Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Supremo Superchess. Decimal variant with extra powerful pieces. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 04:31 AM UTC:

What is the point in distinguishing between discovered and direct illegal
moves? An illegal move is illegal. Period. Rule 6 is redundant, since the
very meaning of illegal implies that a player can't make an illegal move.
Rule 9 makes no sense. Why on earth would there be any kind of rule
against taking back illegal moves?

I share the same opinion on the name as Michael Howe. As the inventor of
Supremo, I take special umbrage at the name, though since I've still
neglected to publish the rules for Supremo, I doubt Peng has any knowledge
of it. Unlike the mere superlative use of Supremo here, my Supremo is just
an Ultima variant. I think it's included with the Rococo ZRF.

The piece descriptions are a bit ambiguous. I'm not sure if the Super
General hops as a Leo or as a Grasshopper. The more literal reading
suggests the latter. Likewise, I'm not sure if the Super Rook and Super
Bishop hop as Cannons and Vaos or as Grasshoppers do.

If these pieces do hop as Grasshoppers, they are a bit less powerful than
I first imagined. Nevertheless, I expect that the pieces are really too
powerful. I once considered a Rook+Cannon piece and a Bishop+Vao piece for
a game, calling them by the names of Tank and Bazooka, but I decided they
were too powerful. For example, the Tank could pin two pieces with its
Cannon powers, then capture one and still keep the other pinned with its
Rook powers, then capture the other one too. Also, you couldn't block a
direct Tank attack, because it could just hop over the piece that tried to
intervene. Even if these pieces really hop as Grasshoppers, I would still
expect situations like these to arise.

The way this game is named, and given the pieces used in the game, I
imagine that Peng believes that more powerful pieces make a better game.
In contrast to this, I believe that a good Chess variant has to find a
balance between pieces that are too weak and pieces that are too powerful.
Chess is a good example of a game with this balance. I expect that Supremo
Superchess is very unbalanced.

Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 03:16 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

The published Rococo ZRF does not contain Supremo, but the development version did (see the header of the Rococo.zrf for details). At the time ZRF was ready, Supremo was still in flux (different setups and possible removal of the Cannon Pawn's ability to jump friendly pieces were still under consideration), so I took it out. I e-mailed Fergus about this at the time, but I believe this was during a time when his life was very busy, so I'm not surprised he didn't remember. <p> <hr> <p> While games with enormous power on the board aren't everyone's cup of tea, they can be fun. And the orthodox pieces can be a great deal of fun in such a game, since they can happily threaten the super pieces, since they are still quite capable, even if worth less. Consider a fork of two super pieces by a Bishop defended by a Pawn. This is what Ralph Betza refered to as the 'leveling effect'.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 04:11 PM UTC:

Supremo is the game that actually introduces the Pushme-Pullyu, but it's not the same game as Rococo with Pushme-Pullyus. I remember nothing about future plans for changing Supremo, but I'll check my past emails and see if there's any mention of it.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 07:05 PM UTC:

Okay, I just checked my past emails, and there was no indication that I had plans for changing Supremo. There was an email from Peter asking me what I wanted to do about the Supremo ZRF, and it apparently went unanswered. That seems to be all that happened. Peter, it's okay to include it with Rococo. I'll make a Supremo page later.

Freederick wrote on Thu, Aug 26, 2004 10:33 AM UTC:Poor ★

Where are the Pushme-pullyus that supposedly were introduced in this game?
I read the description of all the 'Super-Terminators' and stuff, and
none of them move as the Pushme-pullyu.
Is this 'Supremo Superchess' really the same as the 'Supremo' invented
by Fergus Duniho?  It sure doesn't have the look and feel of his other
designs.
Why is some other guy credited with inventing this variant?
Where is the real Supremo?  %-/

💡📝Lim Peng wrote on Thu, Aug 26, 2004 12:19 PM UTC:

Freederick, 
           There is no pushme-pullyus in this supremo superchess. I do not
know there is a game called supremo by Fergus Duniho,as there is no
published version that I know of.

Jeff Rients wrote on Thu, Aug 26, 2004 01:58 PM UTC:

I think perhaps that Frederick overreacted a bit. After all 'Supremo' and 'Supremo Superchess' are not the exact same name. However, a simple Google search of www.chessvariants.com would reveal the prior existence of a variant called Supremo. When working on new CV projects I have found the Google search tool provided on the CV pages main index to be invaluable for avoiding these sorts of issues.

7 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.