M Winther wrote on Mon, Jun 18, 2007 07:08 PM UTC:
Dear René,
I am surprised that people took offence by my evaluation of Makruk. It's not like I deride it. I argue that it takes too long to enter tactical skirmishes. Practice has also shown that games between equal masters typically end in a draw. I have tried the Zillions implementation and it does not conform to *my* preferences. This is not euro-centrism. I have been a tenacious critic of Fide-chess, too, and presented several 'improvements' to our royal game.
I am, however, interested in the underlying principle of Makruk, namely that of the rook as the only long-range piece. So I created a game with the same motif, namely Elephant Chess. Here the battle begins early, and it is not a drawish variant, I'm sure.
In fact, I have tried the Shatranj game in the Zillions freeware. I think that the Alfil is an awkward piece. It's worth hardly more than a centre pawn. It's amazing that they played this game for 900 years. Talk about conservatism!
/Mats
I am, however, interested in the underlying principle of Makruk, namely that of the rook as the only long-range piece. So I created a game with the same motif, namely Elephant Chess. Here the battle begins early, and it is not a drawish variant, I'm sure.
In fact, I have tried the Shatranj game in the Zillions freeware. I think that the Alfil is an awkward piece. It's worth hardly more than a centre pawn. It's amazing that they played this game for 900 years. Talk about conservatism!
/Mats