Comments by ultimatecoolster

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...