretable tendency towards weak statements that made it sound otherwise. I'm a big fan of V.R. Parton's work.
Interweave . Game with elements of Checkers and Ultima where all pieces are colorbound and only capture pieces on the other color.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Another fix, I'm afraid, this time for a capture by a Pawn landing on the
7th rank, and not promoting. Previously, if you did not promote, you did
not actually capture, which was wrong. ZRF is now at Rev. 1.5.
Ruddigore Chess. Chessgi variant where you can capture your own pieces, and every other turn you must capture or sacrifice a piece. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I am convinced! The last paragraph of the <b>Notes and Comments</b>
section now contains the suggested terminology.
Well, to damn it with faint (or dubious) praise, it seems reasonable to me,
at least at first blush.
<p>
With forced captures and an attainment goal, the play will not be
particularly Chess-like, I suspect. Not that that's a problem.
<p>
It has some simularities to
<a href= '../diffobjective.dir/giveaway.html'>Losing Chess</a>, but only
in the middle. I do wonder if the board will just become hopelessly
clogged, particularly the middle board. The problem is, pieces
can only be forced to move by offering them captures, and captures can
only be offered <strong>on</strong> the squares you want to be able to
move pieces <em>off</em> of.
<p>
Perhaps some form of capture other than elevation is required for the
outer boards, such as <a href='../difftaking.dir/circe.html'>Circean</a>
capture where captured pieces are returned to their starting square.
<h4>CV Descriptions as Literature</h4>
Ralph Betza recently complimented on how my page on <A
HREF='../other.dir/ruddigore-chess.html'>Ruddigore Chess</A> was
written. This led me to think about Ralph's excellent pages for <A
HREF='../other.dir/nemoroth.html'>The Game of Nemoroth</A>, and
wonder: can an Chess variant's description also be a work of
literature?
<P>
(Let me note that in my view, literature comes in a quite a large range
of quality, and piece of writing does not have to be to the standards
of F. Scott Fitzgerald or James Joyce to qualify. The fast and loose
definition I'm going to use here is that literature is writing of at
least reasonable quality, intended to be pleasurable or moving to
read. (The intelligentsia may now commence my immolation.))
<P>
A possibly analogous situation.
One of my two degrees is in geography, and of course I was educated in
its history. Until the late 19th Century, Geography (with the
exception of Cartography and related disciplines) was primarily a
descriptive science, and could be and was looked at as a variety of
literature -- the literature of place. A piece of geographic writing
was judged almost as much by the quality of its writing as the
correctness and completeness of its facts.
<p>
Chess variants as described in these pages are a combination of rules
and description, of algorithm and literature. While I would hardly
suggest that the quality of the writing is anywhere near as important
as the quality of the rules, yet sometimes the writing is very good.
If you search through these pages, you will admittedly, find many
bare-bones or clumsy descriptions of Chess variants. Often it is not
the fault of the author, who may be laboring with a foreign language,
or simply not have time or writing experience for the type of
description they would like to produce. And opinions vary; as editor,
I have corresponded with authors who prefered a very minimalist
presentation of their designs. But still, if you wander through these
pages, you will find stories and jokes and puns, references to arts
and popular culture, small essays on the processes of designing and
playing games, and snatches of biography and history. Sort of a
literary smorgasbord.
<p>
Does all of this additional material add or detract from the rules
that are the <I>raison d'etre</I> of the pages in the first place?
Do readers like their Chess variants straight, or with a splash of story?
This is looking interesting. Have you tried it yet? If you don't have an opponent it would be easy enough to program for Zillions, given that Halflings have been figured out for ZRF.
<p>
In his page on <a href='../dpieces.dir/amontillado.html'>Amontillado
Chess</a>, Ralph Betza speculates that a Halfling Nightrider is worth
in the neighborhood of 1/2 a Queen, or approximately the value of a Halfling Queen. I don't see this as a problem with your game, mind you, but if it is correct players will have to be careful to keep in mind the new balance of power amongst the pieces.
<p>
I do wonder about the piece density -- 16 pieces on 64-squares do seem to rattle around a bit. I suppose you could double the back rows except for the Kings, although I'm not sure that would improve matters.
<p>
I'm not sure if it necessary, but if the game tends to end in draws even with the stalemate rule, you could also add victory by Bare King.
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Well of course elegance is in the eye of the beholder, but that's hardly a satisfying answer, is it?
<p>
Why only one doubled piece? Well, the descent of Rococo is from Orthochess via Ultima, and in Orthochess of course there are three pairs of pieces, while in Ultima there are two pairs, and Rococo has one pair. It seems as piece types are added, doubled pieces are removed.
<p>
But that's history, not an answer. One way to look at it as is that pieces in Rococo are either <strong>paired</strong> or <strong>doubled</strong>. Here are the pairs:
<p>
<ul>
<li>King and Chameleon. This is the weakest pairing, but does correspond roughly to Orthochess's King and Queen: the piece the must be captured and the piece that captures in the most ways.</li>
<p>
<li>Advancer and Withdrawer. The two mirrored capture methods, also the two capture methods borrowed from Fanorona.</li>
<p>
<li>Immobilizer and Swapper. The piece that stops opposing pieces from moving, and the piece that can move opposing pieces.</li>
<p>
</ul>
This leaves the Long Leaper doubled up, as it doesn't seem to have a logical complementry partner. Can you think of one?
The Fair First Move Rule in Chess. Every turn you flip a coin to see who goes first.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]<blockquote>
'The only other rule I can think of is that if it's your move and the
other player is already in check, you cannot capture the King but you
can play any other legal move you choose'
</blockquote>
This also deals with the discovered check problem in multiplayer variants:
that is, when player A moves a piece that was blocking player B's piece,
so now player B's piece attacks player C's King, and the turn sequence is
A-B-C so player C never gets a chance to move out of check before being
captured.
Anti-King Chess . Each player has both a King and an Anti-King to protect; Anti-Kings are in check when not attacked.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Now updated to Rev 1.5 to fix a bug in the Anti-King's King's leap where the leap could be made after making normal moves.
Chess with Different Armies. Betza's classic variant where white and black play with different sets of pieces. (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Actually, this ought to be Excellent to the Nth Power! I am glad to see this game on a prominent page of its own, for while it's been on this site for years, you had to know where to find it, and as a Chess variant designer this (and the associated work that Ralph did to support it) has been one of the games that has influenced me the most. Bravo!
Anti-King Chess. Each player has both a King and an Anti-King to protect; Anti-Kings are in check when not attacked. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for the kind words, Tomas. And yes, if you manage to obtain double-check, your opponent must relieve both of them or it is mate.
The Fighting Fizzies. An Experimental Army for Chess with Different Armies.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]No warrentee is provided on the following idle speculation. Any damages
resulting from incorrect application of others work is not the problem
of the author.
<p>
Since I wrote this, Ralph has revised his estimate of the value of the
Crooked Bishop back down to about a Rook (see:
<a href='../piececlopedia.dir/crooked-bishop-revisited.html'>The Crooked
Bishop Revisted</a>). (Peter Hatch's revision, if I understand it
correctly, if correct, would only
make 0.04 of a Rook's difference, or about 1/5 a Pawn.) That means my
estimated value for the
Eaglescout is off. Using Ralph's colorbound correction number of 1.15,
the value of the Eaglescout can be calculated as:
<blockquote>
<pre>1.15 * 4.5 + 1.5 = 6.67 Pawns</pre>
or
<pre>1.15 * 5.0 + 1.5 = 7.25 Pawns</pre>
</blockquote>
depending on what value you use for a Rook. This is roughly equivalent to
the value of a Cardinal:
<blockquote>
<pre>1.15 * 3 + 3 = 6.45 Pawns</pre>
</blockquote>
(There appears to be missing 2nd correct factor for the Knight's
contribution, since the Knight is no longer color switching -- surely that
ought to be worth something?). Anyway, that makes the Eaglescout worth a
bit more than a Cardinal, but not that much, but still noticable weaker
than a Queen. However, given the Army seems strong enough or too strong,
there's nothing wrong with that.
<p>
This downgrading of the value of the Eaglescout makes me wonder again:
is the strength of the army due to the combination of the pieces, or is
perhaps the value of the Left- and Right-Rhinos and maybe Crabinals higher
than estimated?
The comment about the Knight's contribution was regarding the Cardinal (not Crabinal) whose value I was comparing the Eaglescout against. It seemed to me that a color-switching piece paired with a non-colorswitching piece might also have some sort of correction factor, smaller than the 1.15 for colorbound pieces, but greater than 1.0.
It's an interesting point that I hadn't noticed before, but indeed all of your classic armies for CWDA have at least some pieces that suffer somewhat in the endgame. I can see now where an army without any pieces with endgame weakness would be unbalanced. So much to take into account!
Not a Dodgson System Chess. Four player variant, using Alice chess movement. Win by taking most of the eliminated players pieces. (2x(7x6), Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This looks amusing. It does seem that the scoring system encourages the other players to turn on the first player significantly damaged like starving wolves, lest they be left without any pieces of the eliminated player when it comes time to score. Not a game to play with someone who takes attacks personally! An omnidirectional Pawn is actually mWcF -- mFcW is an omnidirectional Berolina Pawn. This page might benefit from an ASCII diagram to backup the Javascript -- I first looked at it with Javascript turned off and was puzzled.
FireFighter Chess. A game where one piece is a secret fire fighter with special powers. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Links added -- sorry about missing them the first time! And I see John actually beat me to the punch.
<h4 align=center>What's the Value of a White Elephant?</h4>
Here are some thoughts on a variant I've played around with, but never
finished as I was uncertain about the balance. I thought they might
be of minor general interest, so here they are.
<P>
Sometime back, after reading the Piececlopedia article on the <a
href='../piececlopedia.dir/alfil.html'>Alfil</a>, I started thinking about
the other sort of Elephant piece, the one that moves like a Ferz or
one step forward (fWF), found in <A
HREF='../oriental.dir/burmese.html'>Sittuyin</A> (Burmese Chess) as
the Elephant, in <A HREF='../oriental.dir/thai.html'>Makruk</A> (Thai
Chess) as the Thon, and in <A HREF='../shogi.html'>Shogi</A> (Japanese
Chess) as the Silver General.
<P>
It's a simple piece, but what is it worth? A <A
HREF='../piececlopedia.dir/ferz.html'>Ferz</A> is generally accepted
to be worth about 1/2 a Knight (balancing colorboundness with a good
forward move), but how much more does that single forward move add?
I'm not as scientific about these sorts of things like Ralph Betza is,
but it does add a lot. First, an Elephant is not colorbound like a
Ferz is, and second, its forward moves are the same as a <A
HREF='../piececlopedia.dir/man.html'>Commoner's</A>. In fact, you could
look at an Elephant as 5/8's of a Commoner, which is generally considered
a Knight-valued piece and about which Ralph Betza says:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a very short-range and very flexible piece that is much weaker
than a Knight in the opening, very strong in the middlegame if it can
occupy the center, and almost always wins against a Knight or Bishop
in the endgame.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, an Elephant is less flexible in the endgame where the
opposing pieces very well might not be in front of it. But on the
other hand, it has the three most useful moves of the Commoner for the
opening. So we'll assume 5/8's of a Knight is about right; roughly
two Pawns.
<P>
The next thought I had on the subject was what if I were to combine
the Alfil and the Elephant? This produced a piece that moved one or
two (jumping) diagonally or one square forward. Looking at this, I
realized that if I added a two square jump forward (yielding fWFfDA) ,
I would repeat the shape of the Elephant's move (supposedly four legs
and a trunk) on a slightly larger scale. Thus was born the 'Great
Elephant'.
<P>
Now, what's the Great Elephant's value? It attacks 10 squares on an
empty board, and it is neither colorbound nor colorchanging. The
simplest calculation would be a Knight and a quarter -- 3.75 Pawns.
The lack of colorchanging might kick it up to as much as 4 Pawns.
<P>
OK, the actual variant. Thinking about Ralph Betza's game of <A
HREF='../d.betza/chessvar/ghost.html'>Black Ghost</A>, where black is
given a piece worth less than a Pawn to balance white's first turn
advantage, I decided to give white an Elephant-based army worth a tiny
bit less than black's in order to balance white's first turn advantage.
<h4 align=center>White Elephant Chess</h4>
The rules for <B>White Elephant Chess</B> are as for <A
HREF='../ichess.html'>FIDE Chess</A>, except where stated otherwise.
<P>
White's Bishops are replaced by Elephants (fWF), and Knight's by Great
Elephant's (fWFfDA). Black's array is the usual FIDE array.
<P>
Pawns may promote to any non-Pawn, non-King piece that started the
game on either side (Elephant, Knight, Bishop, Great Elephant, Rook or
Queen).
<hr>
My suspicion (backed up unreliably by Zillions) is that white might be
a tad <STRONG>too</STRONG> weak. I tried adding the Alfil's move to
the white Queen's to produce the Queen Elephant, but that didn't seem
right, either.
While I am certainly willing to believe in the inaccuracy of playtesting
as
a means of determining the value of pieces (unless, of course, there are
a
great number of games played by strong players), still, I have some
trouble
thinking of the Great Elephant as a Rook-equivalent piece.
<p>
And I wonder. While almost 1/2 the value of the Wazir might come from
its
forward move, does that mean that that forward move necessarily adds 1/2
of the value of a Wazir to a piece, like the Ferz, which already has
considerable forward movement? In the Great Elephant's case, the fWfD
component adds two forward moves to a piece that has four already -- it
seems to me that there ought to be some principle of diminishing returns
here. There is also the strange issue of directional colorboundness;
that
the Elephants are colorbound when moving backwards but not when moving
forwards.
<blockquote><i>
It has two full atoms, half of another, and a quarter of another; this puts
it already in the Rookish range, though maybe a bit weak. The partial atoms
are the forward parts, which must boost it to full Rookitude.
</i></blockquote>
Well, as I count it, it has two full atoms, and the quarter of <em>two</em>
others. Now, I am certainly willing to accept that 0.5 of the value of the
W is due to its forward move, but what I am less convinced of, I guess, is
whether the W forward move by itself <strong>adds</strong> that much to of
the value of the W to another piece that already has forward moves. It's
at least an interesting question, I think.
<p>
If the Elephant is 0.75 N, and the Great Elephant is 1.5 N, then the White
Elephants are about 0.5 N too strong (the exact amount depending on your
opinion of the relative values of the N and B). If that's the case, maybe
the Queen should be replaced by the War Elephant, Rook + Alfil Rider (RAA)
-- this should be about the proper balance, since a Rook + Alfil would
be a full 0.5 N weaker than a Queen, but since the Great Elephants are a
tiny bit weaker than Rooks, maybe, and there's the Bishop differential,
the extra strength of the AA over the A ought to just balance things.
<p>
<hr>
Captain Spalding Chess!? -- Marxist!
Captain Spalding Chess. Find an Elephant in your Pajamas.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This does look like fun! It's an interesting question if it is better to play your Rhino and Headless Rhinos early, or to keep them safe in the box. Elephants and Great Elephants of course should come out and play as
soon as possible.
<p>As for Lint to Dust Bunny to Dust Demon -- you may have found another great train of evolution to rival Paperclip to Coathanger to Bicycle.
<p>As for the credits, your stuff has long and often had a light-hearted (and
erudite) touch -- you didn't really get it from me.
Chaturanga . Version with fancy graphics.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I agree with Tony -- very pretty! And I've already appropriated the
Elephant graphic.
Alpha Variant Font. More Alfaerie graphics, plus a preview of the new Alpha Variant font.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A worthy project! And a valuable addition to the available Chess variant graphics.
White Elephant Chess. Four variants pitting the white Elephant army against black with the normal FIDE array. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Pink Elephants! I gotta think about that one -- there's something there, I'm sure.
The Drunken Elephant or Suizo moves like a King, except not directly backwards (fsWF). It promotes (by capturing) to a Crown Prince (!), which is essentially a spare King. It's found in Chu Shogi and most other large Shogis.
The Drunken Elephant or Suizo moves like a King, except not directly backwards (fsWF). It promotes (by capturing) to a Crown Prince (!), which is essentially a spare King. It's found in Chu Shogi and most other large Shogis.
White Elephant Chess . Four variants pitting the white Elephant army against black with the normal FIDE array.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]OK, I fixed the Mammoth -- current ZRF revision is 1.3.
PASGL 312 Chess. Critters steal lunch in the forest, while trying to get close to the campfire and avoid the train. (Cells: 68) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I've merged the additional material at the end, and added the notation additions.
Captain Spalding Chess. Find an Elephant in your Pajamas.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]If you move a piece next to two or more Cookie Monsters simultaneously, what happens? Do they all leap on it and devour it, and disappear? Or does the moving player choose one?
Knightmare Chess. The American version of Tempete sur l'Echiquier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Tastes do vary. At 44 I no longer qualify as a 'younger player', but I
have to admit that after winning the game in a contest, I looked it over
two or three times, and then put it on a shelf where it remains today, due
to the (to me) unpleasent artwork. Life is too short to expose myself to
that sort of thing. But then, as I said, tastes vary -- the world
contains many people who enjoy horror novels and long dreary Russian
novels.
But in this case, the theme is not instrinsic to the variant, but to the
particular edition of the variant. The original version of the game
-- Tempete sur l'Echiquier -- used the same rules but different artwork
on the cards. This is a case of effect of production choices on the
resulting game.
Captain Spalding Chess. Find an Elephant in your Pajamas.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Another question: if the Box moves to a square adjacent to the 8th rank, may it play a Bat on the 8th rank? If so, is the Bat stuck there, or does it instantly promote to a BOOH?
An alternate approach to balancing Colorboundmost Chess would to follow the path used in other double-move variants -- only have white make a single move on their first move. I would suggest having white make their first move on white, so that each player would make the first move on their King's color. Once you have white making only a single starting move, it should no longer be possible for black to mirror white, so race rules could be applied.
Knight Scattering Chess. Knights can neither capture nor be captured, but instead can move opposing pieces a Knight's move away. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Karl, in <u>Knight-Relay Chess</u> you get to move your <strong>own</strong> pieces a Knight's move away from one of your Knights like a Knight -- in <u>Knight Scattering Chess</u> you get to move one of your <strong>opponent</strong>'s pieces a Knight's move from one of your Knights. Not a big change in the rules, but this results in a very different game.
Contest to design a chess variant on a board with 42 squares. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]<h4>Progress Report</h4>
The judges have <strong>not</strong> actually fled the country, but
continue to work on the contest. Since we decided to play
all of the entries <em>twice</em>, that's 42 email games. However, we
are down to 10 games left, all currently in simultaneous progress.
<p>
Thank you for your patience.
When I go to sleep at night, I often try to think about something
interesting or pleasant while I drift off. Last night I found myself
thinking about an odd Chess piece.
<p>
The piece moves without capturing like a Dabbabah-Rider (repeated leaps
of two squares in the same orthogonal direction), but captures like a
Rook. So, mDDcWW or mDDcR in Ralph's funny notation.
<p>
And I found myself wondering: how powerful is this piece, and what sort
of game or problem would it be good for? I has a number of curious
characteristics: except for capturing, it is doubly colorbound, being
restricted to 1/4 of the board; and while it can switch by capturing,
at any time it can only attack 1/2 of the board.
<p>
It seems to me that this piece is vaguely cannon-like, being more powerful
in the opening and midgame than the endgame. It also seems to me that it
might be a very charming part of a piece mix. Any thoughts?
Vierschach. 19th Century 4-player game where allies start off at right angles to each other. (14x14, Cells: 160) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jared, the Zillions implementation of Chaturanga 4-84 does exactly that, and seems to play pretty well.
I considered the Bishop equivalent, but decided it would likely be
too weak.
<p>
Mike Nelson has proposed a game based on these sorts of pieces -- you
can see it in the comments for Colorboundmost Chess. My suspicion is
that there would not be enough power in the board in the endgame, making
the game drawish.
I think the weakened King might to the trick, though I would express the funny notation as FcW. The resulting game ought certainly to be different!
Jörg, I'm not sure about the can-mate part. It seems to me that in a lot
of situations the piece would result in stalemate, not mate.
<p><hr><p>
Mike, I threw together a crude ZRF of your game last night -- it seems to
play OK. But I was wondering if stalemate ought to be a loss instead of
a draw, as the nature of the game makes it more likely, as does,
unfortunately, changing the King from WF to FcW.
<p>
By the way, do you have a name for it?
Actually, Mike the ZRF was pretty easy -- just a quick modification of the
standard Chess ZRF. I still need to update the piece descriptions.
<p>
Names . . . hmm. Maybe:
<menu>
<p><li>
Quarterbound Chess;
</li><p><li>
Odd Piece Chess;
</li><p><li>
Stuttering Chess;
</li><p><li>
Skipping Chess;
</li><p><li>
Transfering Subsets Chess;
</li><p><li>
Nelson-Aronson Odd Piece Chess;
</li><p><li>
Separate Realms or Separate Realms Chess.
</li></menu><p>
Once we decide, someone ought to put a page together for it.
<p>
If stalemate is a loss, then by Ralph's Rule Zero, so is 3-times
repetition.
<p>
I'm not sure bare King is the best choice for this game. Given that
stalemate is a loss, and the King is fairly weak, I think you'd lose
some interesting endgame play that way.
So, Mike, who's going to do the page? <pre><g></pre>
That's a neat mate, Jörg!
<p>
Does that mean Separate Realms Chess could go back to using a standard
King? I think I like the current King, even if it isn't strictly
necessary, since it carries the theme of the game to completion -- every
piece restricted to some subset of the board when not capturing.
Chaturanga. The first known variant of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Honestly! See Jean-Louis Cazaux's page on the relative ages of 2-handed
and 4-handed Chaturanga. It can be found at:
<ul>
<li><a href='http://www.chez.com/cazaux/chaturanga.htm'>http://www.chez.com/cazaux/chaturanga.htm</a>
</ul>
Neither Forbes nor Cullen are considered exactly up-to-date sources, you
know.
Separate Realms. Pieces capture like normal FIDE pieces, but have limited moves that only take them to part of the board when not capturing. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Michael, I've changed the reference from Asymmetric Chess to Biform Chess -- thanks for pointing that out!
Joerg,
<p>
That sounds like the French game described in the ECV as Djambi -- you
can find some information on the Internet if you search under that name,
including a (French) retailer who apparently still sells it. The
inventor's name is Jean Anesto.
<p>
There's an extensive page in French on the game at:
<a href="http://jeuxsoc.free.fr/d/djamb_rg.htm">http://jeuxsoc.free.fr/d/djamb_rg.htm</a>
84 Spaces Contest. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have a slight concern that because nothing about the contest was being posted for so long, some people may have thought that the contest itself was on hold, and hence not sent in their entries. If that is the case, then it would, I think, be unfair to disallow them to submit those entries.
<hr>
As an aside, none of this affects me personally as I decided I've won enough contests here of late, and are only sending in non-competing entries.
Colorboundmost and Nearly Colorboundmost Chess. Games with all pieces either completely or almost completely colorbound. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]You could have a version of Castlingmost Chess with captures -- when castling with a friendly piece not separated from the castling piece by
friendly pieces, any opposing pieces between them are captured. You may still castle with opposing pieces, just not capture in those cases.
Vierschach. 19th Century 4-player game where allies start off at right angles to each other. (14x14, Cells: 160) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Ralf -- what browser were you using when your workstation crashed? I've tried this page with Netscape 4.7 on Solaris and IE 5 on Windows/NT and IE 5.5 on Windows 98 with no problems.
Vyrémorn Chess. Large variant on two overlapping square boards. (Cells: 132) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Actually, the inventor's <em>ISP</em> seems to be missing. Has anyone
heard anything about xoom.com lately? I couldn't find any news articles claiming it had been shutdown or anything, but I could have missed them.
All-mate Chess. Pieces are captured by having them `checkmated'. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Having consulted the Encyclopedia of Chess variants, I think I can answer
your questions:
<ul><p><li>
Yes, you must capture mated pieces.
</li><p><li>
All mated pieces are captured, in the order chosen by moving player.
</li><p><li>
If more pieces are mated (of either side) by the removal of mated
pieces, then those pieces are captured as well.
</li></ul>
My rules don't say, but in general in Chess you are not allowed to make
any move that causes your King to be attacked, so the move you describe
might not be kosher. I don't know.
Whoops! I missed the part about check being ignored. I guess if, by selecting the order in which pieces are mated you mate the opposing King before yours is, you do win. Sorry about that!
I've updated the page, except for the last point,
since I am not 100% sure of that one.
<p>
Thanks for the good questions, Robert!
Vierschach. 19th Century 4-player game where allies start off at right angles to each other. (14x14, Cells: 160) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jörg? Do you agree with Ralf? It's your article, but if you want me to make the change he says is correct, I'll make it.
OK, Jörg the figure is corrected and Ralf's author and reference
information has been incorporated.
<p>
Ralf, I have made the diagrams one over the other instead of side-by-side.
I haven't been able to reproduce your problem, even using a very similar
release of IE, and I suspect the problem lies in the workstation's print
driver. Possibly it was having problems with such a wide page. If so,
this may have fixed it.
Hobbit Chess . Two variants, 8x8 and 9x9, using hobbits as superpawns.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is a nice idea, but the pieces you call Hobbits have been around for
a while. For example, John Williams Brown called them Stewards, and used
them in <a href='../large.dir/contest/cenchess.html'>Centennial Chess</a>;
however, this is a nice use of them.
<p>
As for the 9x9 game, I notice that all four Bishops are on White. Now,
some people like it like that -- consider Gabriel Maura's game of
<a href='../large.dir/modern.html'>Modern Chess</a> which also has four
Bishops on the same color -- but you still might want to consider something
like Carlos Cetina's <a href='../varvar.dir/bcr.html'>Bishop's Conversion
Rule</a>, when one Bishop has to change color on its first move.
Ludus Equitum. Dice chess variant, using standard set and two dice, designed in a 13th-century style for the SCA. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I do like to see a good Chess variant with dice once in a while. So many
variant designers and players have an attitude about anything with a random
element which I suspect stems from delusions about the predictablity of
the real world.
Knightmate. Win by mating the knight. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]What about this situation (white to move):
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
8 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
7 |:::| P |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
6 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
5 |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
3 |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1 |:n:| |:::| |:N:| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
a b c d e f g h
If white b8=Q or b8=R, then stalemate. If b8=B, then I believe there is insufficient material for mate -- thus b8=K. I'm fairly sure that K+N can mate bare N. If not, add a B at g1. Two B on the same color + N vs N is still not promising, but K+B+N vs N is surely enough!
Hmm. A Problem with my previous post -- White could move their Knight, then on the following move promote the Pawn to Queen.
However, this situation ought to do it.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
8 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
7 |:::| P |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
6 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
5 |:n:| |:::| |:N:| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
3 |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1 |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
a b c d e f g h
Since white better promote the Pawn or black will take it.
According to the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, in Knightmate a K can mate a N unaided, so my solution to your challenge stands.
Chaturanga. The first known variant of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The real problem in determining which came first, Chaturanga or Xiangqi (or more likely, the ancestors of each) that when you come down to it, historically games have not been considered important enought to be frequently mentioned in the historical record. Last I knew, we had earlier clear mentions for Chaturanga than Xiangqi, but this may not mean very much -- both games could easily have been played for centuries without making their way into a surviving document.
<p>
Of course, there is also the issue that with commerce between east and west, the two games could have 'co-evolved' with <em>neither</em> of them coming clearly before the other.
Knightmate. Win by mating the knight. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Valid point. However, this version of the problem, with white to move:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
8 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
7 |:::| P |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
6 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
5 |:n:| |:::| |:N:| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
3 |:B:| |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1 |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
a b c d e f g h
Should do it. After b8=K, black Nb3 is forced. After white Kb7, the black N is pretty well trapped.
I have a few games to recommend, some are mine, many are not:
<ul>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../41.dir/clash/clashrules.html'>Clash of Command</a> by Peter Strob.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../diffmove.dir/chosen-chess.html'>Chosen Chess</a> by Gianni Cottogni.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../41.dir/fastlane.html'>Chess in the Fast Lane</a> by Francois Tremblay.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../32turn.dir/wormhole.html'>Wormhole Chess</a> by Fergus Duniho.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../other.dir/chessonlongboard.html'>Chess on a Longer Board with a Few Pieces Added</a> by David Howe.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../diffmove.dir/augmented.html'>Augmented Chess</a> by Ralph Betza.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../diffmove.dir/golem-chess.html'>Golem Chess</a> by Peter Aronson and Ben Good.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../other.dir/rococo.html'>Rococo</a> by Peter Aronson and David Howe.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../diffmove.dir/separate-realms.html'>Separate Realms</a> by Mike Nelson and Peter Aronson.
</li>
<p>
<li>
<a href='../other.dir/ruddigore-chess.html'>Ruddigore Chess</a> By Peter Aronson.
</li>
</ul>
<p>
And that's 10, but I easily could add another 10, but that would be excessive.
Just commenting on the overlaps, <a href='../41.dir/takeover.html'>Takeover
Chess</a> and <a href='../other.dir/captain-spalding.html'>Captain
Spalding Chess</a> were on my next list, too. And on any given day, which
game is on which list could change easily.
<p>
<hr>
<p>
It's not what you meant, David, but I had a sudden thought of Double-Move
<a href="../other.dir/chessonlongboard.html">Chess on a Long Board with a
Few Pieces Added</a>. I can see players being
<strong>very</strong> willing to expend some material to nail their
opponent's Wall! Might be fun, though.
Captain Spalding Chess . Find an Elephant in your Pajamas.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Glenn, what's your rev of Zillions, and what operating system are you
running on? I had problems with the ZRF earlier, but they were fixed by
not combining self-capture and add-partial in the same move.
<p>
As for not repeating the board position, I'm only checking for the simple
case of undoing a previous neutral move -- Zillions isn't capable of
anything else, unfortunately (but then, human players are pretty limited
there too). Actually, I just noticed a slight error in the neutral
move code that if your opponent captures with a Dust Demon, it won't let
you move the Dust Demon back to its previous square right away. That I
can fix.
Revision of the ZRF is now 1.1, and the problem with Dust Demon capture and ko is now fixed.
Zillions of Games. Game package for Windows that allows you to play nearly any abstract board game or puzzle in the world.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I will note that figuring out what pieces are worth in a variant in the first place is often a thornier issue than trying to manipulate Zillions into having the values you want. That's why I have never attempted to tune the values in Interweave or Rococo.
ximeracak.. A leaper-heavy fantasy variant designed for play with a standard set. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Nicely fluidly weird. Normally leapers greater than maybe (3,0) or (2,1) don't work on a board this size, but with <strong>everything</strong> but the King/General and Pawns/Sergeants leaping, this isn't the usual problem.
<p>
One thing I noticed is that it is very common for Pegasi to be exchanged, which is unfortunate as they are interesting pieces. It might be nice to treat them as like Lions in Chu Shogi (or Golems in Golem Chess, which borrowed the idea from Chu Shogi) and not let them be exchanged easily.
Captain Spalding Chess . Find an Elephant in your Pajamas.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]OK, it simply flatly blows up in Windows XP, then I have something I can tell the Zillions people. I hope they have an XP box in-house!
The following from Jeff Mallett:
<p>
<i><blockquote>
Bad news -- it crashes for me on XP in 1.3.1 (and also crashes when I
tried 1.3). It doesn't crash when I use Zillions 2, which is in
development, so it's a problem already fixed.
<p>
I'm betting the difference is that Zillions 2 has had a lot of its
reading code rewritten to support parsing larger files. The XP
difference is just that some machines need to reallocate memory at
some point in the parsing and others don't. It's this reallocation
that was causing problems in Zillions 1.3.1.
<p>
Your ZRF itself is pretty small and elegant (23K), but when its 28
macros are expanded it is over a megabyte and contains about 175,000
symbols. Is there any way to simplify it a bit?
</blockquote></i>
<p>
I will look at simplifying it, but I have my doubts -- the thing was hard enough to write in the first place.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.