[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by Tony Quintanilla
![A miscellaneous item](/index/misc.gif)
David, Peter, great idea! This makes it easy to comment, is practical,
timely, and should have a wide audience.
David, will this page be linked to the side bar somehow? That would help in
the future when it is not longer the new item in the Feedback page.
![A game information page](/index/game.gif)
Very nice game. It is highly playable. Very enjoyable. The double teams interact in a cooperative way. The board is interesting to play on, especially with the center squares which change your piece types. Although the game harkens back to Chaturanga, even the 4-player version of Chaturanga, and other 4-player games, there is a lot on ingenuity here. The idea of changing piece type in the center adds some of the ancient flavor too. The double team environment in-itself adds a new element in many ways. The rules are simple to grasp. Traditional chess moves are used, along with the ancient moves in the center. The center, of course, alludes to the traditional struggle in chess to capture the center. The game is very nice. By that I mean that it is graceful and evocative. Nice game. Try it!
![A game information page](/index/game.gif)
Interesting game. The wide board creates both tactical and strategic
situations that are 'regional'. The doubled King adds a certain element
of interest. The strong pieces promote tactics. However, they do not
overwhelm the game because the large board still allows for strategic
maneuvers.
<p>
I'm sure interesting sub-variants could be created with different setups
or different mix of pieces. One possible issue, though, is that the overall
evolution of the game may move more quickly than players are able to
develop their pieces, thus leading to a certain amount of attrition-type
of play, more tactics and less strategy. But I am not sure that this
overwhelms the game. It seems playable.
Regarding some of the debate about faerie pieces versus traditional
pieces, I personally tend to design games with traditional pieces because usually I am more interested in the game system than the pieces themselves.
However, I have played many variants with interesting faerie pieces. The movement of the pieces is an appealing element in itself. In this game they work quite well. And, actually, the mix here is not all that exotic--
as variants go. Check-out Mulligan-Stew Chess
<a href="../42.dir/mulligan-stew.html">Mulligan Stew Chess</a> for an
example of faerie pieces gone a-muck, but in a very playable and
interesting game--with double Kings, by the way!
I usually think of the game first and then try the Zillions implementation. The result is, sometimes, that the Zillions implementation is unwieldy. It is true, though, that some I have not even tried to implement. There is a great alternative, and that is our very own (thanks to Fergus) play-by-e-mail system which is available to any square or hex board design, requiring enforcement of the rules by the players--like a table-top chess set. As far as 'mentally' creating games. Yes, when the game idea is very interesting, I find myself mulling over it and the game design works itself out conceptually--to a large degree, however, not completely. There are some details of playability that only work themselves out in playtesting. Zillions is a great way to work out the playability of a game, at least as a first step. One pitfall that Zillions has is that the farther a game is from orthochess the poorer the Zillions engine plays the game. Some games, it plays very poorly, some in a skewed way, some extremely well. Ultimately, play against a person is best for testing. If one is interested in play by e-mail, a Zillions implementation can be as basic as a board and pieces that can move on it, without full rules enforcement--this liberates many of the programming restrictions--since it does not matter how well Zillions itself plays the game. Back to the orginal question: I have found that in some practical ways, Zillions does 'suggest' the development of a game because of the programming practicalities. But I would not say that it inhibits ideas altogether. There is one game I would like to try but have not found a way to play by e-mail: Star Trek 3-D Chess (the 'real' one with the shifting boards!) Any ideas?
![A game information page](/index/game.gif)
Nice game. Getting accustomed to the Anti-King's role takes a little unlearning. Its much easier to keep thinking about checkmating or protecting the King. Isolating or keeping one's Anti-King under 'attack' takes more thought. At the begining of the game, one can get lulled into complacency. The end game certainly gets interesting as it gets harder to keep one's Anti-King under attack. The very effort to checkmate the opposing King works against one's Anti-King. Which will happen first? In a way, its a race to the finish.
![A craft page](/index/craft.gif)
John, Tomas, thanks for the kind comments. I really enjoyed making the set and mulling over different ideas as I worked on the set.
![A game information page](/index/game.gif)
Chess with Different Armies is certainly a very enjoyable set of games. I particularly liked playing the Remarkable Rookies, perhaps because of their mutually supportive and jumping capabilities. On the other hand, I had a much more difficult time with the Colorbound Clobberers. Before I knew it, I had trapped myself in an off-balance position. The overall idea of CWDA is very clever. The idea of balanced, yet different, armies should see more use in Chess variants development. But, as remarked by Ralph, this is not so simple and takes quite a bit of work. On the other hand, it has endless possibilities with a simple theme. One thought, would it be possible for players to 'assemble' an army from 'equivalent' sets? Something else, there is a playful character to the armies, which is a nice touch.
![A craft page](/index/craft.gif)
Peter, thanks! I would really like to hear about how your set turns out.
![A miscellaneous item](/index/misc.gif)
A link to the Graphics directory http://www.chessvariants.com/graphics.dir/index.html
would be helpful. It's hard to find it, otherwise. Thanks.
![A Zillions-of-Games file](/index/zillions.gif)
![ZIP file](/index/zipfile.gif)
David: I really like the piece graphics, particularly the Chariot. The traditional Rook image is great, but its not a Chariot! The Elephant is neat too! The Ferz image is very nice. My only question: how about taking the transformation of these images to the next step by changing the King?!The background image is interesting, but I prefer the plain board. Same for Chaturanga.
![A graphics resource](/index/graphic.gif)
A great addition to an already excellent graphics collection. For me, the Alfaerie set is quickly becoming the set of choice for Zillions Chess variants implementations. The nice thing about it is that its ever expandable, and the graphics are simple and appealing.
![A reference work](/index/reference.gif)
I think that this page will appeal to kids. Its clear, illustrated with both graphics and animation, and well organized.
![A game information page](/index/game.gif)
Very interesting game. I hope to try it out soon. The idea that assuming a capturing posture is in effect part of the movement of a piece is fascinating. A suggestion for a table-set: for a capturing posture, place the piece slightly over the edge of the square towards which it is oriented. For orientation of a piece, locate the piece just within the edge of the square towards which it is oriented. Regarding Ralph's aspirations to create a Chess variant that feels like Go, one that is primarily intuitive, that would be great--although I cannot claim to understand master level Chess thought. Kids play intuitively, until they get 'spoiled' by reading Chess books! Intuitive play is definitely more fun. I read that Capablanca played intuitively (I guess he could get away with it because he was so brilliant), but that was part of his downfall when he encountered players that studied a great deal. In fact, part of the appeal of Chess variants is that they keep us guessing. I have to say, though, that Zillions spoils the fun a little by making it quite easy to study new games.
![One or more photographs](/index/photo.gif)
![A contest or tournament](/index/contest.gif)
Thanks primarily to Peter, yes, we have ZRFs or ZRF game editors for all the games!
![A contest or tournament](/index/contest.gif)
Would it be possible to extend the submission deadline?
Wonderful idea! As far as the timing, either the 3 days per move or the total day limit idea would work, I think. Total days used could be tracked manually with each PBEM exchange. As far as a list of games, here's some ideas: - Chaturanga (worthy grandad of Chess) - Jumping Chess (interesting capturing mechanic) - Glinski's Hexagonal Chess (hex mechanics) - Makruk (wonderful old and contemporary variant) - Take Over Chess (I'm partial to it!) - Chess on a Longer Board (its that Wall) - Xiangqi (another worthy variant) - Mulligan Stew Chess (crazy but fun)
![A graphics resource](/index/graphic.gif)
Another excellent addition to the Alfaerie set!
![A miscellaneous item](/index/misc.gif)
Could I suggest a link to past, present, (and future) tournaments either on the index page or the side bar? Thanks.
![A contest or tournament](/index/contest.gif)
I agree with Glenn's proposed time structure. I also agree that re-voting on a select subset of games (including the most requested write-in games) would add more focus to the set of games chosen. The idea of using only games voted for by players is also a good idea. I would also support not worrying about size too much. I bet that the tourney will proceed faster than anticipated--especially if the most-favored games are being played! Thanks to Glenn for all his work!
I would suggest that with the anniversary of 9-11 tomorrow that--although perhaps in a small way--Chess is a point of sanity in this world, a world much in need of this. Remember the candle?
![A game information page](/index/game.gif)
Nice game. One minor thought: the King is substantially weakened by the restriction against moving orthogonally without capture--in cases where it is threatened this can be fatal. Note that the capturing moves of all the pieces are standard, so the King is at a net disadvantage relative to FIDE chess.
That's an idea. By the way, I have played the game. It flows nicely and is quite interesting. Thanks.
![A contest or tournament](/index/contest.gif)
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.