Comments by johnnyluken
Grand Chess. Christian Freeling's popular large chess variant on 10 by 10 board. Rules and links. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Extra Move Chess. Double-move variant based on limitations of Zillions of Games. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I had dabbled with the idea of a 1/2/2/2... multimove variant, if only as it negates white advantage. The restrictions you introduced make this one of the most well refined multimove variants I've seen. While an interesting alternative to FIDE, this mechanic probably improves most larger variants outright.
Circe Chess. Captured pieces return to their original square. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]As it is with progressive chess, this games mechanic seems a perfect foil for a conversion based game. Most conventional conversion based variants use a drop in rule for piece reintroduction, which I would consider too cheap, as it nominally gives all pieces full access to the board as a first turn. It also arguably ruins the flow of a game. Reverse circe would solve this problem nicely.
As far as "hottest" variants, sadly I'm not sure the site generates enough traffic, or arguably as much traffic as it could. The overwhelming popularity of chess dot com (and chess itself of course) shows that a potential audience type is there. However there seems to be a dogmatism in the FIDE community. I proposed what was I viewed was a logical refinement to the stalemate rule on the site forum (stalemate with pieces vs a bare king is a win) and was universally shot down. I'm not sure a "killer app" for chess variants is even possible, however the modest popularity of certain variants such Fischer Random Chess at least shows the most likely way of achieving it-games that evolve the chess concept with some additional mechanic at low cost to rule complexity or game symmetry, rather than a mere sideways alternation of it.
HG Muller, yes certainly it would be nicer to be able to easily parse variants in other ways, such as board shape, size, material type, piece density, objectives etc. My own games lack presentation, however I would say it is a general problem. In an ideal world, one would be able to click on a game and not only have images, but some form of interaction, perhaps even auto generated games, though of course thats easy for me to say, as I have no part in the building of the site... As far as games with orthodox material being uninteresting, I would argue that a game on a 16*16 board with added mechanics is a much bigger departure from FIDE Chess than a slightly enlarged version with alternate pieces, though perhaps thats a matter of taste... Theres also ease of understanding to consider...
I have checked out the favourites page...its a decent addition.
I would say I am quite critical of my own games, which is why I have contributed so few.
Minima is just a compaction of Maxima fused with Ultima. I would say its a very nice addition to the group, but I wouldn't claim it be anywhere near as groundbreaking as Abbotts original.
Abalonian Chess is just a fusion of Chess and Abalone. Its probably the weakest of my variants.
Pawns Vault Chess has a nice gimmick and is quite colourful though again I've made no claims about it being particularly special.
Relay Chess is I maintain is one of the fundamental variants in that it is a "flattening" of the concept of the popular Knights Relay. However this was just a chance discovery. I wouldn't even consider it "my" game.
For Chess 256, I completely overwrote two previous games as I considered them too low quality for the concept, even though they were probably still good enough to be contributed as separate games.
Expanded Chess 256. The Chess experience upscaled to a larger board. (16x16, Cells: 256) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]"Reverse pawns" (Berolina Pawns) were from an earlier draft I forgot to edit out, before I considered this game as a FIDE superset. New Chess 256 just uses ordinary pieces.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
RRNNBBQQKKBBNNRR
RRNNBBQQKKBBNNRR
I wasn't sure how best to add diagrams. I'll try using game courier.
In bringing up Chess 256, I'd like to raise a reservation I have about this site. What is its actual purpose? Is it just for hobbyists to submit curiosities-slightly expanded or altered games with novelty value but little inherent worth-an endless of series of homages to be churned out with the unspoken acceptance that the original is ultimately the best? Or is it for people who genuinely want to evolve the concept of chess? People who want to design games that equal or exceed FIDE chess in quality? Speaking personally, I will probably never submit more than 10 variants to this site. I believe in a game being a conceptually pure endpoint and designed towards optimum playability. To that end, why is there a list of "recognised variants" that have permanent pride of place on the front page, while other equally good if not better games (in terms of gameplay and conceptual originality) gather dust? Whats the criteria for this selection? I am confident that Chess 256 is objectively as good as any these games. Logically it is one of the fundamental variants-if you want the chess experience perfectly mapped to a 256 square board (with added gameplay dimensions that added complexity can bring), this is it (this was after all a game carefully constructed towards a clear endpoint-a game whose gametree is a perfect superset of that of FIDE chess). Yet will it ever be featured or even looked at? Shouldn't there some kind of quality control, some filtration process or reward system so that conceptually stronger games can get better exposure?
I see a lot of larger variants here that seem to exist as "collectors items", happy to expand the piece set, yet paying little consideration towards preserving the mechanics of 8*8 chess. How many 144+ variants here can be considered even close to as well designed and playable as the core variant this website is based on?
Common problems I see;
1. slow, unreactive buildup
2. weak, attritional, short range pieces that bloat the board
3. slack, fragmented gameplay
4. sparse piece layouts
A larger variant does not have to suffer any loss of quality-it can simply be a more complex equivalent-in the same way Go on an 19*19 is unconditionally superior to Go on a 9*9.
Chess is less easily scalable than Go, but Chess 256 more or less achieves a perfect mapping to a larger board based on 3 rules.
1. conditional second step for short range pieces
2. symmetric group movement of connected pieces of like type
3. diagonal gliding
Proof of concept I believe, is that Chess 256 can perfectly emulate a regular game of chess. Fools mate and Scholars mate are both achievable in an equivalent number of moves.
Thoughts on large numbers of players in one chess game. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think freedom to choose who you fight with or against is one the more intrigueing aspects of multi player chess, and extra constructs should be avoided where possible. Reward systems for enterprising players seem necessary-gaining players you captured, and in the event of checkmate inheriting the remaining piece set. Incomplete information is a good feature to add. Personally I think the mechanic of Dark Chess, where a player can only see through his pieces, is more ideal as it again rewards an agressive player, in a game system where conservatism could get unfairly rewarded. Simultaneous move commit is intriguing in itself and easier to implement. Is there a chess variant based on this mechanic? It obviously requires some exception handling, for example; *Non attacks* If a piece moves to retaliate, but a piece isn't actually captured it captures its own piece/or produces a null move. Only allowed if a piece is actually threatened. *Pawns misses* If a pawn attempts to capture on a vacated square, it moves straight forward. If it can't advance it produces a null move. Material wise pawns probably have to replaced by something more mobile.
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think the general trend in ultima variants is in removing significantly weaker pieces from the board in favour of a balanced set, which I think is aesthetically better and more interesting. Only way I think having weaker pieces works is if there is an even hierarchy of different valued pieces, but most ultima pieces cluster around a ~7-9p value. As far as overpowered pawns and explosive capture attack, why not just introduce a seperate piece for that purpose? What about an "alchemist" piece that allows adjacent pieces to perform atomic/suicide capture (like in Atomic Chess), and that explodes as an attack or if captured?
To clarify my amendment proposal Aronsons swapper has two moves.. Positional swap P(S,P)=>(P,S) Mutual destruction M(S,P)=>(_,_) I recommend removing the latter, which seems to refer to a separate concept, and adding 2 new swap moves. Colour swap C(S,P')=>(S',P) Type swap T(S,P')=>(P,S') The fact that this is a natural completion of the concept can be shown from the fact that any swap move acts as a combination of the other two (for friendly pieces T and P are equivalent, and C is a null move). The resulting piece is considerably stronger (probably the equal of any piece on the board), more logically consistent, and I would argue no less intuitive or complicated than the current version or some of the proposals.
Actually to say that the swapper 2.0 performs conversion isn't strictly correct. Conversion (C,P)=>(C,P') is a different moveset. As conversion is merely a strengthened form of capture, it would have to implemented as an indirect piece to be distinct, so a "missionary" would be something that for example allows an adjacent piece to convert and/or be converted.
Sorry my mistake. I don't see that conversion is more an Ultima concept than a Rococo one, nor do I see how turning the swapper into a exploding piece fits more with its ability than an ability swap. As I understand it, the swapper currently merely mutually destroys with an opposition piece in its line of sight. Its not an "explosion", its just taking it and another piece out of the game. On the other hand, allowing it to swap its ability with another piece in line of sight ( (S, P') => (P, S') ) is just a logical extension of what the piece already is. Existing swaps of friendly pieces ((S, P)=>(P, S)) could equally be interpreted as an ability swap rather than a positional one. This rule allows it to become a worthy piece while remaining "swapperlike."
Explosion is a concept that is definitely worth considering adding in some form. However I'm not sure tacking it on to an existing piece is the way forward. I also don't see it working that well in this game, other than an overpowered means of flattracking the weaker pieces. On the other hand a direct ability swap/conversion would give the swapper a unique and strong threat against all opposition pieces. The stronger the piece in the swappers line of sight, the more severe the threat the swapper/converter would offer. In fact now that I think of it, it is enough of an augmentation by itself to safely disregard my mediated swap proposal.
Well its your game. However I think this move better complements the swappers ability. And the new swapping procedure really isn't complicated; P1 Sw P2 -> P2 Sw P1. Or for conversion (Black Piece of Type 1, Swapper, White Piece of Type 2) => (White Piece of Type 1, Swapper, Black Piece of Type 2) Its a good way of introducing the missing concept of conversion into an Ultima variant. If you think its too complicated or over dynamic then you could also just use direct conversion as the "special move." (Black non swapper, White Swapper)=>(Black Swapper, White non swapper) The latter move equates to double the material gain produced when merely mutually destroying the swapper with a stronger piece, and fits in more intuitively with its ability.
Expanded Chess 256. The Chess experience upscaled to a larger board. (16x16, Cells: 256) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I've remade this game with the previous rule additions discarded and replaced with one new mechanic; symmetrical group piece movement. That is, the simultaneous moving of up to 4 pieces that have common movement type and that form a uninterrupted symmetrical structure, ie a square or a line of equidistant pieces. Thus Chess 256-which by design has no new piece types-is a perfect superset of Orthodox Chess. In other words the set of all possible games of FIDE Chess are contained in the set of all possible games of Chess 256. However the game has far more possibilities than just that. Just as Go is far more impoverished on a 9x9 board than a 19x19 board, so Chess 256 is a far richer more organic game than Chess 64.
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The swappers capture method seems decoupled from its ability. Its also quite a weak piece. I propose; a) allow the swapper to swap 2 pieces on either side of it, while remaining stationary. b) allow it to swap piece type, ie converting a friendly to an enemy and an enemy to a friendly.
Euqorab. Anti-Baroque. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Nice concept and homage to the original. The "wrong reaper" is clever and not something I had thought of. One thing maybe missing from the set is to change to the king from anti king chess that can't be captured, but requires constant enemy threat. As mentioned the widow is essentially an immobiliser and the "independent" is overpowered, though the presence of the anti king would makes it a more acceptable piece. Also in the spirit of the game would be to have a "mobiliser" type that for example allows double move to adjacent friendlies.
Relay Chess. Pieces inherit the ability of friendly pieces they are in the attack range of. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Some amendments... Pawns now inherit ability of friendly pieces in limited form, and castling, en passant and double moves are deprecated. This game has inevitably got lost in the crowd, but I heavily recommend people check it out (this is not really self praise as its not a game I consider "my own", more a simple discovery). Its probably the most playable and elegant of my variants (along with Minima), and it has the advantage of using standard equipment. In my opinion it is a game that does what so few chess variants actually do, in that it genuinely improves on FIDE Chess. To me, it belongs on the front page as one of the fundamental chess variants.
Even with semiautomated action based command, gameplay becomes more fragmented or "bitty" in more intricate variants. My own 16*16 variant suffers from this, despite my attempts to preserve all the fluidity of 8*8 chess. To truly preserve the feel of chess in a higher D game, one would also have to preserve the length and dynamism of the board-in other words have a player able to make multiple moves at once. There are to my eyes, 3 principle compound moves one could make (some already exist among chess variants here). 1. ****Zonal movement*** Move 1 piece in each zone-eg 3d chess may allow movement of a piece in 16 4*4 subcubes to speed gameplay along. 2. ***Type*** Move pieces of a specific type. Would weight values towards more common (typically weaker) pieces. 3. ***Actions*** Allow to move a certain number of pieces for a specific macro command. Eg "advance, pawns, protection" would be a good opening move to develope pawn chains in an opening game. Further macro example-"hunt, X"; move to capture given piece (X), in minimum number of moves. The higher dimensional the games the more removed each piece becomes in terms of its ability to access other squares, so this attack becomes useful, particularly against the opponent queen or king.
I guess I was misinformed. I was referring to someone casually referring to a 3D game where he then stacked more boards as 7D/8D etc, which was just 3D on a stretched board. In any event there certainly aren't any 4D+ variants on here (or if there were they would be contracted to 3*3 or 2*2 boards and only that for 5 or 6D) as we reach a limit in how we can represent and play games, which is what I was attempting to discuss-more intricate chess variants with a much higher branching factor and how we could play and get an appreciation for them.
Even in 3D chess, we approach the limits of human observance, and the ability to form deep strategies. If ever we are to play more interesting (or at least more complex) forms of chess, we have to think of another way of playing it, not in terms of individual moves, which become too cumbersome, but in terms of commands, and layered on top of that, wider strategies for games of ever increasing intricacy. Working at the core of this would be a running index for each piece-a heads up display. For example for a starting rook in 6D chess you could have: ************ 111111 (coordinate index) 100000 (move type index/previous move made) - (opponent piece type threatened by-ABC etc if applicable) abcdef (friendly piece types in range of rooks movement) - (other special piece status eg P=pinned) ************ A FIDE array would read: 11/10/-/N,p1;12/1:2/-/p3;13/11/-/p, p; 14/10, 11/-/B, K, p, p ,p; etc Okay, not terribly pretty, but the basis for a much more streamlined way to play an advanced game. Simple macrocommands could include; skirmish (move to furthest unprotected enemy square), kick (threaten material deficit), spread out (increase mobility of side), retreat, block, pin, retaliate, check, double up etc. The next layer would be how to bundle all that into higher strategies. Note: I'm not much of a programmer, but maybe this could form the basis of an efficient and flexible AI?
I've seen a few references to higher D (4D+) variants on here, but nothing beyond stacking boards, which is of course just stretching 3D space. Naturally, its not particularly practical to implement such games at present-not too many 4D+ GUIs around as yet. However there is another preceding and more important core approach to play (or at least simulate) a higher D chess game, or more intricate chess variants in general. More on that later... Its pretty interesting (for me at least) to think about how such a fundamental and well balanced abstract concept as chess transfers into higher dimensions. A 6D Chess game for example would, as far as I can make out, have 4,096 pawns/pieces for either side, 6 straight simple sliders, (6 choose (compound level)) compounds for each level, (eg. (6 choose 2)=30 double compound pieces, still just the one, extremely powerful, queen), and (((range*number of orthonogal axes acted simultaneously upon)-2) leapers (eg 2 2-range leapers acting across 3 axes, the 1:2:2:0:0:0 and 1:1:2:0:0:0). Quite a bit more going on than FIDE Chess... But how on earth would a mere human get any kind of appreciation for such a game? A game with an incomprehensibly large branching factor, that would take a solid year to play? This is where I segway into the concept of macrocommands. :)
Hi all, Been a while since I posted here. Laziness, and the more games get posted, the less any individual one gets noticed anyway, so its discouraging. Anyway, I still regularly have new thoughts on this topic and I still want to contribute here, but rather than just churn out games that cluster closely to ones that have already been made and add to the pile, I feel it would more fruitful and enjoyable for me (and hopefully for you), if I instead discussed deeper, philosophical or more far flung topics among chess variants. PS: is it too much to ask we could get a blog or forum section on this website? I know theres an index, but its not particularly friendly or nice to look at. It seems this website is missing a trick here. I feel it could attract a lot more people and contributors, potentially even a lot more, if it were just a bit more open and friendlier in its layout. A forum or blog section being a good start point...
Well in Ultima and like games theres always a split between using passive and active noun in naming them-(Queen, King, Shield, Magician vs Swapper, Advancer Withdrawer, Immobiliser etc). I mixed both to avoid being repetitive, and to ease the search for finding the most appopriate word for a piece, without being contrived. Attaching -er suffix might help brand them as Ultima pieces and avoid "encroaching" on existing Chess miscellany, but in any event the logic behind names such "Ambassador", and "Cloak", should be pretty clear if you read the piece descriptions... Not so much the hunter/huntress pieces. Perhaps "proximator", and "aproximator", would be more accurate. "Bully" could be a "numerator", perhaps.
I don't mean just movement differentiated variants of the few existing "accepted" Ultima pieces. I mean the categorising and nomenclature of the extended set of pieces with homogenous movement (typically queenlike) differentiated by effect/capture method. Such as some of the pieces I've introduced on the subject you're commenting on right now...
Charles, I think you should extend your nomenclature and categorisation to Ultima pieces. They're a bit "wilder" than Chess pieces, so its a bit of a bottomless pit in a way, but it would be treading fresh ground. I'd help...
Minima. johnnyluken. (6x6, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I'm considering rewriting this game a bit. It looks like it could be refined with a few adjustments. a) I would upgrade the kings capturing from displacement (which is already covered), to pushme-pullyu, and then removing that officer piece itself, as an option. Seems slightly more elegant, and makes the king a more interesting and powerful piece. b) this however allows the king to immediately capture on 1st turn. This can be counterracted by mirrored setup with each king facing an coordinator, which could immediately capture the king in retribution. An immobiliser can be placed on the other side of the coordinator, to attack the king if it captures the other pawn. c) pushme-pullyu/displacer/long leaper aren't ideal promotion pieces, as they dont improve on the power of existing officer pieces. So with the pushme-pullyu gone, I would introduce a new piece on promotion, the remover. This piece is the most powerful piece on the board, capturing pieces with rifle capture over any distance, even if immobilised. In opening setup, its too powerful, but as a promotion piece on a more open board, it works well. d) the coordinator, as is, is too powerful. I would still allow it to capture passively, on kings movement, but would restrict it to only capturing on the 1st diagonal intersections, and not the secondary diagonal intersections that occur in a cyindrical board. This still makes it at least twice as powerful as an Ultima/Maxima coordinator. The king, in cooperation with the coordinator, can capture up to 6 pieces in one turn.
Hi Malcolm, Thanks for your interest. a) yes, cylinder is vertical, so attacking enemy pieces isn't possible on 1st move. b) I hadn't thought about this. Yes, I would allow it, and also to make stationary capture, in the case of the coordinator. Its quite an aggressive game, so null moves to stall wouldn't generally offer any great advantage... c) another good question. No, I wouldn't allow that, as that would make the pushme-pullyu a de facto displacement capturing piece in certain cases. d) yes multiple capture is possible, for all pieces. e)chameleon is restricted to the opposition pieces capture method, but not movement type, so captures all pieces, pawn and king included, with queenwise movement. f) yes the pawns can move and capture up to 2 squares in any direction, apart from backwards. g) correct, a pawn can theoretically capture 7 pieces in one turn. h) pawn promotion is compulsory. Default would be pushme-pullyu as promotion piece, as its not actually in starting setup, or if it is, is then queen/long leaper as promotion piece, (ie whichever of the 3 isn't in starting setup), then previously captured pieces for every promotion thereafter.
To Jochen Muller and Chung Lee. I can't seem to move anymore. When I click on game courier link in Whats New, I'm now locked out from following games. It forces a login just to see my own (I'm already logged in?!), and nothing comes up when I do, just stays on the login page. Also Jochen, Andernach Chess has no automatic preset, and I couldnt find any way to move.
Okay I've now submitted it as "Minima." The other names I entered after, not realising that they all get logged even if you don't complete the form. You can disregard them. Still not sure why it rejected me the very 1st time when all I'd done is enter the name though... Anyway cheers for your help...
Hi, I want to submit a variant called Minima, but it says someone has already submitted a variant by that name. Now I'm not aware of anyone previously using this, I'd already checked, and theres no such game on this website, unless someones just now beaten me to the punch with a pending submission... Can anyone help me out with this? I can always change the name of course, but its a bit unfortunate as the name fits it like a hand in a glove, it being, loosely speaking, a small board hybrid of Ultima and Maxima. In fact the name was the starting point for the entire variant!
#PART II# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ABOMINATION: any piece in LOS (ie enemy piece-these pieces never negatively affect own side) within 3 squares must move directly away. ACCELERATOR: forces any piece in LOS to move the furthest number of squares it can. If tied between 2 options must take diagonal, if still tied then has a choice. ALICIAN PIECE: any piece-any piece at all-in LOS behaves like piece from Alice chess. AMPLIFIER: increases the ability of any friendly piece in LOS in a predefined fashion. ANDERNACH PIECE: any piece in LOS that makes capture is converted on doing so. ANTI-MAGNET: like the attractor, but repels enemies and attracts friends. ATOMIC QUEEN: from atomic chess, if captured or making a capture, queen and all adjacent pieces are destroyed. ATTRACTOR: from gravity chess, on making a move, 1) if making diagonal, all orthgonal pieces in LOS are attracted, 2) vice versa for orthogonal movement. Effected enemy pieces may not move directly away on any move after until either piece moves again. CATCHER: any piece that passes within 2 linear squares from the catcher are unable to move further at that exact point for that turn. CLOAK: a la kriegspiel, the cloak and any friendly piece in LOS are invisible to the enemy. COMBINER: friendlies on opposite sides of the combiner along its LOS merge abilities with eachother. Also have the ability to use both simultaneously. CONTROLLER: as a move can make any enemy piece in LOS move, in order to attack own side, or otherwise. DEFLECTOR: captures with displacement, after colliding with a piece and continuing past the piece at 45 deg angle. EQUALISER: any enemy piece in LOS that makes a capture is immediately captured in turn or made subject to its own effect, same for any pieces that capture friendly pieces in LOS. GIANT QUEEN: the bigger they are the harder they fall-if any of the 4 squares it occupies is attacked, then the giant queen is captured. Can also capture on all 4 squares simutaneously. MAGNET: like the attractor, but repels friendlies and attracts enemies. MISSIONARY: if friendly piece in LOS captures or if enemy piece in LOS is captured, then conversion occurs instead of normal capture. If displacement capture, then placed on adjacent spot. MUTUAL ANNIHILATOR: any piece in LOS, or with one intervening piece, can be captured with both pieces destroyed. If captured itself, the enemy piece is also captured. NIGHTBRINGER: like in dark chess, enemy can't see beyond their own capture range (not movement range as in dark chess). If the nightbringer is captured, then the curse is lifted. QUADRANT: remote captures on 3 squares that mirror the stationary position of the quadrant along the 4 fourfold symmetry of the board. Can capture on all squares at once. RECYCLER: any friendly piece in LOS thats captured is returned to starting square, but only if that square is occupied, in which case it is captured. REPELLER: a la antigravity chess, the final part of the family of attractor, magnet and antimagnet, repels pieces. RESURRECTOR: can bring captured friendlies back onto the board onto adjacent squares, but not from the comfort of its own half of the board. RETRACTOR: captures adjacent pieces by moving 45 deg away from relative position of pieces. Can capture 2 pieces in this way. SIREN: any piece in LOS must move towards the siren until adjacent. SUPPRESSOR: any piece in LOS is restricted in movement proportional to its proximity-eg if adjacent can only move 1 square. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Any questions/feedback/suggestions welcomed, part 3 to follow...
Just a run down of some of the Ultima piece ideas I've had. Too many to put in at once, so I'll update it as I go. Most of the ideas are pretty fundamental, often following on directly from existing ideas in one way or the other, but are still interesting to contemplate...
I'd ideally like to introduce them in the form of actual variants rather than just as a comment, but shoehorning them all into custom variants is a slow process, and not really practical for so many piece types. My preferred variant would be in the form of "universal" variant anyway, in which case, after laying down the framework, it would come down to the same matter of listing out various pieces. So may aswell just start that here...[note; all pieces unless otherwise stated have queen movement, and are generally adjusted to have similar performance on a 64 square board, LOS=line of sight, ie squares that can covered by a piece by one queen move]
Absorber; adopts ability of any enemy piece it is in the attack range of.
Agitator; can force any enemy piece in LOS, or any adjacent piece on immediate arrival, to capture a specific piece from your side, even if doing so causes them to lose the game.
Ambassador; adopts ability of any friendly piece it is in the attack range of.
Anchor; friendly pieces in LOS cannot be moved.
Approacher; captures by halving distance between it and a piece.
Bully; can remove all enemy pieces in a surrounding 5x5 square, provided those pieces are outnumbered.
Collider; knocks pieces back in direction of its movement on collision. Each piece on its collision with the next piece stops and carries the movement onto the next piece, until the edge of the board is reached. Move also carries "momentum", in that enemy pieces affected may not immediately contradict with other movement than along the same direction the collider sent it on.
Crazy hopper; captures a piece by landing an equal number of spaces behind it as it was in front of it. Can continue in a straight line or turn 45 degrees and continue for further captures. Can also hop over friendly pieces.
Despair; royal piece. If enemy loses sight of this piece, you lose.
Driller ; can perform series of displacement captures, starting with adjacent piece.
Hope ; royal piece. Lose sight of hope and you lose.
Hunter; captures nearest piece. If it has more than one nearest piece, then it can't capture.
Huntress; like hunter, but captures most distant piece.
Isolator; if any piece in LOS becomes isolated, through the isolators movement or that of a friendly piece, it is captured. If a piece is already isolated, then it can use rifle capture.
Martyr; royal piece. If the enemy captures it, they lose.
Mixer; can trade places of all pieces in LOS in any way it likes.
Overseer; any piece in overseers LOS cannot be captured provided it is in the attack range of another friendly piece.
Pacifier; any enemy piece within 2 squares of pacifier cannot capture, or act.
Puller; pulls any number of pieces as far as it likes, regardless of distance of pieces in the series from eachother. Enemy pieces may only move directly towards the puller on the move directly after.
Pusher; pushes any number of pieces as far as it likes. Enemy pieces may only move directly away from the pusher on the move directly after.
Retreater; captures by doubling distance between it and a piece.
Skewer; can capture a connected linear series of pieces, landing immediately behind the last piece. The 1st piece can be any distance from the skewer.
Skipper; can capture a linear series of pieces, by performing a series of hops equal in size, regardless of whether there are other pieces in the space inbetween. Must be able to finish by landing on an empty space. In the same family as the long leaper, crazy hopper, and skewer.
Spy; adopts ability of any enemy piece it is in LOS of.
Tracker; captures by landing on the last square a piece occupied.
Trapper; restricts all enemy pieces in surrounding 5*5 square, to movement within that square.
How long do you generally have to wait for a submission to pass through and become a publically accessible variant? I submitted my 1st variant-Chess 256-8 days ago, and haven't received any feedback whatsoever...
Alice Chess. Classic Variant where pieces switch between two boards whenever they move. (2x(8x8), Cells: 128) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A pretty playable subvariant would be with both boards full, and ordinary moves, starting and ending on the same board, by necessity, legal. You could even adapt the mechanic for higher dimensional games, with layers of boards, with the rule that for a piece to move legally from one board to another, the move would have to be legal on all intermediate boards aswell...
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Replacing the spare long leaper with a 2 range archer seems a logical step forward. Merging the advancer and withdrawer takes a weak piece off the board, but the new piece is possibly too strong in an already offensive game. I like the idea of keeping the withdrawer, but allowing it to capture king and officer pieces from up to 2 squares away, but perhaps only 1 square still for pawns.
Robert Abbotts idea for 2 cooperating triangulators would work better if one of the pieces was made "royal", and the other piece could be brought back, either as a circe piece, or brought into the game by its "royal" counterpart, which is the piece that would have to be captured in order to take both off the board permanently. This idea could be used for other tandem pieces, which are an interesting concept by themselves, and throw up all kinds of new possibilities...
I understand what you mean now. I calculated the values of A, D and LL as similar on a full, infinite, board, based on my method, but the D can threaten on average twice as many pieces as the others, which is a clear advantage. In any event both methods have calculation of P as a starting point, which will give a decent starting point for estimation of a pieces power, or at least the hierarchy between pieces...
Jorg, Well ZoG gives relative values-Coordinator, Chameleon~3.3, Pincer Pawn~7.3, Immobiliser, Withdrawer, Long Leaper~11, which are clearly off. The chameleon for example has an actual value thats basically the average of all opposition pieces on the board. I already have a pretty good idea of practical values of Ultima pieces, but was just trying to find a clinical method of finding their values. I think I'm fighting a losing battle here though as whereas chess pieces (in chesslike environment) have relative values dependent only on the size and shape of the board, Ultima pieces depend mostly on "game environment" which is a much more amorphous concept...
Jeremy, True, the Long Leaper would probably have a higher follow on capture probability than the Displacer, but I'd only be able to factor that in if I was calculating 2nd move capture probability, which is an order of magnitude more difficult problem to calculate. A piece threatened by an LL/advancer has a higher capture evasion ability as it can move in 7 directions to avoid capture, compared to to 6 for the Displacer. Moreover other pieces be moved behind the piece to stop the LL, which further reduces its attack threat. Its true that the Advancer is more flexible in where it leaves itself, which I indeed didnt try to calculate and ignored. It might be a stronger piece against static opposition compared to a Displacer-I imagine it could be particularly pesky at a start of a FIDE chess game, as would a withdrawer. This is a similar problem to the fact that a piece that can rifle capture has the exact same value by my method as a Displacer, yet has a much higher practical value in most game scenarios. This you could probably calculate as "opposition counter threat", which is lower for a rifle capturing piece as its not "at the scene of the crime" so to speak. What exactly do you mean by calculating the average number of captures a piece can make? I would think this is the same as what I was doing-the higher the average number of possible captures, then the higher the average probability of making a single capture. There are simpler models can be used-a D has a capture range of 1-7 on a chess board, the LL 1-6, the A 2-7, the W 1. I factored in the LLs ability to make multiple captures in my 2nd post. Pieces that affect mobility can be calculated by the net mobility gain they produce. The immobiliser, now that I think of it, has essentially the same value regardless of opposition mobility, as it always reduces enemy mobility by the same fraction. The swapper on the other hand has a value proportional to friendly mobility. In a ultima environment its more or less worthless, about as useful as empty space, as it only produces a queen move, when all pieces can move like rook/queen anyway. In a FIDE chess game it has a higher mobility gain, as the pieces are less mobile, and becomes a stronger piece, while the I remains same in value. However the I of course automatically produces an relative mobility gain every move, unlike a swapper or like piece. If the 1:2 thing holds then that obviously must be factored in aswell, obviously piece values will be "squashed" together to some extent by their identical movement.
I didn't produce any actual results here, but a certain hierarchy becomes pretty obvious-the remover and withdrawer are extremely weak as they have zero probability of capture beyond adjacent squares, furthermore the withdrawer also relies on the probability of having an empty square in the opposite direction. For infinite range pieces, the displacer (queen) has a clear advantage over the advancer and long leaper, as it only relies on intermediate spaces being empty to make a capture. The advancer on the other hand has zero probability of capturing adjacent pieces. The long leaper does, but has to factor in the probability of an empty square behind the target piece.
On an infinitely large board, in starting conditions (all pieces on the board), to use a simple example, the displacer has capture probability in a starting direction of simply 1 in 4. The advancer approaches this value for infinitely large board. The long leapers is less-approaching a value of(1/4)*(3/4)=3/16, so 3/4 that of the other 2. The queen>advancer>long leaper hierarchy looks to be preserved for all conditions (all combinations of f, e, and A), however we have the additional caveat that the long leaper can capture multiple pieces a turn.
So what do we with that-well renaming the calculated pieces value as "statistical capture probability PER UNIT PIECE", we simply add the additional probabilities for capturing 2nd, 3rd etc pieces onto the long leapers previous value. On an infinitely large, full board the long leapers value approaches a series looking like (3/16)+[(3/16)*(3/16)]+[(3/16...], which converges to a value~0.93 advancer/queen. So while the long leaper has an additional relative increase in its term it never exceeds the queen/advancer in value.
Note that the long leapers value on a rococo board is improved, possibly beyond that of an advancer, as while it otherwise would have no probability of capturing a piece on the edge of a board from a direction approaching the edge, this term now becomes (P encountering enemy piece) times (P capturing=space behind piece being empty=1)=P encountering enemy piece=1/4 in starting conditions. This is now contributed to the long leapers value, as in this case, (1/4)(P of being able to reach that edge square) added to all its terms (all positions, directions, 1st/2nd/3rd capture). The advancer on the other hand gets a minute increase in its value, basically (probability the target piece itself making having recently made a capture and not moved)(probability of reaching square in front of it to make the capture)(probability of not having made a previous capture), averaged across the board...
When it comes to chess variants, theres quite a few concepts I've thought about and would like to at some point share on this website, a lot of them are vague and essentially none have I thought through to an actual meaningful conclusion, if its even possible to do so in the first place with these kind of things. I have no idea if people would even be interested in hearing them, but for those that are I'll post them regardless. This topic seems about as good a place to start as any other, so to get the ball rolling...
Introduction
This is just an outline I have on how to calculate Ultima piece values, not sure if anyones tried something like this (someone probably has), but thought I'd share and outline some of my (incomplete) work...
Ultima pieces are generally characterised by homogenous movement and differing capture technique. For a chess piece, its power is essentially just a matter of mobility. How effective an Ultima piece however is not as immediately obvious as with a chess piece. What we require is a brute force technique of calculating its power...
Statistical capture probability
This essentially involves calculating the probability of a piece making a capture across all situations. The pieces value comes out as an equation involving up to 3 variables-number of friendly pieces on the board=f, number of enemies on the board=e, board length=l. I'll spare people the actual maths, but the idea is to get an equation that can then be plotted across 3 axis, for all values of each piece.
Basic Method
So to carry out the calculation, you basically have to place the piece on every part of the board, and calculate the possibility of it making a capture from there. Anyone who knows anything about probability theory knows that it will come down to two basic words; AND (multiplying), OR (adding), with the net result being a value between 0 and 1 of an event happening.
So for a piece on square X the process becomes basically; probability of capturing in this direction, added to probability of then capturing in THIS direction if you couldn't previously capture and so on till you have a sum of variables.
The ultimate point is to get an average of all positions to get the final equation. You can simplify it by the symmetry of the board to only work it out for squares in one quarter and then half that again as only the central diagonal from the corner out has no mirror squares in that quarter, then you get the final polynomial.
Simple example; Remover
Probably the simplest to work with would be a "remover" piece (rifle captures any adjacent piece). So for this, taking e=no. of enemies pieces on board, f=no. of friendlies, l=length of board, A=area of board/number of squares on board, P=capture probability, the equation will be 4*(P for corner squares)+24*(P for edge squares)+36*(P for inner squares), as there are 4 corner squares, 24 edge squares and 36 inner squares, with no more differentiation needed between squares the remover can be on, as the remover only attacks adjacent squares. This is then divided by the total number of squares, 64 in this case, to get the average per square-the pieces actual value at a point in a game.
So the equation for P for a corner square is e/A+[1-(e/A)][(e-1)/A]+[1-[1-(e/A)]][(e-2/A)], which is about as simple as calculations get with this. Here the idea is P for a particular direction for a remover is (no. of enemies)/(number of spaces on the board), with for the next you using the unitary compliment (1-X) to multiply, in other words, probability of capturing in this square IF you didn't capture in the previous.
I won't bother doing any further calculations or finishing the equation for the remover, needless to say it gets drastically more complicated. I myself gave up for more complex pieces like the coordinator and pincer pawn, having only been able to slug it out for one night...
Open question; how to calculate for noncapturing Ultima pieces?
Its much more difficult to calculate any clean values for noncapturing pieces, by these methods at least, as for one thing there are so many types, each of what of which would require their own approach, one might reduce enemy mobility (immobiliser) and have a value proportional to enemy mobility, the other may force enemy movement and/or increase own mobility (pusher/swapper) with a value inversely proportional to piece mobility, or maybe a piece may do something else entirely eg a protector preventing friendly pieces from being captured, which would have a value proportional to the capture threat of the enemy. Then you could have pieces more abstract again...
Chess Variant Pages Membership. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Ok, I see its now been added. Aside from actual games, is there a way you can post piece articles or general essays and discussion on different concepts of interest? I for example have a particular interest in the Ultima/Rococo style games, and have thought of a number of piece types to expand upon them, but rather than churning out variants, I feel I might be best placed to simply publish piecemeal articles on the pieces...
Joe, As far I can see, my name still isn't the list of dropdown options... I sent in my first submission 3 days ago, a chess 16*16 variant, to chessvar@yahoo.com. How long before I get feedback? Does the game show up on this website or do I resubmit as recognised contributor? Semantics aside, I stand by my point that this website could be made more accessible to new users, with a proper explanation and procedure for 1st submissions for a start...
"To become a member, you must be a contributor to our pages (either as an author or inventor). Simply go to our Contributors Page, select your name from the top list, press the "Send" button, and then follow the instructions on the screen." In other words to become a contributor, you have to select your name from the readymade list of contributors? Anyone see the slight problem with this?! It might be helpful to people you know ARENT contributors to begin with, to have a contact to send their 1st submissions or other means of getting started. Its a little strange how you neglect ANYWHERE on this site to mention as how someone ACTUALLY becomes a contributor and sends in 1st submissions. Theres just a link to a general queries email and thats it. Are you actively trying to discourage new members and input? Because thats the impression this website gives. At least to me...
Feedback to the Chess Variant Pages - How to contactus. Including information on editors and associate authors of the website.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Ultima. Game where each type of piece has a different capturing ability. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Fascinating concept, the idea of pieces of homogenous movement differentiated only by their capture method. Perhaps not strictly a chess variant, but a unique subgenre in its own right, & one that I feel deserves more popularity. As for the game itself, there are some strange imbalances which I find surprising; why allocate 2 slots for the powerful long leaper but give pride of place next to the king to the feeble withdrawer as an standalone piece? This is the kind of imbalance one sees in older prechess variants but would not expect in a newer variant... Another issue is the overly defensive nature of the game, with current setup. Having 2 chameleons with no mutual attack method tends to stagnate and cluster gameplay in my experience. Also an issue is the increasing irrelevance of the pawns in endgames. They of course have no promotion ability, which is not feasible for such mobile pieces, and offer minimal threat to the FIDE king, due to its residual ability to capture adjacent pieces. I propose the following alterations; 1. Replace king movement with that of a knight. This adds variation to the dynamic of the game and allows the pawns to present a threat to the king, as they can now be positioned adjacent to it without fear of capture. This also increases their relevance in endgames. 2. Replace the spare long leaper and chameleon with 2 pieces of offensive type; advancer/displacer(orthodox FIDE queen)/queen moving cannon etc. 3. Allow the chameleon to capture king and pawns in the manner of their own capture, but without being restricted to their movement types. This, along with the inclusion of new powerful offensive pieces, which the chameleon the acts as a counterbalance to, makes it a much more important standalone piece, and serves as an important leveller against the power inequity of different piece types. 4. (optional) Allow the withdrawer to capture from 2 spaces of distance (this might make it a little difficult to counterract in opening play, but a far more respectable piece overall) OR merge the withdrawer and advancer, freeing up another piece slot. These alterations would, in my opinion, add a much more open, fluid, balanced, dynamic, and varied mechanic to an already excellent concept...
51 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.