[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Ratings & Comments
Spinal Tap Chess. Variant on an 11x11 board with a once-a-game mass 'Battle Move' of Pawns and Crabs. (11x11, Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 07:00 AM UTC:In several web pages, I have written down, step by tedious step, the appropriate numerical methods for estimating the values of the Q and the (1,3) and the F and the R on any size board.
<p>You can answer your own question by doing the appropriate calculations, step by tedious step.
<p>I once wrote a C program to do it, but it's a real pain to generalize it to whatever possible movement pattern on whatever size board.
<p>(Source code long lost, sorry.)
Anonymous wrote on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 08:00 AM UTC:The basic problem with doing the calculations, is that at heart, I'm lazy. I was hoping to scare an answer out of the woodwork, produced by some more energetic person.
<p>In any case, I'm fairly sure that even on an 11x11 board, a Minister is at least as valuable as a Queen, which makes Spinal Tap Chess' restriction on Queen promotion but not Minister promotion inconsistant.
gnohmon wrote on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 09:00 AM UTC:The calculations are indeed of a nature that inspires laziness.
<p>Once in a while, one must.
gnohmon wrote on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 10:00 AM UTC:After I wrote my last note I saw a page than thanked me for providing feebback on this page.
<p>Would Feebback Chess be a game where the pieces have normal strength advancing but are feeble in retreat?
JCL wrote on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 11:00 AM UTC:I would think that Feebback Chess is a wager game you might play with your physician or attorney where you might win the fee back.
Way of the Knight. Pieces with experience levels: a `role playing variant'.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]gnohmon wrote on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:I am ever so happy to hear that somebody has played and enjoyed the game. Of course, it is not my greatest artistic achievement, but it is one of the earliest examples of what sort of variants can be designed with different armies, and of how the theory of piece values can help the designer of a chess variant.
My own experience with different armies is that it's a lot more fun. One player believes that his R is worth more than the other player's NW, the other player believes the NW is actually better, and both fight to prove their ideas are better.
<p>Your odds-giving idea is excellent. I had some discussions of odds-giving onmy scs pages, but those are long since lost; perhaps I should revisit the idea.
<p>If you have played Go, you will appreciate how much a comprehensive system of odds-giving can add to a game, and you will appreciate that Chess (including chess variants) would be much better if there were a generally accepted system for it.
<p>Unfortunately, the value of an extra Pawn (for example) depends on the average strength of the two opponents, and therefore it is probably not possible to have a comprehensive system at this time.
<p>Instead, you have used the progressive-odds system, which is self-adjusting and which has always been known to be well-suited to a long series of games between the same two opponents -- a perfect choice.
<p>Continue to enjoy!
Rutherford's 1-dimensional Shogi. Modern one-dimensional chess variant, based upon Shogi. (1x17, Cells: 17) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]PBA wrote on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★This is a cool idea. Someone ought to write a Zillions of Games rules file for this game. (I might one at some point, but I'm getting a bit backed up.) Having Zillions play itself at 3 minutes a turn on a fast machine might expose any forced wins.
Augmented Chess. Players give standard chess pieces small additional movement possibilities from predescribed set. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]PBA wrote on Thu, Aug 2, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★This is very nice, but I find myself wondering about the army
selection process. I can see several possibilities:
<ul>
<li>
Each player writes down their section secretly, and the selections
are simultaneously revealed;
</li>
<li>
White makes their selections, announces them to black, then black
selects;
</li>
<li>
White makes one of their choices, then black chooses a piece, then
white, etc. until both players have chosen their Queen, Rook, Bishop
and Knight;
</li>
<li>
White selects their Queen, then black selects a Queen,
then white selects their Rook, then black selects a Rook,
then white selects their Bishop, then black selects a Bishop,
then white selects their Knight, then black selects a Knight;
</li>
<li>
Like about, but in order Knight, Bishop, Rook, Queen.
</li>
</ul>
Clearly all of the above would work reasonably well, but is there a
prefered way to select the armies?
PBA wrote on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★I recently finished a PBeM game of this variant with Tony Quintanilla
(which I won't post due to embarassing turn 18 mate by a RNA
supported by a BD <g>), and found this a very exciting game.
<p>
As we all know, a Pawn is only as strong as the hand that holds it,
and Tony usually beats me at games that fairly closely resemble usual
Chess. But I found this game particularly interesting as I was sure
I had picked a stronger team than his:
<blockquote>
<DL>
<DT><B>White (PBA)</B></DT>
<DD><B>Queen</B>: RfbNFA</DD>
<DD><B>Rook</B>: RfbN</DD>
<DD><B>Bishop</B>: BW</DD>
<DD><B>Knight</B>: NF</DD>
</DL>
<p>
<DL>
<DT><B>Black (TQ)</B></DT>
<DD><B>Queen</B>: RNA</DD>
<DD><B>Rook</B>: RF</DD>
<DD><B>Bishop</B>: BD</DD>
<DD><B>Knight</B>: NW</DD>
</DL>
</blockquote>
Now Tony's Knight is color-changing, and his Bishop is color-bound,
but with all of that power on the board, it didn't seem to matter.
I suspose if the game had lasted longer and we had gotten down to
fewer pieces, it might. As it was, it felt like playing in a
minefield (which, IMHO opinion, is a <u>good</u> thing).
Worse than Worthless. A discussion of pieces with negative value, and the Nattering Nabobs of Negativity![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Mindblowing ideas. Too bad the term 'White Elephant' can't be used to describe these Negative-valued pieces :-) Some questions: I'm working on 42-square contest entry that involves neutral pieces that require two turns to move. In one move the player would announce which such piece will be moved and in the next move (or at the very next opportunity if an immediate move is not possible) the player would move that piece to an empty adjacent square. Let's call a piece with this temporal handicap (requiring two turns to move) Halfhearted or Hesistant, so my proposed piece would act like a Neutral Halfhearted Man.
<p>Has such a thing been done before? If so, where can I find the info? What is the general valueof such pieces? (Indeed, what is the value of neutral pieces in general?) FInally, what would a game between Halfhearted and Halfling armies be like?
gnohmon wrote on Wed, Nov 7, 2001 01:00 AM UTC:I'll answer the easy question and quietly ignore the others.
<p>As a general rule, a neutral piece has the same value to both players. (Exceptions are interesting...)
Crown
. Players secretly decide whether their king or queen (who moves like the king) is royal.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Excellent piece of detective work and extrapolation!
The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]gnohmon wrote on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 03:04 PM UTC:Excellent feedback. 'No problem with ichor rules' -- then I won't change. '1) A Leaf Pile cannot voluntarily move onto any square that contains at least one mummy or statue, period.' This was the original rule and I think it may be better to revert to it. '2) A Leaf Pile can voluntarily move onto to a square that contains any number of mummies and statues, if and only if there is at least one other mobile piece to engulf.' This is what I really wanted to change it to, but I hurried and messed it up. However, I think it makes for a faster and more exciting game if the mummy/statue confers temporary immunity (but very double-edged because the mobile piece is compelled to move off). Leaf piles have no heads, so you can't get into its head. However, you have comprehended its primordial nature.
Mideast chess. Variant on 10 by 10 board, inspired by ancient Tamerlane chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I do like this game, although the Cavalier is a very 'irregular piece'. I propose to replace it's movement by the one of the Croocked Bishop! This would produce a very enjoyable game, don't you agree? :-)) The other pieces, I believe, are well balanced for 10x10 board, and the fact that Knights depart from the 2nd row turns them more valuable in the opening and during the rest of the game (a problem with other 10x10 board variants that place them on the 1st row!). Please comment me on this to: nuno_cruz78@hotmail.com
I would have to agree that the Cavalier (Gryphon + Aanca) is a kind of
extreme piece, but if you look at Ralph Betza's note on the value of such
<a href='../piececlopedia.dir/bent-riders.html'>Bent Riders</a>, you will
see that he rates such a piece as being worth slightly less than an
Amazon (Queen + Knight) on an 8x8 board [Although honestly requires me to
add that Ralph himself is not entirely convinced of his piece evaluation
system, although in my experiance it is at least approximately right most
of the time]. On a 10x10 board the Cavalier gains some additional value,
while the Amazon would probably break even (Queen components gain in value,
Knight components lose in value) -- so call the Cavalier a rough equivalent
of an Amazon.
<p>
Now, would two Amazons be too strong for a 10x10 board? It comes down to
a matter of taste I suppose, but I have to suspect that as Tony Paletta
noted in a comment on <a href='../large.dir/full-double-chess.html'>Full
Double Chess</a>, their presence would tend to
reduce the minor pieces to cannon fodder (although there is fun to be had
with weak pieces).
<p>
In any case, I rather like your idea of substituting Cooked Bishops -- the
world needs more games with Crooked Bishops (and where, you may ask are
<em>your</em> games with Crooked Bishops, Mr. Aronson? Err, well, the
<a href='../dpieces.dir/fighting-fizzies.html'>Fighting Fizzies</a> have
a WzFF as a Queen, and otherwise, they're all in the future . . .)
<hr>
I'm commenting on your comment here, rather than by e-mail as you suggested
as that way other people can join in the discussion and have fun.
I realize 'Croocked Bishop' is a typo, but I suddenly find myself wondering
how a drunken Bishop would move . . .
Chance Chess. Commercial game: cards determine what piece you can move. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Chris wrote on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★Hi Hans,
<p>Just thought I would let you know I have redesigned the site for chance
chess and it now includes an online deck. No online chess board, but
players can play with the deck on the computer with a chess board nearby.
I
also registered the domain name of chancechess.com and it should be
online
as soon as tomorrow.
<p>Thanks for keeping our info on your site all these years.
Mideast chess. Variant on 10 by 10 board, inspired by ancient Tamerlane chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Your long comment has the even more alarming typo 'Cooked Bishop', a piece probably appropriate only to the as-yet-to-be-imagined Cannibal and Missionary Chess.
That wasn't the sort of fun I meant, John!
<br>
<br>
Cooked Bishop, eh? There are a lot of meanings of 'cooked', you know.
It can mean to falsify something, or to improvise something, or something
that has been preprocessed, or has a forced solution. Surely one of these
ideas are good for a variant . . .
You could combine the concepts of a Cooked Bishop and a Crocked Bishop into something like 'Bishop au vin', 'Bishop Marsala', or 'Potted Bishop'! It becomes less appealing when generalized to the Horse, though.
Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Mary wrote on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 10:40 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★:)This page is excellent! It couldn't be better. It shows you all the rules, diagrams and all. Its great! :)
Good :)
Anonymous wrote on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Good ★★★★I can't say this page is excellent, because it has the old F.I.D.E. Rules.
Anonymous wrote on Thu, Mar 21, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★Anonymous wrote on Wed, Feb 20, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★Eaxctly what I was looking for!
Anonymous wrote on Mon, Feb 4, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent short and complete summary of the rules! My questions were answered.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.