The Chess Variant Pages




[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
Pandemonium (Surajang修羅場). Capablanca chess + Crazyhouse.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Zhedric Meneses wrote on 2020-11-17 UTC

The many pieces promoting into a queen reminds me of shogi. just a suggestion but maybe it'd be better if Marshall and Cardinal promote into a Nightrider+Rook and Nightrider+Bishop pieces respectively and the knight can either promote into Scepter or Nightrider


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2020-11-18 UTC

Thanks for the comments. But, as you said, I made it closer to Shogi, so I'm going to keep the piece as it is. (Knight referred to 八方桂.)


Zhedric Meneses wrote on 2020-11-18 UTC

ok, I'm just making a suggesting but you do you


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2020-11-18 UTC

Thank you!


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2020-11-29 UTC

Can this be published please?


Fergus Duniho wrote on 2020-12-01 UTC

I haven't looked over the whole page, since I already noticed some things that need fixing. In your introduction, there is a link to a page written in Korean. Since most visitors to this site cannot read Korean, it would be helpful to include a brief description of the content that link goes to. It also might be more appropriate to include it in the Notes section.

You are using various compound pieces, but your piece images do not match the compounds described, which makes things confusing. The image you're using for a Scepter, which moves as a Knight or King, is a Nightrider image. The Knight+Guard image in the Alfaerie Expansion Set One would be more appropriate. Your image for the Apricot, which moves as a Rook or a Bishop, shows the compound of a Nightrider and a Rook. Your image for the Whole, which moves the same way, shows the compound of a Nightrider and a Bishop. Both images are confusing for pieces that move like Queens. I suppose you want to make these pieces look different from the Queen because they demote to different pieces when captured. There may be more suitable images than these for this purpose. But it's also possible that someone will have to create them. Perhaps images of a Queen/Rook compound and a Queen/Bishop compound would work best.


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2020-12-03 UTC

The reason I posted the Korean link is because I want to reveal what it actually looks like. The description is the same as here.

And there is no piece shape that matches the promoted move. So I temporarily made the promoted shapes of pawn, knight, cardinal, marshal like that. It's hard to find other shapes to replace...


Zhedric Meneses wrote on 2020-12-03 UTC

just asking but why not the other ultima pieces in alfaerie


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2020-12-03 UTC

To make the Gilding, Apricot, and Whole similar in shape (since the move is Queen), I referred to -rider icon and withdrawer icon. Because the two have similar lines. Of course, if there is a better icon, I will change it.


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2020-12-07 UTC

I changed the icons


Zhedric Meneses wrote on 2020-12-07 UTC

nice choices for the icons of the promoted pieces


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2020-12-07 UTC

thank you! ^~^


Ben Reiniger wrote on 2020-12-07 UTC

I also like the new piece images.

I don't understand the part of fourfold repetition concerning checks. Could you clarify that please? (I guess the main point is that "forcing" the fourfold repetition by chasing loses instead of draws, but how is that formalized? If the position that is repeated four times includes one side being in check, then that side wins? What does the last clause [about checking consecutively] mean?)


H. G. Muller wrote on 2020-12-07 UTC

I propose to express this rule as follows:

"If, on a 4-fold repetition, one player has been checking on every move since the previous occurrence of that position, that player loses."


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2020-12-09 UTC

Ben //

thank you!

umm,, I am revising the description,,


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2020-12-09 UTC

HG //

Yes, I fixed it!


Kevin Pacey wrote on 2020-12-12 UTC

This game has almost the initial setup of 10x8 Embassy Chess (which itself borrows from the setup of 10x10 Grand Chess, both of which are, yes, arguably related to Capablanca Chess [whether its 10x10 or 10x8 versions], in different ways).

The game (8x8) Crazyhouse uses drops, but the present game (Pandemonium) adds Shogi-like elements when it comes to the addition of promotion rules for pieces (let alone the pawns). So, Pandemonium might be seen as a fusion of ideas from several games.

Long ago I toyed with the idea of having a Grand Chess-like game with the addition of dropping captured pieces at times (I didn't think of adding Shogi-like promotion rules as well). Eventually I submitted the game, but it was decided to be a Crazyhouse-like 'mutator' of the Grand Chess-like game I had submitted before. I also by then feared having 3 Q-strength pieces per side at the start (in a game with drops) might make for too much power, in that games might take little time in terms of number of moves, or else players would need to be very cautious. So, I recently deleted that mutator game of mine, along with several other games that were deemed to be similarly Crazyhouse/Bughouse-like mutators.

Pandemonium adds even more power, potentially, since pieces could promote (albeit only on the last rank). Having the armies seperated by 6 ranks could help slow the pace, though, since substantial contact between the two armies could well be delayed, if that's deemed desirable. Otherwise play-testing would be needed to see if my fears of there being too much power on board are justified.


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2021-01-12 UTC

Kevin // Thank you so much for commenting! But can you tell me what 'Having the armies seperated by 6 ranks' means? Does that mean the maximum rank that can be dropped is the 6th rank?


Kevin Pacey wrote on 2021-01-13 UTC

Hi Daphne

I meant that in the setup the armies are 6 ranks apart from each other in that all ranks in between have nothing but empty squares on them. That is, White's pawns are on rank 2 and Black's pawns are on rank 9, with the six ranks between (ranks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) having no pieces or pawns occupying any squares on them in the setup.

In (10x8) Capablanca Chess, in contrast, the armies are seperated by just 4 ranks in that game's setup (by which I mean, again, completely empty ranks of squares).


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2021-01-13 UTC

Kevin // Hi! ٩(ˊᗜˋ*)و

Ah I understand! Really thanks for telling me!


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2021-02-02 UTC

Do you know how to implement the images in the links below into this page?

8ㅅ8,,

https://cafe.naver.com/snowmoondaphne/8


Fergus Duniho wrote on 2021-02-02 UTC

Do you know how to implement the images in the links below into this page?

Download them from where you currently have them, upload them here, and use the IMG tag to place them into your HTML code.


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2021-02-03 UTC

Really thank you! 8ㅅ8,,!


Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2021-02-03 UTC

Kevin //

A lot has been added and changed. What do you think of this?

  1. Kings cannot face each other.

  2. Both players can change the position of their Bishop and Knight.

Now castling is also possible with a moved or dropped Rook. Likewise, you can castling with a moved King. Of course, the King and Rook needed for Castling should be at the starting point.


Kevin Pacey wrote on 2021-02-04 UTC

Daphne//

I'm not sure the tactical or positional qualities of the game have been changed much, though one of the changes you've made (rule for switching minor pieces around) certainly adds to the richness of the options for play coming right out of the first opening moves. The potential for lots of powerful pieces eventually getting into action is still there.


25 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.