Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Ratings & Comments

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
YellowJournalism[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
gnohmon wrote on Sat, Apr 13, 2002 01:03 AM UTC:
1. 'B moves all compelled pieces' Oh, no. I'll have to read closely and try
to see why you could have possibly thought that. Instead, 'B moves one
compelled piece (or makes a saving move for it).' One move at a time.

If you have compelled pieces, your moves are restricted, just like being in
check except that compulsion is more powerful because if you have several
compelled pieces the opponent has several moves of free action (can go
around engulfing everything while you are helpless).

2. 'if you are compelled into a square which you must move off' no, the
compelled move must be a legal move. You can't move onto ichor just because
you're compelled.

3. petrified Leaf Pile could still engulf if pushed -- I like that, it's
more consistent, I have made this change.

4. Simplified version of the game. Ah yes, a game for demon toddlers. I
like that idea, too.

5. I planned to integrate the documents by making the official rules a link
from the first doc; and therefore removing most of the Interactions section
(just keep a few highlights).

Peter Aronson wrote on Sat, Apr 13, 2002 04:49 AM UTC:
How did I come to that conclusion? It wasn't a sin of commission, but perhaps a sin of omission, or perhaps just my mistake. You wrote: <blockquote> There are cases in which pieces are compelled to move. When you are under compulsion, you may make any move which removes the compulsion, but if you cannot satisfy the compulsion of at least one piece, you lose. (Think of it as checkmate.) </blockquote> Somehow it didn't occur to me that unlike the Go Away, the Ghast's compulsion (and other compulsions) just affected what moves were required and legal. An alternate wording might be something like: <blockquote> There are cases in which pieces are compelled to move. If you have any compelled pieces, you must move one of them as your move, although you may choose among your compelled pieces with legal moves. If you have compelled pieces, and none of your compelled pieces have legal moves, you are stalemated and thus lose. </blockquote> Strangely enough, compelled moves are a bit like capturing moves in checkers, being higher priority than other moves.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on Sat, Apr 13, 2002 05:04 AM UTC:
I have rarely seen so much chatter as for this game. (N.B. there is
significant commentary on Nemoroth in the Yellow Journalism thread.)

A couple of points:

Is Nemoroth a chess variant?  If gnohmon says it is, who am I to gainsay
him?  I am an 'inclusionist' when it comes to chess variants, anyway.  It
actually seems more like an Amazons variant, and there are other more
chess-like games that make use of the 'shrinking board' mechanism, but what
the heck.  (Bob Abbott, who invented Ultima, did not think it was chess,
because it did not use replacement captures.  He was an 'exclusionist'.)

When Nemoroth is refined, and the rules settle down, may we expect pages on
'The Value of the Nemoroth Pieces' and 'Nemoroth with Different Armies'? 
Should we reserve the name www.nemorothvariants.com?

If interest remains high, how about the CVP sponsor a contest in Nemoroth
problem composition?

Fischer Random Chess. Play from a random setup. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Brad Hoehne wrote on Wed, Jun 20, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:
Hi,

I have worked out a slightly different method of setting up Fischer random
chess positions with a single six-sided die.   It's fairly easy to
memorizem because it follows logically from the positional rules of the
game.   As far as I can tell it will create all possible positions. Here it
is:

All die rolls are counted from the left side of the board from white's
point of view and apply to remaining empty and 'legal' squares only.

Because the king must be between both rooks, it can only occupy the central
six squares on each side.  Roll a die and place the king on one of the six
'central' squares.

Now place the rooks.   Roll a die for the left rook.  If the number exceeds
the number of squares on the left side of the king, roll again.    Repeat
for the right rook.  If there is only one square to the right or left of
the king, skip the rolls and simply place the rook.

Now place the Bishops.   Place the first bishop based on a die roll.   If
the roll value exceeds the number of remaining squares, roll again.   Place
the second bishop in a similar manner counting only the available squares
of the opposite color of the already placed bishop.

Place the queen with a die roll.  If the die number is 4-6 then subtract 3
from its value (to minimize the number of rolls necessary.)

Place the two knights on the last two squares.

I have yet to study this method in detail to determine if it favors certain
positions.


A modification of the die roll procedure to minimize re-rolls is as
follows:   If there are 2-3 'legal' squares for the rooks or the second
bishop take the remainder of the die in the 'modula' of the number of
remaining squares.  For example, if there are two legal squares for the
left rook, and one rolls a 5, one counts this as a '1', as 1 is the
remainder when one divides 5 by 2.  If the roll had been a '4' one would
count this as a '2'.   In the case of 3 empty squares, one a '5' would
count as a '2'.  A '6' would count as a '3' and a '4' would count  as a '1'
(as in the queen roll, which will always have 3).   

This method will not work without bias when there are 4-6 legal squares
remaining, and re-rolls must be employed.  However, statistically speaking,
fewer rolls will be necessary in such a case anyway.   

It is possible, though highly improbable, that one might require a very
large number of rolls to finally 'nail down' a position for the rooks and
bishops.  But once they are placed, only 1 roll remains.

What do you think?

Brad Hoehne- Columbus, Ohio.

Glinski's Hexagonal Chess. Chess on a board made out of hexagons. (Cells: 91) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on Wed, May 16, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I searched all over the internet for basic information on Hexagonal chess and this one website gives me more information than all other websites combined!

Raumschach. The classical variant of three-dimensional chess: 5 by 5 by 5. (5x(5x5), Cells: 125) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jim Aikin wrote on Mon, May 14, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Raumschach is elegant in design (a good thing!) but not quite as good as it could be. The unicorn is far too weak to be a useful piece, and the king is so mobile that he is bound to be difficult to checkmate. I'm currently (5/15/01) working on these problems, and hope to have my new version ready for posting before too long. --Jim Aikin (jaikin@musicplayer.com)

Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Xiangqi (Chinese Chess). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on Wed, Mar 6, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Very useful and informative. Thanks for your effort.

Anonymous wrote on Wed, Jan 9, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Thanks for the initial overview of this unknown game. I hadn't heard of Chinese Chess until tonight and simple curiousity sent me to your website. Now...I just want to play! With appreciation, tt

Anonymous wrote on Tue, Jan 1, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

Kim wrote on Sun, Aug 5, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:
Informative overview for the newcomer to Xiangqi, however, the descriptions
assume the reader is already familiar with regular chess.
Kim, Cape Town, South Africa

Anonymous wrote on Mon, Jun 4, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Anonymous wrote on Tue, May 8, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Make sure you add something about who made/created it and what year it was created.

Dave Woo wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:
Hi:

The statement that 'You cannot put the opponent in check more than 3 times
in a row with the same piece without either side moving any other piece' is
incorrect.  Rather than the number of checks being limited, it's the number
of repeating 'cycles' (which is three cycles, or a triple-repetition, which
in most cases, six checks).

This common misconception seems to stem from Lau's book, Chinese Chess.  We
would be glad to discuss with you further on this issue.  My e-mail is
cci_xqr@hotmail.com


Dave Woo
Chinese Chess Institute
USA

Anonymous wrote on Sun, Dec 31, 2000 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Anonymous wrote on Fri, Dec 29, 2000 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
very good

Anonymous wrote on Tue, Dec 5, 2000 12:00 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
it took me at least 15 mininutes to complete download of this website. So far, not finish yet. Thanks

Anonymous wrote on Tue, Sep 5, 2000 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Shatranj. The widely played Arabian predecessor of modern chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on Sat, Jun 9, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
I thought pawns are not allowed to make a double-step on their first move. isn't it?

Tandem Chess. 4 player variant where pieces taken from your opponent are given to your partner. (2x(8x8), Cells: 128) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on Tue, Mar 19, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Anonymous wrote on Mon, Mar 18, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Great! The tandem chess rules were just the thing I was looking for :D

Anonymous wrote on Fri, Apr 6, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:
the most common time control for bughouse seems to be 3 0 on ICS's, and there, players may say anything to their partners, including flagging, time advantages, etc. Furthermore, players sit as long as they are up on time, and this makes sitting a part of the game. and players will sit until their time runs out if mated. First checkmate wins, regardless of the other board.

Ultima. Game where each type of piece has a different capturing ability. Also called Baroque. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on Thu, Nov 22, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:
I have known of Ultima for more than 30 yrs & I apppreciate yr 
authoritative treatment.  I was introduced to it at the Providence 
Chess Club where it was played occasionally while waiting for a
chess opponent.
I have reservations about Abbott's corrective of the 'N' move limit, 
but I hv hd no chance to try it out.
Thank u for asembling the info & presenting it so attractively.
	>pouliot[at]mailcity.com<

Gert Greeuw wrote on Mon, Nov 19, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
Ultima is very interesting, I play it with Zillions (not strong).
However,
I tried to find game annotations and I could not find any. It would be
nice
if you could give some games and some open sources. I wonder if there
exists opening and endgame theory.

Gert Greeuw
grw@geodelft.nl

Sung Dynasty[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Matthew wrote on Sat, Apr 13, 2002 08:59 PM UTC:
I am attempting to locate one variant from the Sung Dynasty China (0960),
Which has an extended king row, forward of which are two rows of pawns,
forward are two major power pieces  [ either named lance or archer] ,
forward of the archer is yet another row of pawns. Any info you might
have
on this game would be greatly appreciated.
			Thank You

PIBROKEN LINK!. Commercial multiplayer chess variant for 2 - 12 players.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on Sat, Apr 13, 2002 09:19 PM UTC:
<i>NOTE: the email address and phone number listed on the site appear to be non-responsive. It appears as if this company may be out of business. Anyone knowing any more information, please contact us.</i> <p>--Editors.

25 comments displayed

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.