[ 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

⇧Earliest ⇧Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later⇧ Latest⇩

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Moussambani wrote on Thu, May 9, 2002 06:55 AM UTC:

There's a well-known old philosophical problem that states: 'If a Go Away
screams on the middle of a board, and there's no one near to hear it, does
it count as a valid move?'

Well, The question here is if one could 'pass' by making an isolated Go
Away scream. On first thought, I said that this was not legal because it
would be a repetition, but it's not true because now the other player is on
move. Additionally, if some ichor is on the board it evaporates if only
partially, so even the board changes, not only the player on move.

This of course doesn't save anybody, so it's legal only if you have no
compelled pieces (unless you use evaporation as a saving move). But should
it be allowed? Why would someone do that is beyond my range, but maybe some
day a situation will arise in that this is desirable. So, is it legal?

gnohmon wrote on Sat, May 11, 2002 01:26 AM UTC:

1. Please transfer the official rules page to chessvariants.com.

2. If a Go Away screams in the middle of a desert and nobody hears it, has
it screamed at all? The answer, in the Game of Nemoroth, is 'No!'. 

3. I lost the email with the clever Nemoroth notation, and the clever
diagrams that can give all the info. Why isn't it a page yet?

4. I have uploaded a file with a sample game that I saw in a dream of
Nemoroth. I have editied it less than I should for the same reason that I
have been out of touch for awhile -- I foolishly reinstalled Alpha Centauri
on my computer.

5. An extensive discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of
moving the Ghast to f3 or f6 needs to be written. For a few hours I feared
that the manouevre provided an instawin.... but now I once again think it's
not a good idea.

Peter Aronson wrote on Sat, May 11, 2002 03:49 PM UTC:

There's a mistake here -- Ralph didn't want the previous page replaced by the rules page, he wanted it to reference it or be merged with it! I have a copy of the old page at work and will fix it on Monday, unless one of the other editors has a pre-modification copy. Sorry Ralph!

Peter Aronson wrote on Sat, May 11, 2002 07:26 PM UTC:

OK, I've gotten ahold of the original page, and will attempt to merge them
this weekend.  John Lawson has also promised me the e-mail notation when he
has time from making his house unnaturally clean.

Peter Aronson wrote on Sun, May 12, 2002 12:10 AM UTC:

OK, the pages have been combined and uploaded.  Please send all complaints
to king-in-yellow@hastur.eldergods.org.

Moussambani wrote on Sat, Jun 29, 2002 03:05 PM UTC:

Do Alabaster cities gleam?

gnohmon wrote on Sun, Jun 30, 2002 03:30 AM UTC:

Alabaster cities gleam in the light of the sun; but in the ancient age when
the world was still under construction, there were alabaster cities,
construction towns, that existed before there was a Sun; and later, when
the Sun was periodically turned off for maintenance, no gleam. Without the
sun, Alabaster cities merely glimmer with a lambent ambient light.

Obsidian cities tend to glisten. In fact, obsidian is nothing but glass,
artificially produced, and though one often thinks of it as being colored
black, it can be light green or transparent, or many other colors. If
obsidian is merely glass, are not all modern cities obsidian? And does this
not tell you which side is winning?

John Lawson wrote on Sun, Jun 30, 2002 03:46 AM UTC:

Based on my slight playing experience with Nemoroth, and considering how many Humans were left unpetrified and unmummified at the end of the game (3 out of 16), I suspect that it matters not which side is winning, the Humans are toast either way.

Moussambani wrote on Thu, Oct 3, 2002 08:20 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Well, I wanted to relive this game! let's see if I can manage to do it.

Has anyone tested it and can give the results? I'd also like to repeat
some early analysis I made but I made a typo on it, rendering it invalid.

*Case 1. Alabaster Human d3; Obsidian Ghast e4.
d3 is compelled to move. Out of his usually available five moves, only two
of them actually flee the Ghast. They are Hc3 or Hc4. This human is still
compelled to flee to the b file on the next move.

*Case 2. Alabaster Human d3, Ghast b3, Go Away e2; Obsidian Ghast e4.
now the human moves to the c files are illegal, since he would be
approaching his own Ghast. But there's a saving move: Ae2 [reminder: on my
notation, a Go Away scream is recorded as moving to his own square]. The
scream pushes the Human to c4. The Human is still compelled, but now Hb5
(fleeing both Ghasts) is legal.

*Case 3. Alabaster Go Away a2, Human a3; Obsidian Ghast d4; Ichor on a3
and a4.
Now it gets tricky. Is screaming legal? [My thought: It was compelled to
move off of an ichorous square, and he did so. He is now compelled to move
off of a *different* Ichorous square.] Well, Is it valid?

*Case 4. Alabaster Go Away a2, Human a3; Obsidian Ghast d4; Mummy a3.
Well, This is even trickier. Now the Human can go to a4 on his own, but is
screaming valid? [Rationale: I think it should be to be consistent with
case 3, ie this is another multiple occupancy square.]

And now for something completely different. My thoughts on the pieces.

Basilisk: This is powerful, but using his ability also reduces his
mobility.  So it needs to be careful to not to petrify many pieces at once
or it can get in trouble. Grade: B

Ghast: The compelling thing is great, This piece can be deadly if placed
correctly. There is a nice balancing act, though. This piece is
thrice-colorbound. But it seems hard to stop nonetheless. Grade: B+

Go Away: This is a killer. Albeit colorbound, this piece can create lots
of trouble. If you push your opponent's Go Away orthogonally, he has now
both Go Aways on the same color. Severe Balancing Act: It's the only piece
that stops working when petrified. A petrified Go Away could as well be a
petrified Human. Still... Grade: A

Leaf Pile: Simple and Deadly. But it's slow. Still, be careful of where
your opponent places his Leaf Piles. Grade: A-

Wounded Fiend: Being a rider is such a disadvantage in this game. No, he
can't run through a Ghast range to the other side, he can't cross a
basilisk gaze... But he can block squares for a limited time... (If we put
the poor Alabaster Human of the cases before on d3, and the Obsidian Ghast
at e4, but now we add an Obsidian Wounded Fiend at b5, after 1. Hc3(4)
1... Wb2++ wins by stalemating the Human, trapped in between ichor and a
Ghast.) Grade: C+

Human: No wonder there are so many, otherwise you blink and you miss them:
This poor guys have no power and suffer all sort of troubles. You can make
Zombies out of them, but that's so hard... Grade: D

Zombie: Now this guy has power! If he can keep away from Ichor, they are
quite a force to reckon with. Grade: A+

Statues: Several kind of statues, and (almost) all of them still useful in
a way or another. Still they are immobile... Grade: no way I can give a
single grade, they're so different.

Mummy: OK, an immobile piece with no power whatsoever, and if you want to
use them to block it will need lots of strategy. This is a no-brainer.
Grade: F

Disclaimer: I haven't played Nemoroth, so all this is out of thinking, not
actual experience.

Finally, I'd like to ask who of you asked for the wrong furniture...

-- 

Moussambani, who never has been in Mine's End and never completed Sokoban.
The Quest? Maybe some year in the 2030s...

Chuck wrote on Fri, Aug 8, 2003 07:28 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

One question about ichorous squares.  In the discussion of ichorous
squares, it states:

'If pushed onto an ichorous square, a mobile piece other than Zombie is
compelled to move off. Exception: if the ichor will evaporate after you
make your move but before your opponent moves, you can ignore it.'

Does this mean:
a) a piece on a ichorous square, where the last bit of ichor will
evaporate immediately following the player's move, is not compelled to
move?  OR
b) a piece on a ichorous square, where the last bit of ichor will
evaporate immediately following the player's move, is compelled to move,
but the evaporation of the last bit of ichor constitutes a saving move?

It makes a difference if the player has another piece is compelled for
some other reason.  If (a) is the case, he must move the other piece, or
make a saving move for the compulsion on that other piece, since that is
his only compulsion.  If (b), he can make any legal move, since the
evaporation of the ichor is a saving move for an existing compulsion.

Moussambani wrote on Mon, Aug 11, 2003 01:03 AM UTC:

My interpretation is for rules simplicity. The rules state:

a) A piece on an ichorous square IS compelled to move.

b) Ichor evaporation counts as a saving move.

So I'd say that, even if you have more compelled pieces, any legal move
can be done.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Sun, Aug 31, 2003 11:15 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

Insane?. May be, but as my first impression, I think that this game is playable. It is a good candidate to be in the PBM system, and it is possible that there are candidates to play a well-thought test game of Nemoroth. Perhaps, I am one of them.

John Lawson wrote on Mon, Sep 1, 2003 03:20 AM UTC:

Roberto,

I have the scores of two medium-decent games played by Ben Good and me. 
If you'd like to see them, drop me a private email.

The major notational problem is ichor.

Paul Townsend wrote on Sun, Oct 19, 2003 07:10 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

Don't like the name 'Go Away' since it seems out of character with the ghoulish names of the other pieces. I set me down to think, and came up with the alternative name 'Banshee' with, of course, its special 'move' redesignated a 'wail'.

David Short wrote on Sun, Oct 26, 2003 03:43 AM UTC:

Compared to THE GAME OF NEMOROTH, my game EXISTENTIALIST CHESS
is very easy to understand!!

Paul Townsend wrote on Sun, Oct 26, 2003 08:42 PM UTC:

We *must* have a petrified Human transmogrified into a Zombie on being
pushed to the far side. Otherwise there is no use for a petrified Human,
he may as well be a Mummy.
(What power/function/influence does a petrified Go-Away have?)

John Lawson wrote on Mon, Oct 27, 2003 05:51 PM UTC:

From the rules:
'The Go Away can be petrified, and a petrified Go Away is mute.'
So a petrified Go Away is just another piece of impedimenta on the board,
and its scream is a resource that is no longer avalable.

As for petrified Humans promoting to Zombies anyway, that might be
interesting to try out.  In my limited (four games) experience, even
petrified Humans got nowhere near the far rank.  One's tempi were better
used elsewhere, specifically in maneuvering the Basilisk, Ghast, and Go
Away.

L. Lynn Smith wrote on Tue, Oct 28, 2003 09:06 PM UTC:

Paul wrote that he wanted a name for the 'Go Away' which fitted this
theme.  May I suggest 'Dread'.  This refers to a creature which causes
intense fear in its victim.

If you've ever felt fear without cause, there might have been a
'Dread'
nearby.  As it approachs, it will cause the victim to flee.  Its scream
would do the same.

There have been many descriptions of this creature, but no-one is
actually
supposed to have seen it.  Since all that do have perished.

Paul Townsend wrote on Sat, Nov 8, 2003 06:30 PM UTC:

Yes I like the name 'Dread', and it has a unique initial for notation purposes - there is no other piece whose name begins with D. So the Wail of the Banshee shall be heard no more in the land.

L. Lynn Smith wrote on Sun, Nov 9, 2003 11:35 AM UTC:

A while back I started working on a ZRF for this game.  But quickly got
bogged down in all the conditionals.  So I shelved it until my brain
stopped hurting.

I am now considering picking up where I left off.  And I would welcome
any
assistance that the enthusiasts of this game can offer.  Contributions
can
be not only in coding but also graphics and sounds.  This one will
definitely need play-testers, so there's work for all.

Yay! I loved this game when I read about it! (thought I've never had played it). Sadly, I can't code to save my own life, so there's not much help I can offer

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Sun, Nov 9, 2003 09:17 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

You seem to be a very good programmer using Zillions, and I think you are clearly better than me in this kind of work, so my help to you in coding may be close to inutile. But I can offer high-quality (?. Subjective opinion) graphics for pieces and boards, and certainly, a lot of work play-testing this great and unconventional game!

John Lawson wrote on Mon, Nov 10, 2003 02:40 AM UTC:

I can't code, but I have actually played some games of Nemoroth, would be glad to help playtest when the time comes.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Mon, Nov 10, 2003 11:55 PM UTC:

Larry, what is the state of the code for Nemoroth?. May I help?. I can try the graphics, but if so, I need know some details of the programming. I´m not sure the best way to manage the graphics of multiple-ocuppied squares, but I have some ideas about. One question: Why don´t become a member of TCVP?. You are part of the Chess Variants fans community, and of the kind of people that we ever need here. WELCOME!.

Robert Price wrote on Sat, Jan 17, 2004 10:17 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

I would love to help in coding Nemoroth in Zillions, just as soon as I can convince myself that it's possible at all. As I understand it, piece attributes can not change the appearance of a piece, so a petrified Basilisk, for example, must be implemented as a different piece-type from an ordinary Basilisk (if you want them to look different), even though their non-voluntary behaviors are identical. A far greater concern is multiple-occupancy. The usual approach is to declare a piece-type for every combination of pieces that may coexist on a space. Add to that the need to distinguish between petrified and fleshy, friendly and enemy (because such strange bedfellows may indeed come to share a space). And realize that pile-ups of more than two may easily arise... All of a sudden, Octi's library of 256 piece-types (<a href='http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/octi.html'>http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/octi.html</a>) is looking downright trivial by comparison. From the game-logic standpoint, I intend to investigate the possibility of treating each of the 64 spaces similarly to a prison in the ZRF for Shogi. From the graphical standpoint, we can't afford simply to divide each square into a 3x3 grid of positions as I did for <a href='http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/edgechess.html'>Edge Chess</a>, or people will need a magnifying glass to see the great graphics someone's going to make for the pieces. Instead, the cells of my prison will overlap, and with a well-defined order of precedence. I learned from <a href='http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/platformchess.html'>Platform Chess</a> that the later-defined space will have its contents drawn before a sooner-defined space. This works perfectly. The front cell of the prison will dominate most of each space, with four more behind it kind of peeking in from the corners. Clicking-and-dragging a piece from the prison works as expected; if you grab a pixel that belongs to two spaces, Zillions assumes you mean the one it drew out in front. So if you want to move your Human that someone's gone and pushed a Basilisk statue onto, you can click on the visible portion of his puny form and command him, exactly as if two pieces really were present on the same space at the same time. Anyway, multiple occupancy is what struck me as the big difficulty. Besides that, the non-simultaneous nature of the Go Away shout may not be pretty. One solution is to present a big pop-up menu consisting of all possible orders in which to push the victims (or only those which are substantially different due to the presence of basilisks). I would hate to have to use one move per push, because that's the sort of thing that weakens the computer opponent. The evaporation of ichor is something that will just have to be managed by a ?Moderator who is programmed to scan the board and decrement all the ichor-plies by one. This raises another point... in order for ichor to be visible, it has to be a piece-type. I could do that by making a position behind each prison, where the ichor would sit. If the graphics designer wants to make ten different pictures of ichor, that's great, because each ply of ichor is going to be a different piece-type, and when the board is covered in broad sweeps of the stuff, the players are entitled to know which ichor is ickier. Compulsion is tough to describe - it's slightly more complicated than the move-priority construct which in Checkers requires you to jump if able. But it is definitely doable. A piece is never compelled to make any particular move, only to make a legal one, provided the 'legal' constraint handles the details like preventing a piece within 2 of a Ghast from moving-without-fleeing. (note the beauty in Nemoroth on this point: The same *legality* constraint appies whether the Ghast is friendly or enemy; the only difference is that a piece within range of an enemy Ghast is compelled during its move generation.) Imposing move-priority and also (somehow) verifying that either a compelled piece was moved, or no compelled piece remains (after the immediate effects of the move have happened) comes very close to fitting the bill. This sounds like an extraordinary game, and it certainly was presented in a marvelous way.

25 comments displayed

⇧Earliest ⇧Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later⇧ Latest⇩

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.