Check out Janggi (Korean Chess), our featured variant for December, 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 ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
L. The list of official nominations for the variant-by-committee.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on Sat, May 3, 2003 02:04 PM UTC:
Diagonal Bypasser: This is one of the better means I've seen of 'taming'
non-replacement capture -- the long move ensures that a careful setup is
needed before the bypasser can capture anything at all.  But actually I'm
concerned it's a little bit TOO weak in a game that features the Tower of
Hanoi.  Since it's almost always going to be beneficial to split the
Tower up as much as tempi allow (eight extra pawns are better than a
queen, so just think about eight Commoners...), the board will probably
get pretty crowded, leaving the bypasser all but paralyzed.

Roc: Camel + another leaper seems to be to be better suited for a larger
board, or at least a less crowded one.  There's a fool's mate on
white's second move. Those camel leaps are dangerous on this board, and
with another leaper to help set them up...

Hopping bishop: Ordinarily I would hesitate before putting something this
powerful (somewhere between rook and cardinal) as a 'minor' piece, but
with a rook-class knight, half-knight pawns, and a (who knows? maybe
double strength?) queen, this end up playing very well with the others. 
The dangerousness of the leap-rider will be lessened on the crowded board
I expect for this game.

B + lame camel: Not necessarily an inspired piece... but certainly
functional in its role.  It should be about rook value for most of the
game, which does seem to be in keeping with the standards set by our
previous choices.  And it does include the theme movement.

Dualist monk: A piece that splits slows the game down, but we already have
the Tower.  On the other hand, doublemoving speeds the game up.  On the
third hand, its short range makes it entirely defensive.  I have no clue
whether I like this piece or not.

Chaplain: Perhaps the most conservative color-changeable bishop
imaginable, and it seems to me to be a good implementation of a
color-changeable bishop.  My only concern is that its promotion abilities
imply the potential to promote to another Tower of Hanoi, just at that
point in the game when the Tower fragments were beginning to finally get
cleaned up.

Sliding bishop: Another good implmentation of a color-changeable bishop. 
I guesstimate its strength as slightly less than rook, which seems about
right for this game.  And it does include a non-capturing lame camel. :)

Crooked picket: A neat way of 'taming' the cardinal-class crooked bishop
down into a more minor piece role -- my guesstimate is that it weighs in
at just under rook-strength, like many of the other pieces here.  And it
does include a lame camel movement as part of its move, for those who are
interested in voting the theme.

At this point, I like the sliding bishop, the crooked picket, and the
hopping bishop, though I have no idea what order those will be in by the
end of the month, and the dualist could easily find its way onto that list
as well.

Jianying Ji wrote on Sat, May 3, 2003 09:25 PM UTC:
just a short response to the last comment.

The sliding bishop's non-capturing move do not seem to include the
camel,
Since it is bishop plus optional wizir, it must be a n-n move or a color
changing one, neither of which include the camel.

Jianying Ji wrote on Sat, May 3, 2003 11:22 PM UTC:
by n-n I meant like a bishop

TBox wrote on Wed, May 7, 2003 07:28 PM UTC:
When I first read the rule for The Cube, I had assumed it was a piece that
changed hands (using a Reversi piece) on the board, and the question I had
was: How does a Cube move?

Now I see that it's just an off-board marker, I'm disappointed.  But
I'm already ready for the first Variant on Luotuoqi:  The Cube is a piece
that moves like Ralph Betza's Ghost, and starts in the same square(s). 
Now if your opponent threatens to mate you with a double-ply move in two
by tossing The Cube, you can unlock the game by threatening the Cube,
forcing him to take his double-ply move off-tempo and/or abandon the
attempt all together.  Far-fetched, but fun to see, if only once.

Anonymous wrote on Wed, Jun 11, 2003 04:41 PM UTC:
When will the new Bishop be revealed? <p>Inquiring minds wanna know.

📝Glenn Overby II wrote on Thu, Jun 12, 2003 04:28 AM UTC:
In a very divided vote, the winner is the Diagonal Bypasser.  A different
method of counting votes might have given either the Sliding Bishop or
Chaplain the nod.  I'll add this to the page over the weekend.

Thanks to everyone who has voted on New Rules so far; that poll closes on
the 30th.

Doug Chatham wrote on Sun, Jun 22, 2003 05:43 PM UTC:
Anyone have comments on the new rules proposals, or at least the proposals made since the last time we adopted a New Rule?

Robert Shimmin wrote on Mon, Jun 23, 2003 03:33 AM UTC:
Well, I was kind of holding off until the web site got updated to contain any new suggestions made since the beginning of May. Glenn said there was at least one.

Doug Chatham wrote on Mon, Jun 23, 2003 10:45 AM UTC:
That last proposal Robert is waiting for was emailed to the Camel Chess voters around June 8. <p>It reads as follows: <p>11. [Entrant 7] When a player captures part of their opponent's Tower of Hanoi, they may optionally remove another part of it of equal or lesser height from anywhere on the board.

📝Glenn Overby II wrote on Tue, Jul 1, 2003 11:31 AM UTC:
::waving Hello::  My computer was down temporarily.  I'll be up to speed
Real Soon Now.  Promise.  ;)

📝Glenn Overby II wrote on Mon, Jul 7, 2003 11:51 PM UTC:
One question, one plea:

Question: Will any two Towers trigger the new promotion rule, or only two
Towers of the same height?  (I recommend the latter.)

Plea:  ZRFers out there, the time is upon us.  We need someone to take up
the formidable challenge of coding The Cube.  Everything else appears to
be moderately straightforward.  If you can code The Cube for an otherwise
standard game of chess, let me know.  We'll beg and plead to let us put
it into a Camel Chess ZRF.  :)

Glenn

Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Jul 8, 2003 12:53 AM UTC:
OK, the cube is fairly straight-forward <strong>if</strong> (and <em>only</em> if) you don't mind having victory be by capture of the opposing King instead of checkmate, and you do away with stalemate. Then the logic isn't too bad -- it's a bit like the Ryu Shogi ZRF. There's two moves in a row for each player each turn, but the 2nd one is often not available. Unfortunately, this is a slight but real change in the rules form victory by checkmate, and it does play differently. <p> <hr> <p> On a different topic, the first two proposals for Rooks are, except for the name, the same piece. Shouldn't they be combined?

📝Glenn Overby II wrote on Tue, Jul 8, 2003 01:15 AM UTC:
I have no objection to modifying the official Luotuoqi rules to use
king-capture instead of checkmate for victory.  If a majority of
contributors concur, let it be so.

=====

Entrant 3, the second to propose the Separate Realms Rook (under a
different name), has withdrawn that entry in favor of Entrant 2's earlier
independent submission.  I'll make the change in a few minutes.

Robert Shimmin wrote on Tue, Jul 8, 2003 01:16 AM UTC:
Two towers of the same height is probably easiest to code into the ZRF, and
is probably best for keeping the checker population from getting out of
hand.

One other possibility that ocurred to me was that any two towers could be
used for promotion, but the new tower would be the height of the smaller
of the two.

Other thougths?

Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Jul 8, 2003 05:31 AM UTC:
OK, I'm attempting to code up a Cube Chess as a preliminary step. Now, what effect, if any, does the change in rules have on castling? My gut reaction would be it would remove the not in check or through or into check restriction. Thoughts?

Peter Aronson wrote on Wed, Jul 9, 2003 05:33 AM UTC:
OK, here's a stab at Cube Chess, ready for testing: <p> <ul> <li> <a href='../programs.dir/zillions/cube-chess.zip'>cube-chess.zip</a> </ul> <p> Let me know if you find any bugs!

Peter Aronson wrote on Thu, Jul 10, 2003 07:09 AM UTC:
Well, it turns out that L. Lynn Smith has figured out an elegant approach that allows the cube to co-exist with checkmate, so there's no need to change things.

Peter Aronson wrote on Thu, Jul 10, 2003 04:04 PM UTC:
The estimable L. Lynn Smith has graciously agreed to do the ZRF for Camel Chess, once we finish defining it. He has a few questions about the Tower of Hanoi: <p> <ul> <li>What is the maximum height of a stack of stones? With Eaglet promotion it is possible to get more than 8 stones on the board -- can a stack contain more than 8? <p> <li>Are the pieces of the Tower of Hanoi allowed to both break apart and merge with others in the same move? Or are the breaking moves and merging moves separate? <p> <li>And should the Tower be allowed to make capture moves when breaking apart? </ul> <p> His preferences seem to be for a maximum of 8 stones in a Tower, and to not to allow merging and splitting in the same move, as it makes the game clearer without it.

Michael Nelson wrote on Thu, Jul 10, 2003 04:29 PM UTC:
The pawn rule voted on is that Eaglets do not promote--so no more than 8 stones can be on the board.

Peter Aronson wrote on Thu, Jul 10, 2003 05:07 PM UTC:
Ah, but Mike, you forgot: <p> <blockquote> [Entrant 7] When a pawn is flanked by two adjacent pieces of the same type (not Kings), such that the three pieces form a straight line, either orthogonally or adjacently, with the pawn in the center, the pawn's owner may, as a turn, promote it to the type of piece flanking it. <i>(Example: there is a white knight on b3, a white pawn on c4, and a black knight on d5. White may, as a turn, replace the pawn on c4 with a white knight.)</i>(Adopted June 2003.) </blockquote> <p> And later adopted rules supercede earlier rules, so Eaglets promote by the above method.

📝Glenn Overby II wrote on Thu, Jul 10, 2003 09:22 PM UTC:
<p>Looking at Peter's questions... <ol> <li>What is the maximum height of a stack of stones? With Eaglet promotion it is possible to get more than 8 stones on the board -- can a stack contain more than 8? <ul> <li>I favor an 8 stone limit as well. I did not vote for the rule that won precisely because of its interaction with the Towers. </ul> <li>Are the pieces of the Tower of Hanoi allowed to both break apart and merge with others in the same move? Or are the breaking moves and merging moves separate? <ul> <li>I favor break-or-merge, but could live with break-and-merge. </ul> <li>And should the Tower be allowed to make capture moves when breaking apart? <ul> <li>I see no reason why not. Only one 'piece' is moving. </ul> </ol> <p>Just my $.02...Glenn

Peter Aronson wrote on Fri, Jul 11, 2003 03:26 PM UTC:
OK, Glenn, but how do we decide minor rules points like these? Do we take informal straw polls in the comment system? Or do you as the project editor decide? Or do we save them all up and have a big single 'finishing' vote? <p> Inquiring minds want to know.

📝Glenn Overby II wrote on Sat, Jul 12, 2003 11:16 PM UTC:
<p>Peter inquired: <blockquote>OK, Glenn, but how do we decide minor rules points like these? Do we take informal straw polls in the comment system? Or do you as the project editor decide? Or do we save them all up and have a big single 'finishing' vote?</blockquote> <p>If we can get a clear consensus in the comment system, I'll edit it into the finished product. Otherwise I'm in favor of the save-em-up-and-vote final poll. <p>Right now the questions are on the maximum height of a Tower and the legality of a Tower splitting and merging as one move. Any others I've forgotten? (The king-capture thing is off the table for now, I think.)

📝Glenn Overby II wrote on Sat, Jul 12, 2003 11:22 PM UTC:
And the question of whether or not two Towers of different heights are
identical pieces for the purpose of causing promotion.  (I would say
No...among other things, to which level does the Eaglet then promote? 
Answering Yes creates a new question.)

Peter Aronson wrote on Sun, Jul 13, 2003 12:19 AM UTC:
There was also the question of whether splitting moves could capture.

25 comments displayed

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.