Ratings & Comments

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

'rarely seen as much chatter' -- it's a combination of two things, I think;
first the story is pretty good. You must understand that after I wrote it,
I also read it, and even I was affected by it. The idea of the ancient
Lovecraftian city that existed before the world was finished being built
kinda grabs me. And the details that make it real (by the way, the reason
that Nemoroth was destroyed when Luna was floated up into the sky after
being built in its harbor was that the project was given to the lowest
bidder) -- well,when I wrote it, in the heat of the moment I thought it was
merely corroborative detail intended to add artistic verisimilitude to an
otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative, but when I read it, it sounded
so suspension-of-disbeliefable and I could picture the city and the harbor
and the Moon and the little boats carrying pieces of craters to the work
site, and golly gee gosh how amazing.

The second thing is that the game itself is pretty interesting. Although I
was so caught up in the story that I really did a bad job of describing the
game, it's non-trivial and it's very different (in terms of how it feels to
play it) than most chesslike or ultimalike games.

This *will* cause chatter, even in the most silent of times.

Since The Game of Nemoroth came out shortly after I had said strongly that
there wasn't enough chatter, well, what would you expect. :-)

'values of Nemoroth pieces' -- quite impossible. Likewise Nemoroth with
Different Armies. The various non-capture effects have values that are imho
impossible to estimate numerically. The useful Go Away has a value that
depends entirely on what it can push, just for one example. 

In practice, I think the Zombie is most valuable, and the second tier
contains the Go Away, the Basilisk, and the Leaf Pile. The Leaf Pile is so
easy to use; an advanced Basilisk, even if it gets petrified (but you gotta
calculate if the foe can push a Leaf Pile onto it!) can be crippling, and
the Go Away transforms positions completely.

But even the humble Human is strong. Leaving one's Basilisk at home invites
the Humand to advance and petrify themselves in blocking positions. 

The Ghast is so powerful that it is outside the range of values. However, I
have not yet played a game against myself where I captured a Ghast, so in
effect the Ghast is always neutralized by the enemy Ghast. Pushing a statue
to d4 or d5 neutralizes the enemy Ghast and allows you to reposition from
b6 to f6; this happened once and was very strong. All in all, I like the
way the game works.

'But crazyhouse is better' -- interesting comment.

What you call Crazyhouse is, I think, the 'Double Bughouse chess' to which
the mimeographed magazine 'New England Double Bughouse Chess' was devoted
in the 1970s. (That's how people communicated then. Inconvenient, slow, and
expensive compared to the internet, but would you believe it people
communicated with each other even before there was an internet! What a
mindblowing idea, no?)

Funny thing is, your comment makes me think that the last time I played
that game you hadn't been born yet. Stalling was a bad consequence of the
rules as they were then; have they fixed this?

If you say it's better, you should say why you think it's better. By
providing reasons, you might get people to respond with counter arguments,
and once in a while they would convince you you were wrong and once in a
while you would convince them and most of the time you'd have fun arguing
but you wouldn't get anywhere. Welcome to the internet.

Does the game you call crazyhouse require 4 players? Did you know that in
the 1970s I described how you could play it with 2 teams of 100 players?

Now that this comments page is up, I'd like to ask the regular 
readers of www.chessvariants.com to comment on Doublechess.
Doublechess is the first chess variant which I invented, and I
think it is my best one of all the ones I have created. It is my
pride and joy. At the time I submitted it to this site I had learned
that I was just a few months too late to enter it into the Large
Variants contest that was being held at the time. What a pity!
I feel that Doublechess would have been a very strong contender,
but by the time I first learned of this site's existence, the 
deadline for submissions for the contest had passed.

Doublechess' page on this site is unique in many ways. You
won't find too many other games on this site which have sample
games linked to it, and one of the games is annotated in detail.
(The link to my 'Doublechess web site' is no longer valid.)
Doublechess can be played by email on Richard's Play By Email
server, and I frequently conduct Doublechess tournaments on PBM.
The next one may be beginning in a few months and I will post
an announcement about it here (as I did recently for the forthcoming
Omegachess tournament which I will be running on PBM as well) when
I am ready to begin it.

Doublechess is a very simple variant. Simply lay two 8 by 8 chess
boards side by side. Use two chess sets, and replace the second
set of kings with a third set of queens. (if one does not have a
third set of chess queen pieces handy, substitutes can be used until
they are captured. Coins work well, for instance, a penny for a
white queen and a nickel for a black queen.) Set up the first army
of pieces in the traditional setup (RBNQKBRN) in files E to L
and the second army out in the wings (RBNQ, QBNR) in files A to D
and M to P. 

You will notice a few interesting strategic points about Doublechess.
Opposing bishops start along the same diagonals as each other,
often promting them to be quickly traded off if the opportunity
presents itself. If they avoid an early exchange, bishops of like
color can double themselves along the same diagonal to form a battery
in much the same way that one might double their rooks along the same
file in chess. Notice that whereas white begins with two dark squared
bishops on the left side of the board, or queenside (in Doublechess
terminology,
the 'queenside' refers to files A to H, and 'kingside' refers to
files I to P, mimicking the same sides of the boards which these
terms refer to in regular chess), and black has two light squared
bishops on the queenside. Likewise, white has two light squared
bishops to start the game on the kingside, and black has two dark
squared bishops on each side. Each side can try to exploit the other's
weaknesses on light or dark squares on each half of the board.

The way the board is set up, as players begin to develop their pieces
and pawns, the pieces tend to engage each other on each half of the
board in about the same amount of time as they do in regular chess.
In the middle game it is often the case where pieces will be interacting
with each other and threatening each other on each half of the board
completely independent from what is going on on the other side of the
board. In some ways then, Doublechess is like playing two games in one,
though one really needs to look at the board as a whole to truly
understand and appreciate the game.

There are other strategic differences between Doublechess and regular
chess which make my variant exciting and unique. It is more common
to sacrifice material for attack in Doublechess than it is in regular
chess, since one has so much material at one's disposal to attack with.
In Doublechess then, obviously king safety becomes extremely important.
Thus another axiom of dc is that it is quite possible to win despite
a material disadvantage, more often than one can overcome such a
deficit in regular chess. As long as one has enough pieces to launch
an attack, they can make things interesting.

I should also point out that the one rule that is unique and 
distinctive to Doublechess is the castling rule (see dc's page for
full explanation of the castling rule), and the pros and cons of
long castling vs. short castling can be long debated. It's another
twist to the game which makes it interesting. 

One advantage that my variant has over other CVs is that it only 
uses orthodox pieces, so it is very easy to learn how to play.
Perhaps more than any other CV, Doublechess has the 'feel' of regular
chess. There is a ZRF file available for download at the bottom of
Doublechess' page. I urge everyone who has not played it yet who owns
ZILLIONS OF GAMES to download Doublechess and try it out.
I welcome comments from everyone, pro or con, as to how they would
rate Doublechess as a chess variant. What are this variants'
strengths and weaknesses? Finally I would say that, although I 
realize I am very biased in the matter ;-)  I feel that Doublechess
is such an excellent variant that it deserves consideration as one
of this site's 'Recognized Chess Variants'  and as inventor of this
game I am necessarily disqualified from nominating it to that position.
Might someone else who has an equal appreciation for this game take
up the gauntlet and nominate it along with an eloquent essay on my
game's merits?

It would seem that I am not the first person to create a CV on an
11 by 11 board. (see my SPINAL TAP CHESS) It  would be interesting
to play a game of TERROR CHESS (for WHITE) vs. SPINAL TAP CHESS
(for BLACK) as a game of Chess Between Different Armies !!!

PETER ARONSON I challenge you to create a ZRF for such a game
IMMEDIATELY!! :-) I could then challenge Brian Wong to a game by
email! (if anyone has his address!) (mine is DavidNYJfan@hotmail.com)

though I suspect that TERROR CHESS has the more powerful army!
Then again who can say for sure?

 
                     TERROR CHESS vs.  SPINAL TAP CHESS

A game of Chess Between Different Armies created by
David Short with thanks to Brian Wong.


                 a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   i   j   k
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
           11  |*R*|*S*|*W*|*V*|*Q*|*K*|*M*|*W*|*V*|*S*|*R*| 11
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
           10  |*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*Cr|*Cr|*Cr|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*| 10
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            9  |   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |  9
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            8  |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|  8
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            7  |   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |  7
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            6  |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|  6
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            5  |   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |  5
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            4  |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|  4
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            3  |   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |  3
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            2  |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:|  2
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            1  | R |:B:| N |:C:| A |:K:| Q |:Mr| B |:N:| R |  1
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                 a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   i   j   k


Diagram index:

R- ROOK
B- BISHOP
N- KNIGHT
C- CARDINAL
A- AMAZON
K- KING
Q- QUEEN
Mr- MARSHALL
P- PAWN


Cr- CRAB
S- SQUIRE
V- VICEROY
W- WIZARD
M- MINISTER


Pawns move 1, 2, or 3 squares on their initial move and the en
passant rule is the same as it is in OMEGACHESS.
Each side may castle as its game's rules dictate.

How about the Tripunch Terrors, another army to compete against the
Fabulous FIDEs? :-) King and Pawns are standard. The rest of the pieces are
from Tripunch Chess, but they flip as pieces do in Weakest Chess- these
pieces have capturing and non-capturing modes, and can flip (as a move)
from one to the other. To keep the pawn line defended, the Reapers and
Combine start in capturing mode; the others start in non-capturing mode.

If flipping pieces are half as strong as regular pieces (and that seems to
be the estimate in the Weakest Chess article), then the Tripunch Terrors
are about 4 Pawns too strong as described. So we remove the ability to move
as a Bishop from the Harvesters and Combine... and then we should have a
game. So here's the official lineup: the Flipping Reaper, the Flipping
Nightrider, the Flipping Aanca, and the Flipping... the Flipping...

Give me some time. I'll come up with a name for that last one. :-D

It would seem that TERROR CHESS is identical to THE SULTAN'S GAME

http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/sultan.html

with the exception that the positions of the marshall and
cardinal are reversed. THE SULTAN'S GAME pre-dates TERROR CHESS
on this web site by three years. 

Nevertheless I still propose that my idea above for a variant
of chess between different armies would be intriguing. 

Oh and I would suggest variants with and alternately without
the 'Battle Move' when programming the ZRF for the above proposed
new variant. Players can decide for themselves which they prefer
to use.

''values of Nemoroth pieces' -- quite impossible.' --- I was just joking
here.  I actually can't imagine how one could assign values, considering
all the interactions.  In regular chess, the only interaction is capture.

'Likewise Nemoroth with Different Armies. The various non-capture effects
have values that are imho impossible to estimate numerically.'  --- True,
but it is possible to imagine other interactions that might be interesting.
 Several spring to mind (nature abhors a vacuum) but they could be as
simple as ichor with different effects.  One could even handicap by
allowing the ichor of each player to dissipate at different rates.

'The useful Go Away has a value that depends entirely on what it can push,
just for one example.' --- A trivially true statement.  Ceteris paribus, a 
Knight that can capture a Queen is worth more than one that can capture a
Bishop.  I consider values to be a statistical guide, not a received truth,
fun as they may be to study and play with.  (Of course, I stink as a chess
player, so what's my opinion worth?)

It is likely that I may soon be playing Nemoroth against another human via
email.  We will be sure to post our observations.

As a sidebar, there is really no assurance that any entity with which one
communicates via email alone is actually human.  We could all be alien
anthropologists, who, thinking we are studying humans, are studying each
other.  The resulting theses would be feces.

1. Yes, the mummy has been engulfed.

2. 'ichor actually lasts nine plies' ---- hmmm.

This relates to the specific case where a piece is compelled to move off.
The ichor certainly lasts ten plies, so in this situation the ichor must
have been created during your opponent's move. My thought was that since it
will finish its evaporation at the end of your move, you can effectively
satisfy the compulsion to move off by simply staying where you are; and at
the end of your move the result is that you are no longer standing on icky
ichor.

Gee, now I wonder where he could have gotten the idea for this game,
huh? Well, you know what they say, 'immitation is the sincerest form
of flattery' so I guess I should be honored, eh? To anyone who is
not overly familiar with this web site I suggest you scroll down
on this comments page and click on the link for Double Chess below
or find it in the alphabetical index (the one with my name next to it).


Anyone can create a variant on a 16 by 8 board but it's not going to
have the same 'feel' of regular chess like my variant Doublechess does.
I have always felt that games with two kings are flawed. Chess should
be single-minded. Checkmate one king, period!

Quoth the Betza: 'The Leaf Pile cannot move of its own accord onto an
ichorous square, nor onto a square containing a statue, nor onto a square
containing a single mummy but no other pieces. It can move onto a
non-ichorous non-Ghast square which contains a mummy and at least one other
piece.'

Does that mean that a Leaf Pile can move of its own accord onto a square
containing TWO mummies? That's my interpretation. (NOTE: Two mummies can be
on the same square by pushing one onto another)

He probably got the idea from all the 'Double Chess' variants that have
popped up in the past 100 years. 

Basically, though, few of the double-wide 'real' chess games play like
chess for club-strength (Class C and Up) chessplayers. Standard Knights
play a reduced role on larger boards (for example, 7 moves to move between
end files) and standard Bishops also lose some of their lateral value.
Adding power pieces is one way to compensate (whether 3 Qs, RN, BN,
whatever) but that tends to reduce minor pieces to sacrificial fodder. Fans
of more subtle play are likely to be disappointed.

I actually like the 'mate two Kings' idea in Sirotkin's game somewhat
better, as it compensates somewhat for the stronger forces and reigns in
the value of the initiative a bit (sacs that may win one K must be balanced
against a material disadvantage in pursing the other).