[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Mammoth Chess (zrf) is an attempt to create a new form of big-board chess, featuring the Mammoth piece. I haven't investigated it deeply, but it seems to work.
Earlier big board variants are Tamerlane Chess, allegedly invented byTimur Lenk, C. Freeling's Grand Chess, and Capablanca's chess, invented by the former world champion. Mammoth Chess, differs significantly from these previous variants, not only in the pieces employed. The initial drop move, deriving from Burmese Chess, allows great strategical freedom. The king can achieve a more protected position than in Grand Chess, while the pawns can be relocated to protect the king. This significantly alters the balance between strategy and tactics. Opening play does not rely on concrete variants but rather on principles and favoured piece setups. Consequently the game will never be bogged down by opening theory, as the case is in today's orthodox chess. This could be good, if the Mammoth proves to function in this context of pieces.
Earlier big board variants are Tamerlane Chess, allegedly invented by
I'd say the Mammoth is a very week piece... looking at it in the following way, that is: Many pieces can appear in many games, but the Mammoth is 'Copyright' we are told and cannot be used by anyone or legal measures may be taken against them. It is so sad to see such gaming piece nonsense (my opinion, of course). So, I see the Mammoth as week, as it is unfortunately tied to legal red tape.... Long live the pieces that can be shared by the players and inventors of ChessVariants... and a thanks to the people that freely share pieces. To the selfish piece creators, a thumbs down.
Gary, wake up!! That copyright stuff was a joke!
Of course, one cannot copyright a piece. It's hardly any difference between this one and several other pieces. Nor can one copyright a chess variant, as they all build on similar principles, only combined in different ways.
Mats
Of course, one cannot copyright a piece. It's hardly any difference between this one and several other pieces. Nor can one copyright a chess variant, as they all build on similar principles, only combined in different ways.
Mats
Mats: The creator of the Falcon piece likely disagrees. But, thanks for the joke. Fooled me.
Short range leapers can be quite powerful. I suspect that your Mammoth is worth as much as two Bishops, even on a 10x10 board.
Some of us remember an earlier game called Mammoth Chess, which has since disappeared from sight. Nothing stopping you from using the name for your new variant.
Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, Apr 16, 2006 05:13 PM UTC:Hi, Mats. I hate to preempt you, but I refer you to the 'Jumping General' in 'Two Large Shatranj Variants'. It appears as the queen analog in Grand Shatranj and as the royal piece in Atlantean Barroom Shatranj, both games currently being played on this site. It does work very nicely. It even has a new unique graphic which incorporates an elephant and a war machine, which appears in current games. And as soon as this computer/internet illiterate figures out how to accomplish it, the games will be available as public presets with unique rules sets. And rather than go through lawyers, I suggest we duel it out. After all, I can establish prior copyright; I just need better computer skills and advertising. If Gary is willing, I choose him as my second. And should there be an interested party lurking, feel free to choose sides. Seriously, this does point out the extreme difficulty of coming up with a genuinely new piece, especially one that is actually broadly playable. I'd be surprised if I were the first to propose this piece. I am curious as to how you figured its value as that of a rook. Short range jumping pieces are apparently not well represented in popular games. Is this a defect in the nature of short-range leapers, or just random chance that this piece is only really represented by the knight- and alfil-types?
The Mammoth is almost the same as a Giraffe in Congo, except that a Girffe cannot capture when making a King's move.
Hi Joe! This was exactly what I expected, that more cunning persons would inform me whether the piece is unique or not. Anyway, 'Mammoth' is a good name and I think I'll keep it. I have already updated my homepage with the information you relate. (Is this piece in the Piece-encyclopedia?) I think highly of this piece. I *suspect* it is worth the same as a rook, but I'm not certain. It covers at most 16 squares. The rook covers at most 18 squares on the 10x10 board, but the Mammoth can be more active. The Zillions engine regards the Mammoth as more valuable than the rook, so I had to tweak the engine to accept it as equal to the rook. The games that I've played with the computer seems to validate this. But on an 8x8 board I suspect it's worth more than a rook. On the 10x10 board the long-ranged rook increases its value, I'd guess.
'S - Squire: Moves one or two squares in any direction. The S may jump over other pieces.' This piece can be found in Eric V. Greenwood's Rennchess (1980) and Jean Louis Cazaux's Chess (Variant) Graphics (2002).
The name 'Squire' has also been used for a piece that moves like a Queen for one or two squares, but cannot jump.
Michael, you don't need to bother about such copyrights. Nobody has the right to copyright the properties of chess that have existed for thousands of years. If I design a TV, with an inbuilt digital camera, and cellular phone, then I can't copyright that, simply because of insufficient uniqueness. It's just a juxtaposition of already invented items. When it comes to chess, it has such a strong public domain status, like all ancient games, so in this case it's even more obvious that it can't be copyrighted. Anybody can exploit my Mammoth Chess anyway they want. (I uploaded a bugfixed version today). If it becomes popular then they might want to fabricate Mammuth piece sets and sell. I gladly accept that.
You mean 'patent'. Only a text can be copyrighted.
Mark, copyright issues involve games, too. Take a look at the copyright babble at the Rubik's cube site.
When it comes to patents, have a look here. Copyrights are international under the Bern Convention, but patents are strictly national in force. Despite attempts, the terms of international treaties have never been successfully negotiated. For instance, this means that a working software program (other than one copyrighted by the inventor) which plays a particular board game carrying a current US Patent can be developed, freely distributed and used by people in all of the other 200 or so nations of the world legally and without restriction. Just don't violate any applicable copyright (or trademark) which may also exist. This may mean that the original name of the game cannot be safely used.
So patents are no problem when it comes to games, if the game is patented abroad. The only problem is the trademark. But the only thing one needs to do is to rename the game. When it comes to chess variants one needn't bother. I think it's ridiculous to claim copyright for the rules of a chess variant. The copyright is valid, of course, for anything that one writes about the variant, i.e., an article about it, piece images, etc. But one cannot claim copyright for the rules. How would it be if philosophers claimed copyright for their philosophical ideas, saying that nobody else has the right to think in this particular way?
Mats
When it comes to patents, have a look here. Copyrights are international under the Bern Convention, but patents are strictly national in force. Despite attempts, the terms of international treaties have never been successfully negotiated. For instance, this means that a working software program (other than one copyrighted by the inventor) which plays a particular board game carrying a current US Patent can be developed, freely distributed and used by people in all of the other 200 or so nations of the world legally and without restriction. Just don't violate any applicable copyright (or trademark) which may also exist. This may mean that the original name of the game cannot be safely used.
So patents are no problem when it comes to games, if the game is patented abroad. The only problem is the trademark. But the only thing one needs to do is to rename the game. When it comes to chess variants one needn't bother. I think it's ridiculous to claim copyright for the rules of a chess variant. The copyright is valid, of course, for anything that one writes about the variant, i.e., an article about it, piece images, etc. But one cannot claim copyright for the rules. How would it be if philosophers claimed copyright for their philosophical ideas, saying that nobody else has the right to think in this particular way?
Mats
See also: http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/contest/mammoth.html
Negligent of me, but this game wasn't listed among the big-board variants, so I had no knowledge about it when I named my game Mammoth Chess. But since the inventor has withdrawn his creation I think I can appropriate the name.
The question is how people experience the dropping phase. Is it tedious due to the large board? Would players prefer a standard setup? I think I will experiment with a standard setup because the Mammoth is well suited for this environment of board size and piece types. I am sceptical of the extra pieces in Grand Chess, that combine long range pieces with short range knight moves. By the way, the Mammoth (Squire) deserves a place in the Piecencyclopedia.
Mats
The question is how people experience the dropping phase. Is it tedious due to the large board? Would players prefer a standard setup? I think I will experiment with a standard setup because the Mammoth is well suited for this environment of board size and piece types. I am sceptical of the extra pieces in Grand Chess, that combine long range pieces with short range knight moves. By the way, the Mammoth (Squire) deserves a place in the Piecencyclopedia.
Mats
I filed for a copyright for my Chess for Three game, and it was returned 'Denied.' The explanation was that since the board is a geometric shape, it can't be copyrighted (as opposed to other board-games whose boards contain artistic graphics,like, say, Risk or Monopoly) the precise text of any particular version of a rules page can be copyrighted, although its intellectual content can't, and the sculptural patterns of the pieces physically produced in 3d can, although their moves cannot. I don't see anything wrong with just giving something to the world once in a while; share the joy!
It's true that this is a fine opportunity to be creative, to give away for free, and feel altruistic. I have implemented a new big-board chess, Mastodon Chess, featuring the Mammoth (but here it is called Mastodon to add to the confusion. I found one reference to 'Mastodon' on the Chess Variant pages, referring to a quite odd piece, not very useful. It is not a listed piece so I employ the name Mastodon, too). Anyway, I really believe in this Mammoth piece. I think its future is bright.
I've continued experimenting with the Mastodont (Mammoth, Squire). I am fond of this piece because it is so natural (there exist many 'madcap' chess pieces that are fun but not quite natural). It is a natural extension of the regular pieces as it complements the knight's moves, while its added capability of the king's moves makes it capable, like the knight, of reaching all the squares of the board (unlike the other complement of the knight, namely the Alibaba. What's more, at least on the 10x10 board it seems like an exact counterpart of the rook in strength. This is very good as it allows for the positional stratagem of exchanging pieces (and not only to tactically conquer them.) Moreover, a Mastodon, together with a King, can give mate to a lonely King. It has the minimum strength for this quite important capability.
I found a piece setup on the 8x10 board that seems to function well with the Mastodon piece: Mastodon Chess (8x10) (zrf).
(By the way, I wonder how people evaluate the strenght of pieces. I see that they value them as '8.9', etc.)
Mats
I found a piece setup on the 8x10 board that seems to function well with the Mastodon piece: Mastodon Chess (8x10) (zrf).
(By the way, I wonder how people evaluate the strenght of pieces. I see that they value them as '8.9', etc.)
Mats
Hi Mats, to answer your question (By the way, I wonder how people evaluate the strenght of pieces. I see that they value them as '8.9', etc.) have a look at: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachansatz1_e.html and the following pages like: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html . Regards, Reinhard.
From my game against Zillions-of-Games:
Mastodon chess, white plays and checkmates in two moves.
Mastodon chess, white plays and checkmates in two moves.
Andreas, thanks for the example that shows that the Mastodon is a very dangerous piece. I've come up with yet another variant featuring the Mastodon (Mammoth), namely
Mammoth Chess (8x10) (zrf). I think this drop-chess theme with pawn relocation is very promising. It could be used in more games. I also tried it with Capablanca's notions of pieces and board size, and christened it Scandinavian Chess (zrf).
Mats
Mats
The Mammoth is a strong piece. Betza's Atomic Theory suggests a 4-atom value, equal to a Cardinal. Its lack of range is compensated by unblockability and excellent coverage of nearby sqaures.
Michael, please give a concise account of 'Betza's Atomic Theory'. I've read Scharnagl's papers on piece value, and one can immediately see in this attempt, and others, that the result is not wholly correct. Had the bishop's value exceeded the knight's value to this extent, then exchanging a bishop against a knight would lead to minor advantage. But practice has shown that bishops and knights have equal value. However, as the player can sometimes steer the game into positions where the bishop is stronger, it is often a good strategy to defer exchange. If the Mammoth (Mastodon) is very strong due to its manœuvrability then a paradox ensues. It cannot manœuvre because it's so valuable and must fall back before the lighter pieces. This means that it's not so strong after all. Unlike a Rook it cannot threathen at a distance. It must go forward to make threaths, and this means that it exposes itself to threaths. Moreover, the Mammoth is not only vulnerable at a short distance, it's also easily exposed to threaths from long distance, by all other pieces except the king. That is, other pieces can easily threathen the Mammoth without being threathened themselves. It seems like the 'vulnerability factor' is high with the Mammoth (is 'vulnerability' included when determining piece value mathematically?). It is also a slow piece. It takes four moves to move it across a big board. I don't believe it compares to a Cardinal (Archbishop, B+N) in strength. The latter is faster and much less vulnerable. Intuitively, I would say that the Mammoth compares to the value of a Rook. Mats
it is easily stronger than a rook, no doubt, it is alfil + dabbaba + wazir + fers, and that is a very powerful piece.
Hi Mats, I have calculated the average exchange value for the 10x8 board Mammoth using my approach. Then a Mammoth with 5.4198 compared to a Rook with 5.8148 seems to be about 1/2 Pawn unit weaker. Additionally I want to mention, that when exchanging pieces not only their average piece value will vanish from the board, but also their positional influence. Thus it is quite often when exchanging Knights with Bishops, that a Knight will have the bigger positional influence at the board thus making an exchange nearly equal. But this does not hold for the whole game. Regards, Reinhard Scharnagl. P.S.: In my calculations I prosumed, that a mammoth has to slide to its two distant targets, thus not jumping over pieces like a Knight.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
The Mammoth piece is copyrighted and may not be used by anybody else. Offenders will be subject to legal measures. Kalroten Game Development Inc. ;-)