Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Greg,

Excellent work in doing all the calculations. 

Your figures confirm my designer's intuition that the value classes
(desinged based on Betza's atomic theory of piece values, with no
detailed math) are well-defined and playable. The worst case scenario is a
discrepancy of 1.47 mobility between Nightrider and SuperBishop in class 3.
This is vitually identical to the smallest difference between two pieces of
differnt classes: 1.48 betweenS SuperCardinal (class 5) and ChancellorRider
(class 6). 

However, some hard to quantify but very real values tend to narrow the
former gap and widen the latter: 

The Nightrider is particularly strong in the opening and as a drop
piece--this brings it closer to the SuperBishop which is not particularly
outstanding in either respect (though hardly poor). 

The ChancellorRider has a Rook move, so it has King Interdiction power
(the ability to prevent a King from crossing a rank or file covered by a
Rook move, thus confining it to a restricted area of the board). As the
SuperCardinal does not have King Interdiction power, this gap widens.

Super-alibaba:
average mobility: 11.81
average safe checks: 5.25
average directions attacked: 11.81
average squares attacked: 11.81

Directions attacked:
Yes, I should better define a 'direction'.  By my definition, the four
directions attacked by a rook are different than the four directions
attacked by a dabbabah-rider.  This is intentional because the directions
attacked is a measure of forking power...  The super-alibaba can
theoretically fork 16 different pieces, so it attacks in 16 different
directions.  This definition is also essential because these numbers are
all calculated by ChessV, and ChessV must consider them to be different
directions -- directions are used in generation of moves/captures, and a
piece which blocks a wazir-rider doesn't necessarily block a
dabbabah-rider.

This is a very interesting game, far from easy to play in a good manner.
Material advantage should be good, but it is much less important than in
FIDE-Chess. Defensive schemes can be good for a team in a slight
disdvantage, because the superior team, if wants a victory, must attack,
and always some weaknesses can appear, because pieces used in attacks
can´t defend weak positions in many cases. The superior team can´t
construct easely the victory positionally step by step as in FIDE-Chess.
In Chess, the main mennace is the convertibility of the advantage in Pawns
which can promote to Queens, here it is not the case, promotions add a bit
more power, but not enough for a victory in many cases. Openings must be
played carefully, conversions to Nightriders can cause serious damages to
the enemy if he plays with some ingenuity about these pieces. isolated
pieces are not good, and unprotected Kings are worse. Positions must
change dinamically and mantaining reasonable solid structures, don´t stay
with the same structure and pieces types all the time, some structures are
more sensitive to some piece types, and other structures to other pieces.
Every player must try to cover his weak points before attacks, or
counter-attacks can be devasting... I have launched the idea of redefining
the Super Cardinal as a class 6 piece, but it seems there is not consense.
This is not only the most powerful piece in its class, but its power is
almost the same as the class 6 Super-Chancellor. Super-Cardinals can cause
demolishing effects in many ends, due the usual sparsity of the pieces, and
a Queen is not equally comparable with it, because it is not only the
mobility in consideration, but the potential attacks against the enemy
King, considering that this piece can be dropped. Classes 7 and 8 seems to
be unnecessary, in my opinion. I know that many players are not gained with
the idea of re-defining the classes, but I want hear more opinions about
it.

Thanks to Joe and Roberto for your comments. Roberto's comment about
drawishness is true with regard to a certain type of middlegame--the
complex middlegame where both sides find launching an attack too
dangerous.

The endgame however is not drawish at all--virtually all endgames are
decisive. King vs anything is a win for the stronger side--you just drop,
promote, drop promote until you have enopugh force for a mate. The lone
King can't defend the whole back rank. This being true, many times a
numerical advantage in pieces can be translated into a win (whether or
not
it is a meterial advantage).

An example: often the simplest way to win King, Queen, and Knight vs King
and Rook is to exchange the Queen for the Rook, which is a draw in FIDE.

I am most honored that Pocket Mutation Chess was selected as the newest
Recognized Chess Variant and the voted Recognized Variant of the Month the
first time out.

Clearly PM is my finest creation but I never imagined it would join such
august company in under three years.

One of the best variants, certainly and Michael Nelson, I think, is also one of the best variant designers.

I would like to see an expanded (more complete) list of pieces added to the classes.

Also, maybe an extension for some of the more powerful pieces, as with tripunch pieces and cylindrical / toroidal pieces? Would be fun to have classes 9 and even 10.

Abdul, can you please tell me what you mean by superknight and supernightrider?

Just want to know.

Yes, definitely a great game - (I won't rate it here, because I've
already provided an excellent rating previously.)

I am not sure that it is a good idea to add more pieces, though.  Going
too far in that direction sacrafices strategy for tactics, with a player
looking through all the pieces for the one that attacks just the right
combination of squares.  Then one would have to pay very defencively,
always keeping all pieces protected, lest he open himself up to a viscious
fork by some strange piece, like a knight+alfilrider...

Yes, maybe expanding the piece types (and classes) would allow tactics to overwhelm strategy.

Your discussion suggests an idea to me, which may characterize either this variant or one similar to it. It is the idea of the wizard's duel, like the one Merlin had against Madam Mim in the movie Sword in the Stone, where they change into different animals, each appropriate to do combat against the other.

Note: Michael Nelson also invented an excellent variant called Wizard's War as it so happens. It doesn't increase greatly the kind of pieces and the wizards aren't themselves chameleons, but they are interesting generator pieces.

At various times Joe Joyce, Greg Strong and myself have stated that it may be unwise to start the game by pocketing a Rook and changing it to Nightrider. As Greg once pointed out, the Nightrider is most powerful when you are holding it in the pocket, but this means that you cannot use the pocket for any other purpose while you are waiting.

Also, I am a big fan of the SuperBishop (Dragon Horse), which is the most powerful [Class 3] piece in 'normal' chessvariants, that do not allow dropping pieces. See this game - 287 days ago for a Nightrider and a SuperBishop working together to win the game. On the other hand, in [Class 5] I prefer the CardinalRider (Unicorn) to the SuperCardinal (which Roberto Lavieri praises in his 2005-04-19 comment). We are a long way from reaching a concensus on piece values in this excellent game.

Even in FIDE Chess, I like to play 1.d4 and 2.e3 with the White pieces. 
In PMChess I may also pocket the Bishop on (c1), changing it to a Knight. 
My style of play does not leave many holes for Nightriders to exploit.