Game Reviews by bukovski
I have sampled a few games of hiashatar on an 8x10 board and have concluded that it results in much too constricted positions, even if pieces come into contact sooner and the balance of open squares and number of pieces matches chess. I have seen hia chess on CVP and would like to know if others have experience of the hia on a smaller board and have evaluated its suitability for a board of fewer ranks. I used to think hiashatar seemed too large, but now I am unsure. I would welcome opinions or accounts of player experiences.
Dr Muller, you mention the bare king rule as used by the Nihon Chu Shogi Renmei, but I have to wonder if your computer analysis has revealed what pieces singly or in combination are sufficient to force or at least deliver checkmate on a bare king in chu shogi.
It was very good to include this variant among those described on CV pages. Play-tested variants, even when complex like tenjiku shogi, are the most valuable offerings on the CV pages, in my opinion. I look forward to Dr Muller's development of HaChu to play tenjiku shogi; that would be most welcome in the absence of human, over-the-board players. Another CV page presenting Colin Adams's exemplar games, study of opening theory for tenjiku shogi, and arguments for understanding what the move of the Lion Hawk is or should be, would complement this fine presentation of rules of play. It is perhaps too much to hope that he will read this comment and add such a contribution. I have always valued commented game scores as an instructive resource for learning how to play a variant better. I remember Dr Gralla and Mr Carrillo produced some fine games of makruk that appeared on CV pages; it would be wonderful if that were a regular part of new variants showcased here.
4 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
@Dr Muller: You had mentioned that you had analyzed the D document of historic chu shogi problems in MSM, had reserved the results of your analysis, and had concluded that 18 were proven flawed. I wonder if you had reached a conclusion about the 18 like one that Mr Hodges proposed about the D document generally, that necessary pieces possibly had been omitted or erroneous pieces introduced into the diagram to act as a security device against plagiarism. I read your suggested corrections to problems in the other 3 collections; I do not ask you to divulge more than you want about D, only to ask if your research suggested that the flawed problems might be fixed by the removal, change, or addition of pieces to the diagram. Kind regards!