Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Indeed, I never programmed for Zillions; I don't have it. But what Zillions thinks about this is not relevant. Articles here are not meant to be only understandable by people that program for Zillions.

That a Zillions operator attacked? means "attacked or protected" does not redefine the meaning of the english word "attacked". Even in chess circles attacked and protected are very troublesome concepts. E.g. many Chu-Shogi players insist that a Lion is protected when in fact recapture is not possible after it gets captured (because the pawn that was supposed to protect it is captured in the same move). And imagine a lame Dababba on d1. Does it attack f1? Can white castle O-O (on 8x8)?

And what if the Knight on g4 in my example was pinned on his own King (on g12, say) by a white Rook on g2? Does that pinned Knight still 'protect' the Bishop on h2? Would it 'attack' a white Bishop there?

According to Fergus the black Knight is actually considered to attack the black Bishop,

No, it is protecting the black Bishop by attacking the space it is on. I presume you have never programmed in Zillions-of-Games. That provides an attacked? function which can be used in piece definitions. It defines a move by moving a piece around and checking conditions, and this function checks whether the space a piece is currently passing over is attacked by a piece belonging to another side. In the code written for the King's movement in Zillions of Games, the attacked? would get used to check whether a move by the King would be passing through a space it would be in check on if it stopped its move there.

No, this is not what Fergus said. He said the King could not go to h3 because h2 was attacked. h3 is not attacked. And what Fergus says contradicts what you say: according to Fergus the black Knight is actually considered to attack the black Bishop, a piece of its own color that he cannot capture. While you said: "Pieces are never attacking friendly pieces...".

This is not obvious, one can argue both ways. Therefore I think it should be clarified in the rules what exactly "attacked" means.

HG says: "if a virgin King is on h1, a black Bishop on h2, and a black Knight on g4, the King can move to h3. If his own Bishop was on h2 instead, he could not. "

>>As Fergus said, in both cases, the Bishop on h2 being black or white, the King cannot jump on h3 because h3 is a square under threat.

For several reasons, I wanted to put in Metamachy the original rule of the old medieval King's leap (although they had no real standards in those times) which preceded the modern castling in chess. This is why I kept the rule that he can jump over a threatened square, although it is a bit weird, I agree.

There is the same relic in modern castling. We don't see it because when we mechanically castle, we first move the King two steps, he is not jumping. But the castling's root was a particular case of the King's jump, where the Rook was coming close to the King and the King jumping over. We still have the rule that the square d1 or f1 shall be not attacked.

Zanzibar follows Metamachy, that's right.

That is the answer to my question. So if a virgin King is on h1, a black Bishop on h2, and a black Knight on g4, the King can move to h3. If his own Bishop was on h2 instead, he could not.

I have programmed Metamachy, and I believe the rule is the same in Zanzibar. Apart from the King never starting on h1 and so never being able to move two spaces from h1, this is still incorrect. Assuming the King did start on h1, it could not pass over h2 to h3, because the black Knight on g4 is attacking h2. So, the King on h2 could not leap to h4 in this position. Also, replacing the black Bishop with a white one would not make any difference. What would make a difference is replacing the black Knight with a white Knight. With that change made, black would not be attacking h2, and the King could leap from h1 to h3.

Personally this rule strikes me as quite illogical; to pass through a square it should be empty, and if you don't pass through it but jump over it, you shouldn't have to worry if you are attacked there.

This has to do with restricting the King's ability to move through check, which is borrowed from the restrictions on castling in Chess. Inspired by its use in Metamachy, I adopted the same rule in Fusion Chess for the Cavalier King's Knight leap.

Pieces are never attacking friendly pieces or I miss something

That is the answer to my question. So if a virgin King is on h1, a black Bishop on h2, and a black Knight on g4, the King can move to h3. If his own Bishop was on h2 instead, he could not.

Some people would say pieces can attack the square a friendly piece is on. They obviously cannot capture it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as being attacked. E.g. when my King stands next to an enemy Pawn that is protected, does he attack that Pawn?

Personally this rule strikes me as quite illogical; to pass through a square it should be empty, and if you don't pass through it but jump over it, you shouldn't have to worry if you are attacked there. And I wonder how much this rule actually affects the game; it seems very hard to attack any squares next to the enemy King before he moves away to safety, as he starts buried behind 2 or 3 ranks of pieces. Especially if he can jump.

In general I like your variants a lot, because you do not only feature super-strong pieces (much stronger that Rook), but also Knight-class pieces. Most variants suffer from an over-abudance of Queen-class pieces. The middle of the strength spectrum is still a bit under-populated, though: almost none of the pieces is close to a Rook in value.

Not sure I understand the question: 

"There still is one thing in the rules that is not clear to me, in connection with the King jump: can the King jump over an enemy piece that is protected? "

>> No for two reasons. 1) when jumping it doesn't matter if the square is occupied or not. So it is like if the square was void. 2) The enemy piece is obviouly on a square. The jump is forbidden when the square is threatened.

"In other words, are pieces considered to attack friendly pieces in their path?"
>> This the question I don't understand. I don't see the relation between your two sentences. Pieces are never attacking friendly pieces or I miss something

There still is one thing in the rules that is not clear to me, in connection with the King jump: can the King jump over an enemy piece that is protected? In other words, are pieces considered to attack friendly pieces in their path?

It was not my intention to upset anyone, but in this era of fake news it is important to unambiguously suppress erroneous information at the source. All too easily it will spread as an oil stain over the internet, and become 'common knowledge' that no one doubts because they see it everywhere. That Zillions piece values are no good should be common knowledge. (Or is it, really? Or do only authors of ZRF games know that, and would the average reader be intimidated that a computer did say it, so that it must be true?) So yes, a disclaimer like "these values are based on pure guessing / mobility calculation / play testing in five hundred games" would be very useful.

And I don't agree with the statement that any method for determining piece-value "sucks". If, after trading a Rook for two Knights in an otherwise equal position, both sides would still score about 50% in 1000 games, I would say that this is very strong evidence that a Rook is exactly twice as valuable as two Knights. (And thus N = 2.5, if R=5 served as a standard.)

Interesting point about the Metamachy/Zanzibar Pawn speed. The measurements I referred to were with FIDE Pawns. But beware that this willcould have a huge effect on piece values. Bishops will be no good at all for stopping multiple passers, which would just jump over the diagonals controlled by a Bishop. Not even a Bishop pair will be able gain an isolated Metamachy passer, as it cannot attack both squares in front of it, as well as attack the Pawn itself at the same time. Which a Rook can still easily do, by attacking the passer from the same file.

Thank you for your pleasant comment.
As explained, the piece values are just reflecting what Zillions computes. It has no more value than that, the goal was just to give an idea of the relative values. Every method "suck", because the piece value is a complex notion where mobility is just one parameter, we all know that. Maybe I will include a disclaimer to avoid more comments like this.
The path to promotion for Pawns is not longer here than in std chess. Because the Pawns can always move 2 squares forward, like in Metamachy.
With this variant, like with my other ones, my intention was to give fun. Not to be upset by people self-convinced to have found a winning strategy. I was glad to get back to CVP after many years of absence. I was co-editor in the early times with Hans. I see that the spirit has changed a lot.

My best guess is that the given piece values totally suck. The hoppers seem hugely over-estimated. Even in the opening phase of Xiangqi a Cannon is only marginally better than a Horse, while the Horse is only worth half a Knight in a FIDE context. The Cardinal seems hugely undrestimated; on 8x8 it is only about a quarter pawn weaker than a Marshall, and I would not be surprised if it is actually stronger than one in this game, as it is very adept in demolishing Pawn chains, and there are a lot of Pawns here.

I did do some piece-value measurements on a 12x12 board lately, but the results were a bit anomalous. It seemed the difference between a Rook on one hand, and a Bishop or Knight on the other could not be compensated with any reasonable number of pawns; the Rook always won, and giving the opponent one more extra Pawn did not change the average result. The problem seemed to be that too many Pawns remain on such a large board, and their path to promotion is long. And Pawns cannot self-defend against a Rook while a Bishop or Knight can never catch a passer, and Bishops often not even a blocked Pawn. So what happens is that the Rook just eats away all opponent Pawns, the opponent minor being tied up by preventing advance of a passer. And then it starts to push his own passers protected by the Rook, so that in the end the only way to prevent promotion is sac the minor. After which the Rook player promotes his other passers, or just checkmates with the Rook.

Okay, I have published it on the site.

I think it should be OK now. Thank you.

Aaargh. I correct the Eagle's diagram immediatly.

For the Lion, I failed my cut/paste, I wanted to point to Chu Shogi's Lion. 

Let me correct them.

Thanks a lot

Things are looking better. I'll mention a few things that caught my attention.

The Eagle diagram seems to be incorrect. In the lower right corner, it is missing its horizontal movement.

Your link to the Lion is to griffon.html. Since your Lion can leap as a Knight, I was wrong about it being a Murray Lion. There are multiple ways it could be described, such as a Knight/Murray Lion compound, as a Man/Squirrel compound, or as a Wazir/Ferz/Dabbabah/Alfil/Knight compound.

Thank you.

OK the legend was for the setup. I have legended all other diagrams... 
Difficult for me to understand what is not clear. In the text I do list all pieces, then the ones which are on the board, then I explain which other pieces are coming on which squares, then I give as an example a completed set-up. Anyhow, I will try to clarify more.

I will do for the links for piececlopedia, I just have to find out how to do but it shoudn't be complex.

You're right for the Elephant in Janggi, I went too fast, too much focused on the pattern of the move. I'm going to correct.

OK for the Cannon. Yes, this text is made by copying what I have on my own website, this explains why, but I'm gonna change.

Links to CVP pages: yes of course, again because I first wrote this for my website, no problem I'll change. 

Thank you, sorry to bother you

Here's something I just thought of while making breakfast. You can organize your piece descriptions in a way that minimizes the reading that has to be done by someone who is familiar with Metamachy, Shako, or Chess. You could start with the pieces that are new to this game. Then you could say that the remaining pieces move as they do in Metamachy, which will signal someone already familiar with Metamachy that he doesn't have to read any further. Continuing with the remaining pieces for completeness, you could then describe the pieces in Metamachy that aren't used in Shako. Then for someone who knows Shako but not Metamachy, you could say that the remaining pieces move as they do in Shako. Then you could describe the pieces that are in Shako but not in Chess. Finally, when you get to the pieces from Chess, you could say these all move as they do in Chess and just include brief descriptions for completeness. For Chess pieces that move differently than they do in Chess, you can describe them at a higher level. In this way, you could create a series of stop points where someone who knows other games would already know how to play and could stop reading further.

What I meant by legend was a listing of which piece is on each space in the setup diagram. However, this may not be all that helpful, given that most of the pieces unpictured below are not in the initial setup and are left up to one of the players to place into position. Of the unpictured pieces, I can tell which is which, and since this is not a beginner's Chess variant, I suppose anyone interested in playing it will be able to tell the Marshall from the Cardinal and will be able to recognize the usual Chess pieces.

One more thing I'll recommend is including a link to the piececlopedia entry for a piece where there is one. This should, of course, match the piece that moves the same way, not necessarily the entry with the same name. For example, it would be appropriate to link to the Murray Lion for the Lion or to the Zebra for your Giraffe piece.

Speaking of the Giraffe, bringing up the Elephant in Janggi adds confusion, because that piece is not a leaper, but the Giraffe is.

With respect to the Cannon, it would be better to say immediately that it is the same as the Cannon from Xiangqi, because that game is much better known than Shako. You may mention in an afterthought, though, that you have previously used the piece in Shako, as I have mentioned in Gross Chess, for example, that I have previously used the same piece in Yáng Qí and Eurasian Chess.

Finally, please make your links to the relevant pages on the Chess Variant Pages rather than to the relevant pages on your site. If the CVP is missing a relevant page, you may create it.

I have added legends behind each diagram

I don't see the new problems.

The pieces that have no image are those of regular chess with the addition of RN and BN. The text clearly says that.

The diagrams have no legends because they are just illustrating. If someone doesn't see the diagrams, it will not be a problem because the text is saying what is in the diagrams. Putting a legend saying "move of the Cannon" for example is not helping much.

Most of the descriptions in chessvariants.com are done in a similar way.

Please publish my page as it is. Thank you.

The movement diagrams now have matching images, but some of the pieces have no image in their descriptions. To avoid any ambiguity about where pieces go, you could include a legend with the diagram. This would also make the page more accessible to anyone who can't see the diagram for whatever reason.

I have now loaded new images, consistent with the set-up diagram. Is that OK?

The images used to illustrate the individual pieces do not match those used in your diagrams. Ideally, they should match, or you should provide a legend with the diagram that indicates what's on each space.