[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by TonyQuintanilla
Actually, the contest is open until April 15, so any changes, if needed, until then are accepted.
Ode to ZOG: Zillions of zee-are-effs and zee-es-gees, how can they be wrong?! The game by any other name would be as zweet!! No -effs or -gees about it!!! Touche' little 'Z' man!!!!
<p>Jared, seriously, this is quite a nice game. </p> <p>I really like the idea of static pieces. Although you did not mention it, obviously this is a kind of Chess-Go blend.</p> <p>Apparently the players' boards are a kind of holding area. Would it be possible to expand the battlefield to 41 squares and just drop the randomly pieces directly on the Battlefield each turn? (Although your method would be much more implementable in ZOG (there's that again!)). You could just keep the one special square for the special replacement move. This would give you more room. You could even add more pieces to the setup</p> <p>The tactics of placement on the battlefield could be very interesting. The idea of flipping the ownership of the captured pieces I really like. That will certainly add another layer of complexity to the game, which is useful when you are playing on a small board. In fact, this creates a kind of movement if not of pieces then of piece-structures.</p> <p>I assume that you have considered that the random setup may/will probably create unequal armies. But, the idea of randomness in Chess is interesting in itself as long as it does not overwhelm the pure-strategy aspect of the game.</p> <p>A question: its not immediately clear to me why a Fodder piece should be obligatory on the first move.</p> <p>Final comment, someone please ZFRolize this game!</p>
I didn't mean that each drop would be randomly selected, rather that the randomly selected array would be dropped from outside the board. Thus, the 41 squares could be used for the battle board instead of each player's own setup board. I was not very clear about it, though.
<p>Jared, ok. Point well taken on the board size. Actually, that comment was more musing than anything else. Regarding the little Z man, that's a reference to that little guy with a sword with a big Z on his jacket that's the Zillions icon on their web site and on the CD cover. I was just trying to be amusing, perhaps not so succesfully. Actually, I am intrigued with TT and will have to check their site. RPG's? I don't see the relevance. Overall, nice game.</p> <p>With regard to implementing the game in Zillions, here's a few thoughts. One could use two ?neutral players to drop the original array into the setup boards, randomly selecting from the possible pieces. Upon dropping the pieces could change owners to that of each player. The special 11th piece could have an attribute changed to allow its special move. The moves themselves should be straight forward. The drops would have to search in each move direction and again flip the ownership upon finding a opponent's piece. The win condition might be a little tricky. The winner would be the player that is both stalemated and has the most pieces on the board. Forced passed turns may be required. </p>
Nice game! Rhonan appears to have responded to an aggressive attack nicely. He systematically attacked the Goal Squares, using his Guards to best advantage.
<p>Maxima certainly seems to be a very interesting game. The powers of the pieces, board configuration and winning conditions seem to have been well considered. Particularly the use of Goal Squares in addition to checkmate seems to give the game more fluidity. <p/><p>The Ultima inspired powerful pieces are well balanced and quite interesting. They do not seem to overwhelm the relatively 'small' (actually, larger) board. For those of us brought up on 'orthochess', pieces like the Mage are consoling!<p/>
Well, it seems that the only difference is that the board is essentially a cylinder where the 1st and 8th ranks are connected, since there is no rule that pieces must stop upon reaching the 8th rank or the 1st on the 'knot'. The knot itself does not seem to play a role in the game.
Ok. If it is a cylinder, then 'anonymous' is correct and the game cannot start because the checkmate condition is met from the start. If the board is not a cylinder, then Tony Paletta is right and there is no difference between this game and ortho-Chess, except the 'appearance', but not the geometry, of the board. Perhaps the point is just to have an interesting looking board to play on. Such a large change in the appearance of the board can alter one's conceptualization of the moves and one's thinking about tactics, strategy, etc. That is in itself an interesting variant concept. Any other interpretations?
William, the 'question mark in a ring' means that you have not registered as a chessvariants.com member, that's all. If you wish, you can go to your name information page to register.
With regard to the use of ZRFs. ZRFs have been used in previous tournaments. The settings are made to be 'human-human'. Both players share the convenience of Zillions' features, such as convenient graphics, game recording, and, yes, 'the little green dots'. The dots do inform a player about what moves are possible, without advising about which move to make. This implication should be clear to all (or at least both) players from the outset. Of course, it is also possible to create ZRFs that do not enforce any rules, but are simply 'game editors'. This has been done for complicated games, for example. If this is the players' preference, for simplicity's sake I would refer them to the PBeM system on this web site. On the PBeM system it is very simple to create a 'preset' for most Chess variants, including hexagonal variants. It sends e-mail messages with graphics, records logs, allows messaging, provides very nice graphics selection, links to rules, but provides no rules enforcement--try it!
Glenn, I haven't played it, but PromoChess looks quite interesting. The piece selection is varied and interesting in its own right. I like the idea of promotion of all the pieces, while retaining the King.
Very interesting game. The movement and capture dynamics are unique. The win condition is goal oriented, also creating a different dynamic. The non-capturable pieces are an interesting element too, somewhat inverting the 'checkmate' rule. The Rotor is neat, juggling pieces instead of capturing them!
Hans, thank you again for starting this great site. David and Peter are doing a great job and will guide the site well. Nevertheless, I am saddened by your departure as Editor-in-Chief. I look forward to seeing your future contributions as time permits. Adieu!
I just checked the download for both the ZRF and the ZSG zip files and they work.
Sorry about the confusion. The redundant broken link has been removed.
Excellent addition to the Spanish game pages. New Spanish pages don't appear in the English 'What's New', so check it out if you read Spanish!
Great idea. Its simple and elegant, yet add the mutability of pieces that many game designers have sought. The idea of simplifying the rules of Chess is also intriguing. It should be quite playable.
Hans, thanks for your comments. And, you are right to mention that David has done a great job.
Excellent set of submissions! Take a look and vote!
I had the opportunity to play this game with the inventor. I must say that I really enjoyed it. I found that the selection of pieces and their capabilities was quite interesting and suited for the 3-player setting. A fun, interesting, 3-player game is special in-itself. The shifting alliances is a very good way of preventing a strategy of ganging-up. Something that should also be mentioned is the random element. While this is unusual in Chess, it is definitely an interesting, playable, and fun aspect of the game. Overall, this is an excellent game. The judges have to select their picks for finalists. Often specific choices are based on minor or even subjective preferences. The final choices do not reflect negatively on otherwise very good games.
Excellent idea. The strategic issues regarding where to commit one's pieces will be more significant. Regional battles will be more common. Mobility will be more important. I also like Mike Howe's suggestion about different army powers depending on the board--this harmonizes nicely with the double-board theme. The doublewide idea can be applied to many Chess variants. How about double-wide Rococo, for example! Triple-wide? could be interesting, but the game might devolve into a central battle with reserves on the wings.
The 'legend' is very creative indeed. Maybe its 'true'. It harkens to the appeal of games in the first place, as models of reality which can serve at many levels, simple enjoyment, mechanics, history, philosophy.... It reminds me of Hesse's 'Magister Ludi'.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.