Game Reviews (and other rated comments on Game pages)

Excelent and under-appreciated gem! In a few game of this variant, 
I found how the simplest change alters the game dramatically. For
example this variant makes bishop no longer color bound, and 
nullifies the use of castling.

I have come to learn the werstern version of chess since i was 6 years old.
From that time on, i have allways felt a passion for the game. Knowing that
there is more than one version of this game, it inspired me to think widely
and come up with other forms and variants of this brilliant game. One can
experiment with the numbers of squares, the forms of squares (how about a
great triagle, with three parties?), the number of pieces, the movements of
those pieces, and even swapping movement capabilities (how about giving the
Bishop the capability to jump like a knight, every other turn - after each
time you have made a move with that piece, its movement-ability changes
from knight to Bishop, from Bishop to Knight and so on...)I am glad to see
there are people who have taken the time and the effort to do research as
to where the game of chess has its origins. It is now commonly believed
that not chines chess, but chaturanga is the oldest known form of chess.
Its an Indian game. I will compare it with chinese chess, and hope many
others will share the same passion.

Hey, I can't edit my own comments!!  Oh well... stop sending me information
please!!  I have already gotten two replies.

As for the game itself, I personally do not prefer CVs where non-pawns
start next to other identical pieces, like the bishops and camels. 
Therefore I propose a variant where each player has the option of switching
a camel with the bishop on the same color, sort of like the switch rule of
Changgi.

In Australia we call it 'Transfer chess', or normally just 'Transfer'. 
Normally played with 5 minute time controls, no increment, and the team
loses when either player loses.  When a player is about to get mated they
will wait until their time runs out, unless their partner's opponent has
more time, in which case they will resign :)

Table talk generally includes 'knight is mate' (meaning that player can
give checkmate with a knight) or 'don't give him a knight!' (meaning if
that player's opponent gets a knight, some kind of terrible disaster will
happen), but suggestions of moves to play for your partner are frowned
upon.

Questions like 'Should I sac my queen for a pawn?' are also acceptable.

actually.. if you are a real fan of bobby fischer, you would have heard how
the real set up goes..

all pawns are in the exact same spots

king is placed in same position..
all other pieces in back row are shuffled but there must be at least 1
piece of 1 kind on each side and on the opposite side like a mirror

same goes for black.. mirror of whites side

Absolutely cool! Very well explained! Simpler in feel and direct in play 
#than some of the other similar ideaed games

I wanted something in between Poor and Good here actually. I like the game
and the movement but I would have liked a bigger board. This feels more
like a tabletop wargame then a chessvariant but I guess that it's a
chessvariant in the aspect that pieces have preset moves on a squared board
(something not all chessvariants follow even ;)
I watched Zillions play this game for a while and realised that the
powerful strategies behind a great played game is way above normal chess.
It is a bit complicated for my mind and a bit defensive for my taste.
Still, the idea is wonderful and I would love to see it come back with a
bigger board variant *smile* This is a game I want to have at the table at
home to play with my friends rather then playing it over the net or with
the computer. Adding two more players would also increase the fun level
since tactics would increase and you could help eachother out, if rules
allowed it....I'm now changing from poor to good actually *smile*

I must say that I have fell in love with this game. You say in your
description that you don't like the setup of the pieces but I enjoy them
very much.
The consept of the one ring is wonderful and really adds to the game. I am
just about to download the bigger version as well and find out why you like
that even more then the smaller one.

Congrats on a wonderful variant.

Tomas Forsman

Just as I loved the smaller version I fell in love with the bigger one.
I have just watched the white side crush the black side again. I'm using a
slightly slower computer then you (450 Mhz) wich might indicate that the
black has some advantage but has to think things through more.
Anyways, I love this game very much and I am very greatful that you
invented it.
I enjoy variants that doesn't change to much on the original rules. Just
enough to make it interesting.
Simple changes are often more enginous, this one certenly were.

With regards

Tomas Forsman

This game is highly remaniscent of Capriccio described by Mark Thompson
at
http://home.flash.net/~markthom/html/capriccio.html. though maybe arguably

better since the goal is better defined.

The fault is mine but the credit yours. It's easy, and it's fun, to toss
out a 'brilliant' idea for a strange CV in an offhand remark, but to
actually make it work, that can sometimes be hard work. 

One criticism. and one only: Basingstoke. Where is it in the rules? I
suggest that in order to offer a draw one must say 'Basingstoke'.

In the same vein, should one wish to announce check (not required by the
current laws of FIDE Chess), one should say 'Beware! Beware! Beware!'

(((((((((((((( it just occurred to me in a 17th level digression tat the
actor who delivers this line is usually anything but gaunt. ))))...)))

'Inky clouds like funeral shrouds sail over the midnight skies' -- isn't
that some of the finest poetry in musical theater (second only to 'svani'
per sempre un sogno d'amore')? 

Just like the chessboard in my head, I have a record player in my head, and
Ruddigore Chess has moved me to put that platter onto the turntable of my
mind; and for this if nothing else it would deserve an excellent rating. It
is said that one's favorite G-and-S opereta is always the one most recently
attended (exception being perhaps the overperformed but excellent Pirates
-- NYGASP recently gave my lifetime best Pirates, far exceeding DC in
London (and please note: if you know Pirates you gotta see Il
Trovatore!!)).

Listening to Ruddigore again, what a pleasure, and the theme of G-and-S
Chess, well, hey, what's next? I once hitchhiked to Penzance from
Stonehenge, and although of pirates I saw not one there, yet I wait in
breathless anticipation for

Pirates Chess. With different armies, no less. Instead of Bishops, the
Pirates have a Pair of Docs, Doctor Einstein and Doctor Schweitzer (unless
you despise Marxism), the Q is a nursemaid, and Frederick is a semi-neutral
piece who, being the Slave of Duty, can belong to either side according to
the argument most recently presented.

Since the major pieces in the back row are weak, it might make sense for
the following variant:

No apprentices, Just the backrow pieces. and have the pieces promote to
full strength when they reach the backrow. With the same object of
checkmating the king.

This is a splendid idea which strikes me as being extremely Partonesque.

The situation of the Anti-King in the opening position also reminds me a
bit of Racing Kings.

Every move imitates the ability of the piece moved before, except the
first move for nothing is before it. What if time is circular, in that
spirit I propose the following variant:

As a first move, any piece can be moved with any power, however this
implies the last move must be made with a piece with such power, and
any move during the game that would make such a ending impossible is 
declared illeagal.

I've been playing shogi for years here in Japan, both with people and on 
the computer.   There was a program 'xshogi' which was maintained until
1994/1995 and is still available through GNU.   Is anyone looking at 
picking up this package and updating it for Linux?

In Mexico Bughouse is known as ESPARTACO like the Roman slave. Drop a pawn
in 7th rank is not permited, but the rules can vary and nobody knows how it
came to Mexico, but it is really delightful specially for young people, who
considers it with so much excitement.

I find this idea intriguing. Wouldn't this result in very fast games?
With an 'illegal move', do you mean that you take a piece and move it
anywhere on the board?

Tomas

I've gone through the rules of this game and I only found a few things I
wasn't comfortable with.
First I don't agree with the different types of Rooks. Letting them go in
both directions would add a lot of strategy to the game but I guess the
reason for it is to make it as straight forward as possible.
The second thing I don't like is to forbid the players to make a move that
means they can not end up on the right square.
What if they don't see it?
Another 'fix' for this problem is that a player loose if the other catches
him making such a move or if in the end your pieces are unable to end up in
the right position.
This would however create a situation for draw. If both players have made
such a move and discovers it at the same time.

These are only thoughts and I haven't tried them out in a game yet.

Regards

Tomas Forsman

Actually, this ought to be Excellent to the Nth Power!  I am glad to see
this game on a prominent page of its own, for while it's been on this site
for years, you had to know where to find it, and as a Chess variant
designer this (and the associated work that Ralph did to support it) has
been one of the games that has influenced me the most.  

Bravo!

' Super Chess ' is a interesting game ! I also have invented a new type of
chess game called ' Connect Capture '. You can view this game and it's
rules at: http://geocities.com/ricknordal/index.html    What do you think
of this game idea ?  Regards, Rick Nordal ( Canada ) My email is:
alpine_rick_2000@hotmail.com

Here's a (hopefully complete) list of armies:

Fabulous FIDEs
Colorbound Clobberers
Colorbound Clobberers II (alternate setup)
Remarkable Rookies
Nutty Knights
Forward FIDEs
Meticulous Mashers
All-Around Allstars
Amazon Army
Amazon Army II (Crabs replace Knights, Amazon replaces Queen)
Avian Air Force
Spacious Cannoneers
Amontillado (7 different knights, 2 queens for 14 total armies)
DemiRifle
Cylindrical Cinders
Colorbound Clobberers with Doublemove F instead of FAD
Colorbound Clobberers II with Doublemove F instead of FAD
Fighting Fizzies
Pizza Kings
Seeping Switchers

(I've got all of the above implemented in a ZRF that just needs some
polishing before I release it.)

Jupiter
Mannis Manglers
Nattering Nabobs of Negativity
Fabulous FIDEs with Iron Ferz instead of Queen
Fabulous FIDEs with Iron Crab instead of Queen

This indeed is a great game. I have played it for a few times now and my
favourite way of mating is leaving the Anti-King unchecked with the same
move as I check the ordinary King. Sort of a double check wich, as I
interpret the rules leads to a mate.

Good game

Tomas

Very nice introduction to bughouse. For the players interested in 
online bughouse the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS) located at
www.freechess.org is a very good starting point.

Another variant could be, and this probably exists under some name, to
start with two boards and two sets of pieces each. Except that there would
be no King on the second board.

Just a thought.

The game is very fun to play however.

Tomas

I played the trial version of Chesk 1.0.  The artwork, audio, and user
interface are very good.  I also like the basic premise of the game, since
combining games like this is a hobby of mine.

The main drawback for me is that the program's AI isn't very good.  I'm not
an expert chess player by any means, but I defeated 5 computer opponents
fairly easily.  The game mentions that this is version 1.0 of the AI, so I
presume they're going to work on improving it.  I imagine that's no simple
task, since AI is very complex for standard chess, let alone 6-player
chess.  But if they can pull it off, that would make the overall game very
impressive.

One other curiosity about the game: there are no bishops.  I'm not sure why
they were excluded.  The board's irregular shape would make them less
powerful than on a standard square board, but that doesn't mean they should
be left out altogether.  Does anyone know why this is?

I haven't yet tried the on-line version of the game against other people.  
Can anyone comment on that?

Overall, I think this is a good game.  I look forward to version 2.0
someday.

Mike Smolowitz

An 'Excellent' to the editor!

Several excellent people have also given excellent ratings for my game, for
which I thank.

It is common for the neophyte chess variant author to invent his first game
and tout it as the inevitable replacement for Chess. We all laugh at
this.

It is uncommon for somebody who has authored thousands of highly-regarded
chess variants to refer to one of his inventions as the most likely
evolutionary future of the game of Chess. I hope we all take this
seriously.

I do not expect that CwDA will become widely played, much less overtake
FIDE Chess, within my lifetime; nor do I expect that when it does the same
primitive armies that I designed will be used. However!

However, it was 1976 when I first conceived of the game, and 1996 when I
composed the first succcessful army (Colorbound Clobberers). Twenty years.
My first attempts were so bad; and I realized that in order to creat this
game I needed to explore the problem of the values of chess pieces. And so
I did.

Twenty years. A large part of one's life. Don't imagine that I thought
about the problem every day of every year, no, that's not how it went at
all! I worked on it, and I gave up in bafflement, and I came back to it
after a few years of not thinking about it, and then I gave up and came
back and tried again and gave up and came back and tried again and so on.
Not so much brilliant as really stuborn.

Remember that I am a genuinely certified master of FIDE Chess: I know and
love the openings, endgames, midgames. Chess with Different Armies has
satisfied my expectations of what Chess should be -- it has openings,
endgames, midgames, all with the general feel of real serious FIDE Chess,
but of course it's different. Someday, the Grandmasters will begin to play
my game, and because they are so strong they will find imbalances in the
particulat armies I designed -- and I don't care, because once they start,
they're hooked. Meanwhile, nobody can design any chess variant without at
least thinking about different armies! I am pleased to see this, because I
had expcted that my mind's greatest invention would not be recognized so
soon; and yet I always hope for more. Chess with Different Armies (together
with the essential work on piece values) is, I think, a really
revolutionary idea even though my own work on these subjects is so
hopelessly bad (I look good now, but when real mathematicians take a run at
the val
use and real Grandmasters start to evaluate my armies, watch out!) What an
accomplishemnt, and did you know that with that accomplishment I only need
a buck fifty to ride the subway?

This looks amusing.  It does seem that the scoring system encourages the
other players to turn on the first player significantly damaged like 
starving wolves, lest they be left without any pieces of the eliminated
player when it comes time to score.  Not a game to play with someone who
takes attacks personally!

An omnidirectional Pawn is actually mWcF -- mFcW is an omnidirectional
Berolina Pawn.

This page might benefit from an ASCII diagram to backup the Javascript --
I first looked at it with Javascript turned off and was puzzled.

Or maybe just good because it needs a King.

If you look at my 'chess for any number of players', you will see that
there is specific attention played to the problem of multiplayer stalling
-- that is, keeping all your pieces safe until the other players have been
weakened by fighting among themselves.

However, the scoring system of this game implicitly rewards the fighter and
penalizes the use of Fabian tactics; that is extremely new and clever, I
think.

But it needs Kings.

Even without Kings, I can foresee that there will be some highly
interesting situations where, for example, two different players are on the
verge of being eliminated. Let's say that player A is all set to win if B
is eliminated first and player C can win by eliminating player D first.
Suddenly it becomes possible for player D to attack player A with impunity!
A dares not capture a piece belonging to D, because it would bring C that
much nearer to victory. This can get pretty exciting, don't you think?

I still think it needs Kings, and checkmate.

Crowd Chess 1: http://www.chessvariants.com/boardrules.dir/crowded1.html

Crowd Chess 2: http://www.chessvariants.com/boardrules.dir/crowded2.html

Multiple Occupancy Miscellany:
http://www.chessvariants.com/boardrules.dir/multocc.html

My nextdoor neighbor in Brooklyn was also a fire-fighter, and was not a big
man, but strong.  We broke up our common driveway with sledgehammers, and I
was impressed.