Comments by ultimatecoolster

The description reads:

When capture, it jumps on an obstacle (friendly or hostile piece), then takes the first piece worth behind an obstacle.

The meaning may be uncertain because it is not in perfect English. However, when it says 'first piece worth behind', it does not say squares, but only first piece, so I understand it to be the same as the Tank AKA Leo. It is probable that this is the case because the pieces in this game are not completely radical and if the inspiration for the piece is the Cannon, the regular Tank move seems more logical. It may however be as you say, with inspiration being capture like a Grasshopper. To know exactly what is meant, we must ask Sergey Sirotkin.

I'm not sure how much of a 'revenge' the Mounted King is. The King as Knight is more difficult to maneuver for players used to the regular move. On the other hand, the King is more difficult to checkmate when it is now a Knight, though Chess variantists generally consider the Knight to be slightly weaker than the Commoner which moves like a King. Also, players may not want their King to become a Mounted King if the regular move is more strategically viable for them.

Despite the fact that new variants often do not fulfill their intentions, I think this King transformation is something to be considered for other games and as a fun rule variant on boring old Chess.

If it is a handicap then there seems to be no problem with such a game with Queen instead of Maharaja. For your suggestion of Maharaja vs. Horde, there is a similar game: http://www.chessvariants.org/unequal.dir/dunsany.html

Wikipedia has a page explaining the game of Stone Warriors, also called Awithlaknakwe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awithlaknakwe

The rules about not moving backwards, diagonal interception capture, and placing the Guard seem to be derived from Stone Warriors.

Indeed, I know exactly what you mean. Not only have I seen old pages
needing updates or corrections, but some contributors have issue with
editing pages that were published by staff, for example Adrian King's
Scirocco.

Syntax Error on line 0

@-b2 is not a valid expression, because @-b2 is not a recognized piece, coordinate, command, or subroutine.

For the sake of debugging, here is the full GAME Code program that this error occurred in. The lines have been properly indented to help you spot scope errors.

   0 @-b2
   1 @-c2
   2 @-d2
   3 @-e2
   4 @-f2
   5 @-a5
   6 @-b5
   7 @-c5
   8 @-d5
   9 @-e5
  10 end

George, may I ask where you derive your rankings for Next Chess? If you are
using number of comments with approval as I expect, I suggest that you
include the exact numbers.

The way I learned was by looking at ZRFs. You can look up code in the Help
file. Except maybe if you have Windows Vista I think, which has Help
removed. In that case I don't know where you can find a reference.

I think no, George. Augmented Knights ruin regular Knights and augmented
Knights coalesce into deadlock with sliders with their common moves, unless
augment is oblique which most of are awkward. Knight still underranks
Bishop, though we are taught otherwise, as RGB is modern color but RYB is
art. However, there is not yet viable solution to Knight augment problem
when this gap widens.

If the Bowman moved as a Knight but captured normally, it could be thought of as a Knight equivalent of the Advancer. However, it is actually a complex Moo that captures as an Advancing Knight on the matching path.

The Bowman can also be thought of as capturing along a length equal to its movement, instead of just one square like the Advancer. We can extrapolate this to a Rook. Such a piece would move as a non-capturing Rook, but a piece the same amount of squares away in the same direction as the Rook from its starting position would be captured, regardless of intervening pieces. The Bowman-Rook is not as strong as you may think, because the more spaces it moves the more spaces away the piece must be exactly. The Bowman-Rook cannot capture a piece when it moves more than one-half board length, so can only capture if it moves 3 squares or less on a standard board. The Bowman-Rook becomes weaker toward the edges as its attacks are reduced even if they fit on the board sometimes, so it is weaker at long range.

Mr. Gilman, how does mating fair on a board with such strong pieces, but a toroidal (Mobius, actually) geometry? I think I recall that boards with looped geometries and normal pieces have more difficult mating since the King cannot be cornered. On the other hand, it is easier to mate in Capablanca and Amazon Chess. Does this even out?

If you have no answer, perhaps Mr. Muller could run some tests on this game, or if it is too intensive, a smaller and equivalent game you could recommend.

I define a reduced CV as one that plays on a smaller board or with less
pieces than usual, but retains most of the original properties in some
form.

REDUCED ROOKS (Recommended for 6x8 variants and variants with extra pieces
on 8x8.)

Everyone knows that Rooks are endgame pieces, right? And so are Pawns?
What if we simplified this by combining them?

How about Pawns that project Rook paths, but only move to the ones shared
by at least 1/2 of them? At maximum, 4 Pawns can move like Rooks but only
within the bounds of a rectangle they form. 1 or 2 Pawns move as full
Rooks. This way, endgames are approximated by remaining Pawns and
adjustments for Rooks are made.

What about the idea of mixed AI? A computer Chess player could use multiple
AI programs for its moves.

If anyone remembers Hitchhiker Chess, there was a piece that automatically
moved with any piece adjacent moving away from it. What if this could be
applied to regular Chess?

I give you Web Chess:

When a binder moves, the bound moves to the space at the same location
relative to the binder before it moved.

VARIANT 1

Whenever a piece attacks or defends another piece, the first piece binds
the second.

VARIANT 2

Whenever a piece attacks or defends another piece, the second piece binds
the first.

I've had an idea about static move sets which pieces on that square can
move as for a while. However, this in practice is rather boring as the
positions are always essentially the same, just with different colors or
simple modifiers like one square or infinite. Then, I got this idea:

What if the movements were separate from the pieces, but moved
themselves?

As if the movements were normal people, leading their dull lives, when
they become vessels in a fight between foreign spirits...

Maybe the Queen is easier to understand when learning Chess when it moves more like a King, because kings and queens pair in real life. In Shatranj, the corresponding piece is called a general, and generals do not pair with kings so much. In Xiang Qi, the king moves only orthogonally, maybe to pair better with the diagonal moves. Kings are really a difficult thing to choose, because it is the center of Chess and you want it to represent most pieces to   make different pieces at least seem important even if weaker.

I don't think the Queen is a more intuitive piece personally, but most people I teach Chess have problems with Knights more, and also then Cardinals. Many Chess players perceive some balance between orthogonal and diagonal, and sometimes also Knights. Really diagonal is just orthogonal on a different, bigger board and Knights are diagonal but use 2 different diagonals together that make them not colorbound.

Bodhisattva diagram:

. . .  . . .  . . .  . P .  . P .  . P .  . P .  . P .  . , .  . P .
. . .  . . .  . P .  . , .  . 3 .  . 3 .  . 3 .  . P .  Q P .  Q 3 .
. n .  . P .  . , .  . , .  . 2 .  . 2 .  . P .  . 2 .  . , .  . 2 .
P P P  , P P  , P P  , P P  1 P P  P P ,  1 P ,  1 P ,  , P ,  1 P 0

a1-b2  b2-b3  b3-b4;b4-@ c1-a1 a1-b2 b2-b3 b4-Q;b4-a3 b3-b4;b4-@

Once the Bodhisattva promotes, he can no longer help others. However, if
he has helped at least one Pawn, this Pawn can become another Bodhisattva.

While there are previous pieces, Duke, I submit my own in a line of all too
little used pieces with effects derived from personality:

Fox is cowardly. When attacked, he will defend himself. Fox is clever.
When another piece is attacked, he can move to any square attacking the
attacker. Dog is loyal. He must defend. Dog is aggressive. He must capture
otherwise, and attacked pieces are immobilized. Ox is stubborn. He will not
stop moving on a path, or standing still. Ox is industrious. He will keep
moving on a path, capturing any pieces. Frog is benign. He does not do much
when attacked. Frog is talented. He will do much when not attacked.

http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/conversion-chess

Further syncretism. Games of this sort can be considered 'themed' and a
good method of generating themed games is to combine similar points of
existing variants.

The Emperor is non-autopositional variable piece, moving to any square
defended by a friendly piece.

The counter of the Emperor would be the Anarchist, which moves to any
square attacked by an enemy piece. Anarchists would make for much more
aggressive games by discouraging defense. The fluidity would be too high
for most initial positions, so there could instead be Libertarians, moving
to any square attacked by two enemy pieces.

Between an Emperor and an Anarchist would be a Moderator, which moves to
any square both defended and attacked.

Pieces of this sort make for careful positioning, and are best suited for
sparse boards.

Moorider can be Maorider+Moarider or what is called 'multi-path',
correct? Multi-path is the father of planar, and grandfather of
rider/slider. Leaper/stepper is the father of multi-path, descending as
movement becomes more restricted...

To speak as George Duke:

Rider is mono-axial Class in Phylum Planar.

The Kingdom is Chessoids; displacement-captors with no effects, in the Domain Wargames.

Well, what I did was just look at some random variants, picked out some
interesting things from them, and worked a variant around those. If there
are too many special features, I try to blend them together, especially
where common points arise. (Some people don't do this, resulting in some very ugly variants.) Perhaps you can create Chimera #2, Rich.

I cited the inspirations for Liberation Chess in the introduction, and I
wanted people to see what elements I have used in the game.

No, but that sounds interesting.

CONTEST TIME!

OBJECT: Design a game with the best use of an unsymmetrical board!
More points for very unsymmetrical boards, sparse boards, boards with other unusual features, and intuitive rules that govern movement so as the unsymmetrical board is not a hindrance. Technically normal boards where the board is hippogonally connected and all the pieces are Knightoids, etc. don't count!


Deadline is April 2nd!

Surely you have rendered the Gorilla a jest, my dear George? 'Twas a mere
mockery of your avian conceit.

Might I mention that I have, in 2006, already filed a patent for all
Chessoid games featuring a piece named Gorilla. We have, however, been
unsuccessful at making the patent retroactive. All may use the Gorilla in
commercial games, though at my discretion.

No, you are wrong, Mr. Duke. The truly essential piece is my Gorilla, which
moves 4 King moves, capturing up to one, passing up to one piece. The
Falcon is obviously derived from this, as it only moves thrice, cannot
reverse, and cannot jump. The Knight is derived from it also, for it jumps
for the entire journey, whereas my Gorilla jumps for one step. The Rook and
Bishop extend its steps. It is moreover a superset because it can capture
on any step, rather than the zenith. If you could muster an iota of
intelligence, you could see this for yourself.