[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
I'd tentatively estimate the relative values of the pieces in Eurasian Chess to be:
P=1; V=2; B=3; N=3.5; C=3.5; R=5.5; Q=9.5, with a K's fighting value guessed to be about = 5 (noting it cannot be traded). A K's fighting value would be much lower in my estimate, but for its ability to restrict the enemy K's movements (especially on a file), which IMHO makes it stronger than just having the fighting value of a chess K (i.e. 4), but bearing in mind the likelihood it's normally not as effective in battle as a Eurasian Chess R (even taking into account that a K also can diagonally restrict an opposing K's movements in this game, too).
One thing that may be worth mentioning as well is that K+P vs. lone K seems to be won if the superior side can 'protect' the P by being on the same file. Then the P can be pushed through to promotion, with its K always staying on the file behind it, as the lone K will always be forced to give way by zugzwang (the superior side's K makes a move on the same file if and when necessary).
H. G. Muller wrote on Tue, Nov 29, 2016 04:32 PM UTC:The Asian contribution to this game is a bit meagre; basically it is an orthodox FIDE army augmented with two types of Cannons, only one of those of true Asian descent. That did not stop it from becoming one of the top favorites of this site, however.
This looks like a great game. A 10x10 board perhaps is as about as big a board one can hope to fit on a coffee table (e.g. as a decorative board), and still use fairly standard size chess pieces with.
Thanks for the support of my design decisions. Since they are the usual western Pawns, it makes sense to fill the rank with them. Eurasian Chess remains one of my favorite games, even among the several other games I've invented. It evolved from Yáng QÃ, which had a more open Pawn structure that gave greater mobility to the Vaos. I think the more traditional Pawn structure of Eurasian Chess is an improvement over Yáng QÃ. It restricts the initial mobility of the Vaos but compensates by giving them greater attacking power. In terms of pieces to spaces, it is less cluttered than Chess, since each side's pieces initially fill 22% of the board instead of 25%.
I too would defend having a full row of Pawns. For that's what they are, Pawns - the divergent piece that spread west to the Middle East and Europe, and east to Burma and Thailand, but not China. In all the countries using it in a fixed array they occupy every file and can form chains in which a less advanced Pawn can protect a more advanced one. Perhaps the person suggesting reducing them has been misled by the Chinese symbol.
Let's keep this more or less anonymous for now - it's only fair. I will disagree with the previous poster. I've played Eurasian Chess a couple times now, and I find it to be an excellent game. In reference to your specific comment about the number of pawns, well, what are the purposes of a pawn? This game is played with all the standard Western pieces. Without the twin pawn barriers between the pieces, the game would most likely devolve into an early shoot-out. I would expect this to give White a major advantage with the first move. I have a question: what pawns would you remove? Gotta leave the rook pawns. Just taking 2 pawns out, say the knight pawns, hardly seems worth it. If you want 2 modest variants, try Six Pawn Chess. One variant removes the knights' pawns and the other the bishops' pawns. And here's another question: what do the first 10 moves look like? In Eurasian or 6-pawn? Wouldn't the major pieces, especially rooks, slide through those holes? We'll ignore the queen rampages, because they happen anyway. The 'Mad Queen' has earned its name. Everyone remembers what queens did when we were just learning the game. Knights messed us over badly, but queens ruled. Why would removing pawns from Eurasian or regular chess produce a game any different from the bloodbaths we all experienced back when?
The game is far too cluttered with so many pawns. It should only have half the number of pawns, which would resemble Chinese Chess a little more closely.
This game, of course, deserves to be called 'Eurasian', i think, opinion of anonimous reader is strange. It's not based on all European and Asian forms of chess, but on form, wich is most popular in far east (XQ is popular not only in China) and on most popular European form. I don't think that there must be pices from Shogi: Shogi is only popular among Japanese and chess variantists. But there are mostly FIDE pieces because they are very playable, this combination of pieces made FIDE chess the most popular game in Europe. If Fergus Duhino would really wanted to make game with most used pieces, he really would put silver general instead bishop, as told anonimous reader, but it would be mistake, and he did not made this mistake. I think, telling that 'rook and knight was used in most forms of chess and bishop was invented independtly by both Europeans and Japanese' is srange excuse of using FIDE pieces, especially about bishop... It don't need excuses, using playable pieces is right. Only thing, wich i would add to this game is cannon queen, but it's not necessary, game is perfect without it to. M Winther, Bulgarian chess is scam?! Please, give me link to page with information about it - i want to know details. And another one curious thing: in 7 players Chinese chess queen don't mathche, but bishop do. Bishop also was in 'Citadel Shatrang' under name Dababa, so bishop was invented independently many times.
The Diplomat in that game moves as a Queen but may not capture or be captured. The General also moves as a Queen, but it is a royal piece. So no piece in that game exactly matches the Queen.
I just want tell one curious thing: queen also where in one historical Chinese game (it's Xiang-qi variant, but actually only common thing with it is what it's Chines and played on intersections): http://www.chessvariants.org/xiangqivariants.dir/chin7.html
Since I don't play Chu Shogi, I wasn't aware of the Free King. For the context of this game, it's nice to know that the Queen has a counterpart in Japan. So, all the pieces in Western Chess are used in Asian variants, and it seems that the most distinctly European features of this game are the Pawn's double move and en passant capture, which are not found in Asian variants, the Pawn promotion rules borrowed from the European game Grand Chess, and the Vao, invented by a European.
The european invention of the queen was precedented by the Japanese invention of the 'Free King' in large Shogi variants (like Chu shogi) by some centuries. What is more striking in this context is that the european obsession since Carrera, namely the Chancellor/Marshall and the Janus/Paladin pieces, does not occur in asian chess variants. This says---IMO---something about the quality of the pieces: The Queen/Free King is a perfect chess piece while the other two leave something open. Back to Eurasian chess: It has a nice piece and rule mix and makes a great variant (learning from several other excellent games). For my taste, the Eurasian pawn is a bit too complicated and the rules concerning the pawn could be simplified. Promotion to captured pieces only has an old-fashioned look, at least.
Ok, but i didn't suggest you to change name. I just told my opinion. Game is good, really.
It's more important to me for this to be a good game than for it to represent all major Asian regional variants equally. The short-range pieces in Shogi work well in that game due to the ability to drop pieces. To introduce short-range Shogi pieces into a game without piece drops will not give the game any of the qualities that make Shogi a good game, and it would be a pointless exercise in political correctness. If you want to make your own Politically Correct Pan-Eurasian Chess, go ahead and call it that, but stop complaining about the name of this game. I am not going to change the name, and I am not going to change the rules to reflect your vision of what a game with this name should be like.
I think, there should be piece, wich moves one squre diagonaly and one orthogonaly forward: it belongs to many regional chess variants, wich are still played, even Shogi.
But then it havs elements of Shogi.
Due to the preponderance of fairy pieces, that game is less grounded in the major regional variants and so is less deserving of the name.
Game, wich 'desrves' name 'Eurasian chess' is here: http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/glennsdecimal.html
As Variant Chess magazine has argued, Bolyar Chess (Bulgarian Chess) is a scam. All the historical evidence for it is constructed. Moreover, the variant is clearly inferior. /Mats
I have made some Shogi variants I am very happy with. This game's origins were more in Chinese Chess than in Shogi, and I think keeping some focus makes it a better game than trying to represent China and Japan equally. Despite having no pieces unique to Shogi, it does have more pieces from Shogi: King, Rook, and Bishop vs. Rook and Cannon. Also, the Cannon is truly an original Asian piece, whereas the pieces in Shogi have no powers of movement that are foreign to the pieces in Chess.
I would like it better if you used traditional Chinese instead of the simplified (national standard) Chinese.
It's me, who written coment that this game didn't deserve it's name. Ok, maybe i am not right, but i still think that game must have some piece wich is used only in Shogi. Or at least add promotion of some pieces other than pawns (at least, promoting piece like Sage to Dragon Horse). It will make Shogi feeling a bit higer (there are nothing in this game wich is only from Shogi). About boat: sorry, i made mistake: boat had same move as alfil, i forgot it. You can read read about Bulgarian chess here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MLbolyarchess This game is not as known as Shatar, Grande Acedrex, Tafl and others, so i will not approv if someone decide to make 'Eurasian chess' with pieces from it, i just liked Bulgarian chess and i am sad that it's not well-known, that's why i have mentioned then. So, maybe this game really deserves it's name (almost), but it's still good idea to make game with pieces from several different hystorical games.
Good game, but it did'nt deserve to be called 'Eurasian'.
On that, we disagree.
There are only one piece wich is exactly Asian (Pao) and only one piece wich is exactly European (Queen).
I would use the word 'exclusively' in place of 'exactly' but otherwise agree. Except for the Vao, the rest are found in both European and Asian regional variants.
Vao is fairy chess piece, so it's neither European, nor Asian.
That is a non sequitur. It is both by virtue of descent, in much the same way that a Canadian like Kristen Kreuk can be called Eurasian.
Using piecec, wich are both European and Asian is primitive.
Would you care to explain what that even means?
If there will be game, wich uses these pieces, it will really deserve to be called Eurasian!
There are, of course, other ways to make Chess variants that blend together European and Asian elements, but what you suggest would not blend together elements of the major regional variants of Europe and Asia as well as this game does, and consequently a game with the pieces you suggest would be less deserving of the name Eurasian Chess.
Cannot find any information about 'Boat' or Bulgarian Chess.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Why do you think a Knight is worth more than a Bishop? Wouldn't the Bishop's value relative to the Knight's increase as the board expanded from 8x8 to 10x10?