Jeremy Good wrote on Fri, Jul 20, 2007 08:02 PM UTC:
Abdul-Rahman, thank you for your thoughtful comments.
Yes, these Patient Pawns are exactly as you described them for Queen of the Night Chess (as with the Queen of the Night pawns, they don't have the jumping mechanism they have in Seenschach).
I read over your description of the flaw a few times, but didn't understand it. It seems to me that most of the time, the pieces that are behind the rows add an additional, indirect layer of protection. Not saying that's good or bad.
Yes, the board will become very crowded, true, especially the ones with two layers of pieces or pawns. I want to note: I do not necessarily see this as a problem.
Your alternate proposal is very interesting. In those FIDE Chess Kamil variants where there are powerful substitutes, this could have a very strange effect. You will be, for example, reluctant in some cases to win a piece because you know that winning that (e.g.) knight will immediately bring on a much more powerful piece (e.g.) archbishop. Of course, one can capture the knight and then sac one's own knight in some cases, so your proposal still has cachet even for such variants with stronger substitutes. It's worth exploring.
Your observation of the king on the knight's square is neat and curious.
Another possibility would be for each side to choose when the new piece or pawn enters the game and can only do so if that particular starting square (say g1 for the piece behind the knight) happens to be empty. That could still lead to crowded games though.
Still another possibility, one Dan Troyka proposed, is to let the substitute pieces have a board of their own and let them move around on that board and choose to enter when they wish, while only being able to capture on the main board (Troyka may have envisioned them being able to capture on either though).
Abdul-Rahman, thank you for your thoughtful comments.
Yes, these Patient Pawns are exactly as you described them for Queen of the Night Chess (as with the Queen of the Night pawns, they don't have the jumping mechanism they have in Seenschach).
I read over your description of the flaw a few times, but didn't understand it. It seems to me that most of the time, the pieces that are behind the rows add an additional, indirect layer of protection. Not saying that's good or bad.
Yes, the board will become very crowded, true, especially the ones with two layers of pieces or pawns. I want to note: I do not necessarily see this as a problem.
Your alternate proposal is very interesting. In those FIDE Chess Kamil variants where there are powerful substitutes, this could have a very strange effect. You will be, for example, reluctant in some cases to win a piece because you know that winning that (e.g.) knight will immediately bring on a much more powerful piece (e.g.) archbishop. Of course, one can capture the knight and then sac one's own knight in some cases, so your proposal still has cachet even for such variants with stronger substitutes. It's worth exploring.
Your observation of the king on the knight's square is neat and curious.
Another possibility would be for each side to choose when the new piece or pawn enters the game and can only do so if that particular starting square (say g1 for the piece behind the knight) happens to be empty. That could still lead to crowded games though.
Still another possibility, one Dan Troyka proposed, is to let the substitute pieces have a board of their own and let them move around on that board and choose to enter when they wish, while only being able to capture on the main board (Troyka may have envisioned them being able to capture on either though).