[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Ratings & Comments
Peter, I've recently been playing Grand Camelot in another venue. Grand Camelot is a four-player version of Parker Brothers Camelot game. (To the peanut gallery: Yes, I know it's not a chess variant; let me finish.) Grand Camelot has two unusual features for a four-player game: 1 - Partners sit side by side. Translating to this game, Red and Green would be partners against Yellow and Black. 2 - The turn sequence is a 'figure-8'. Translated to Chaturanga 4-84, that would be Red - Yellow - Green - Black (repeat) This small change works surprisingly well, and I've wondered if it would be as successful in a 4-player CV like this. I generally find 4-player abstract strategy board games annoying, but Grand Camelot is lots of fun and very exciting. Also, the comment about the ZRF being double-dummy brought an idea to mind. Has there been a CV (e.g. Bridge Chess or Whist Chess) where the players bid to achieve a certain outcome? The partner of the 'declarer' sits out, and the defenders play without communication. This might be a possible thing to design. One could even play a Feeback version with ones physician, attorney, and accountant.
<P>A CV in which the players have goals is my Hi-Lo Chess, in which each player secretly selects one of the goals W, L, D, WL, WD, LD, or WLD.<P>In order to get more variety in the selection, we used to write a pack of paper slips with goals and require the players to shuffle and use the top goal from the pack.<P>
There must be a 'mate me' rule and a 'perp me' rule -- if at the end of your move your opponent has a mate in 1 or a perpetual check, you can require that it be played.<P>
Scoring: if you have one goal and achieve that goal you get 1 point for the game; if you have 2 goals you get 1/2 point if you succeed. If you have all 3 goals, you get 1/3 point no matter what -- you can gain by preventing your opponent from achieving his goal.<P>
Inspiration: High-Low Poker.<P>
<HR>
Hi-LO Chess is extremely well tested, I have played more than a hundred games face-to-face with a human opponent. Fro the number of games played, you can guess that it's an enjoyable game.<P>
It's a game of incomplete information. You try to guess your opponent's goal while concealing your own; and then you can plan and execute a brilliant combination the purpose of which is to checkmate yourself.<P>
I don't remember the date of Hi-Lo, but it's probably late 1960s.<P>
Well, the game has been played a fair number of times against the computer
and at least once by e-mail vs a human opponent, and it seemed to play
fairly well (of course, there might be something wrong with it, after all
I <em>lost</em> :)).
<hr>
A play order of AABB instead of the more usual ABAB for a four-player
partnership game transforms it into a limited double-move variant, rather
like one whose name I can't recall, where you get to move a piece on the
left side of the board and one on the right side each turn. Limited
double-move variants tend to be fun and exciting, so I can see the appeal,
and spliting the double-move between partners has some piquant aspects,
particularly if communications are restricted and reading minds is not at
least one of the partner's strengths. I think I may add an AABB variant
as to the Chaturanga 4-84's ZRF (still double-dummy, alas).
<p>
As for bid multiplayer Chess with a dummy . . . Could be done. Should it? :)
<hr>
Thanks for the kind words, Tony.
By the way, if anyone were interested, the link to the World Camelot Federation website, where the rules of Grand Camelot are posted is: http://communities.msn.com/WORLDCAMELOTFEDERATION
You know, I can't see any reason (aside from restraint) why stepping
pieces couldn't take advantage of chatter even if they can't create it
(sort of like a low-power line mixed in with higher-power lines).
Then, if a stepper could move to
a square containing a rider's line, it could ride away on it!
In that case, castling and Pawn-double-step could definitely generate
chatter lines (and we'd have to distinguish between capturing and
non-capturing chatter lines). Of course, chasing down a King supported by a Bishop could
be rather difficult . . .
<p>
The above would probably result in a fairly crazy game, but it would also
come closer to working with different armies.
<p>
And for the list of possibly unplayable games, I'd like to add
<u><a href='../d.betza/chessvar/confu01.html'>Confusion 1b</a> Chatter
Chess</u>.
That was an excellent chatter response. Responsible usage of the rules tells us that a piece which takes only one step ends its move after that one step and therefore is not eligible to chatter. However, your idea sounds like a lot of fun! One can always arbitrarily restrict Kings and Pawns from participating in the fun; and I think this would be necessary, not only because it appears to be too difficult to chase down a King supported by multiple riders (note that 'a K supported by a Bishop' can only run towards the Bishop), but also because the offensive uses of Chattering Pawns would dominate the game, as they do in N-Relay II. Decimal Chatter Chess, on a 10x10 board, would become quite interesting if you had the Pawns on the third rank, all Riders on the first, and a second rank full of weak steppers -- the usual suspects, W, F, Crab, Barc, A, and D -- because the early play would be dominated by the weak pieces being thrown forwards by the power of the riders. You'd need to arrange your pieces very carefully, making room for the weak pieces to get past the Pawns, setting up intersecting lines for the riders, and putting the weakies where they could join in the fray but not get in the way. All the while trying to maintain a defense against the pesky foe.
People should know that the excellent diagram that makes it so easy to visualize the chatter moves was added by the editor, not the author. The editor gets an 'excellent' rating for this page.
I would like to announce that I am going to be running an Omegachess tournament by email on Richard's Play By Email server at http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv In order to play in the tournament you must have a PBM userid. Check out http://www.gamerz.net/tutorial.html and http://www.gamerz.net/commands.html if you are new and want to sign up for a free userid and password on the server. You do not have to have ever played Omegachess before on the server to compete in this tournament. If you would like to play in the event please email me your PBM userid to DavidNYJfan@hotmail.com I have not yet decided exactly how I am going to structure the Omega tournament. It will probably be a round robin tournament, with between 4 to 8 games in the first round, and a certain number of players advancing to a second and final round. I would also like to announce that I am also going to run a chess tournament on PBM too. This is traditional orthodox chess! This tournament is open to the first 25 players who email me to enter. I will be creating five 5-man sections. Each player will play a total of 4 games, 2 as white and 2 as black, one game against each of the other players in the tournament. The 5 section winners will then advance to a final 5-man section for the championship of the tournament. In the event of a tie for first place in a section the first tiebreaker is head-to-head result. In the event of a draw or a 3-way tie where A beat B, B beat C and C beat A, all tied players advance to the finals and a larger final section will be created. Again, to compete in this tournament you must have a PBM userid. You may enter both tournaments if you like. When emailing me please make sure to specify which tournament you are entering. Thanks again and good luck!!
I had not played chess in 40 years. It was a great refresher; covered all
the rules in a straight-forward manner. Nice job.
Just as a note from the author: Ed's variant of doing queen attacks does work well, also. But don't get too trigger-happy- it's good defense. Make sure you don't get blindsided by a bishop in the classic variant! The major downside to the queen shot variant is that then you can't reasonably use a bishop to move in for the kill; you pretty much have to lose two pieces to the shotgun, unless you use knights well... -- Adam Norberg (sgamer [att] swbell [dott] net )
thank you for the rules for space chess. I too lost the directions to my
set years ago. My set was purchased at a game store in 1994as well, looks
extactly like the one you have placed on the web, but the box it came in
says 1981 Pacific Game Company,INC. no. 1420
I think I was a little unclear about my idea. A stepping piece would move
on a chatter line if one of the squares that it could move to was on that
chatter line. Thus, a player with a King on <b>a3</b>, and a Bishop on
<b>a1</b>, with the Bishop having a clear move to <b>h8</b> could move the
King all the way to <b>h8</b>. Which is why it could be hard to run down
the King without disposing of the Bishop first.
<p>
But in any case, your suggestion to exclude the King and Pawns from this
behavior is probably wise, leaving it for various Faerie and CDA pieces in
their stepping moves.
This appears to be an excellent game, with a lot of thought and effort. Is it a chess variant? Not really, even though it uses chess pieces. It's a mathematical (topology) abstract game, and you might find many fans for it in rec.games.abstract -- give it a try! Many abstract mathematical games become popular and widely played, but the market for them is not 'chess variant' people. I haven't tried Chain of Fools, but if it's as good as it looks you'd be doing yourself a big favor by taking the game over to rec.games.abstract, where you can find folks who will really appreciate it.
I recently sent in a nomination to make this game--a well-established,
widely-disseminated, thoroughly-played design--a 'recognized' variant. If
you agree, send the editors an email. :)
Author's note: I'd like to see this in Zillions. --Adam Norberg
This looks like fun! I particularly like that once you overprotect a Pawn
by two (easy enough -- just take an unattacked Pawn and give it two
supporters), suddenly it captures forward and to the side.
<p>
I find myself wondering if overprotection is calculated recursively. That
is, when determining overprotection, is overprotection taken into account?
<p>
Consider the following:
<blockquote>
White Pawns at <b>a3</b>, <b>b4</b> and <b>c3</b>;
<p>
Black Pawns at <b>a6</b>, <b>b5</b> and <b>c6</b>.
</blockquote>
Assume white's move. Can the white Pawn on <b>b4</b> capture the black
Pawn on <b>b5</b>? If you apply white's Wazir capture first, then it
can (since it is overprotected by two, black not having a Wazir capture
as it is only overprotected by one), if you apply black's Wazir capture
first, it can not (since then the white Pawn will only be overprotected by
one). Curious, no?
A Pawn or piece must be attacked in order to be overprotected. I said that, right? 'and dynamic' ... 'where checkmating the opponent could also checkmate you!' means that the enemy K is defended several times (but of course not attacked) so that when you attack the enemy K it becomes overprotected and gives check to your nearby King. I could have made that clearer, right? But you're correct, even the closest reading of this doesn't really say whether it's recursive. Yes, why not recursive, gosh darn it and gosh darn it again? If you could overprotect an unattacked piece, this would 'merely' be a new (and perhaps an excellent) form of Relay Chess. So, should add a line that the powers gained by an overprotected piece can be used to overprotect another piece. Should add a line 'therefore you can destroy your opponent's overprotection by moving your attacker away'. And should add the explanation of how giving check[mate] can check[mate] yourself. Better now?
When Nemoroth finally appears, you will be amazed by the piece called the Wounded Fiend, and the distant resemblance to the Tron Queen. There must be something in the air that makes people come up with similar ideas at nearly the same time.
Busy editorial beavers have made the requested edits to this page, all the
while whistling the 'Happy Editor' song.
<p>
Ok, I read the part about having to be attacked to be overprotected, but
somehow it didn't sink in. But there's still a lovely paradox here.
<p>
Consider:
<blockquote>
White has Pawns on <b>a3</b>, <b>b4</b> and <b>c3</b>, and a Rook on
<b>b1</b>.
<p>
Black has Pawns on <b>a6</b>, <b>b5</b> and <b>c6</b>, a Rook on <b>b8</b>,
and a Bishop on <b>d6</b>.
</blockquote>
The white Pawn on <b>b4</b> is attacked by one piece, and defended by
three, so it can move and capture as a Wazir. Which means it attacks the
black Pawn on <b>b5</b>. The black Pawn is then attacked by one, and
defended by three, so <em>it</em> can now move and capture like a Wazir.
But this reduces the white Pawn on <b>b4</b> from being overprotected by
two to being overprotected by one, which means it can no longer capture
the black Pawn at <b>b5</b>. But if it can not capture the black Pawn at
<b>b5</b>, the black Pawn isn't attacked, and so can't capture the white
Pawn which suddenly overprotected by two, which means it <em>can</em>
capture the black Pawn. But it can't . . .
I've heard vague rumours that this game, or a game very much like it, is still played at Miskatonic University... The excellent rating applies to presentation and originality. I have not playtested this game (yet). Truth be told, I'm not sure I *want* to! :)
This is something new in a way, or at least something not often done. It
is a game where the two sides, while having the same movement, have
different board topologies to deal with in the opening and midgame, and I
think it an interesting idea. Now, if there was just some way to determine
if it was balanced . . .
Absolutely great, in coherence of theme and originality!
Apart from the paradox problem, the need to take into account temporary powers makes assessment of overprotection a bit complicated. I would suggest ignoring temporary powers in assessing overprotection.
This variant seems to favor Black materially by at least a pawn.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.